Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/10/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I won't go to the mat for an SLR at 50 mm, but I find that with the 50 as I back away from the subject I begin to run into problems in terms of the size of the image and focusing - which is not as much of a problem with the SLR. The other arguement in favor of the SLR is the ability to focus much closer....But I'm not arguing that the 50 isn't reasonably compatible with the rangefinder.....But it certainly is the cut-off point....For me the real rangefinder advantage/glory, lies below 50...which is where I do the great bulk of my shooting anyway... Mike Quinn wrote: > > I've been struggling with this since getting a Leica SLR. > As far as I can tell, the break point for me is at 90mm. > 50mm is almost always better on the M3 (easier to focus and compose). > 90MM is usually better on the SLR (particularly up close), but better on the > M3 in low light or when you want to see what's outside the lens coverage. > > Why do you feel that a SLR is better at 50mm? > > Mike > > > B. D. Colen wrote: > > > I am one who doesn't think there is any question that a > > reflex is better for virtually any and every lens above 35 mm, BUT, > > there is no question there are times one absolutely needs the near > > silence and lack of vibration the M offers. > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html