Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/04/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
1. Go to the Wash Post site and read some of Frank van Riper's columns -
he's knowledgeable, thoughtful, write well - and likes M cameras.
2. He makes a good point. (And I say this without having so much as touched
an M7, which sounds, from all reports, like an excellent M6 on maybe 5 mg of
steroids ) He's not suggesting that an RF should be an SLR - but that
doesn't mean that you can't have an RF with a top shutter speed of, say, a
4000th, flash sync of a 250th - or at least a 125th ;-); matrix metering for
the times one might want it; near silent autowind - check out a Canon EOS 7
Elan and you'll discover that even an SLR can be damn near as quiet as an
M6; and so on. I would hate to see the M6 disappear - although I'm willing
to bet that it will within the next 18-24 months. But I can certainly see
the argument for Leica having produced an M7 that was a truly modern
rangefinder rather than a slight - very slight - tweak of an M6 giving it
fewer modern features than a Canon AE-1...or a Hexar.
B. D.
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Photo
Phreak
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 12:54 PM
To: leica@topica.com
Cc: dhenzel@vei.net; Leica Users Group
Subject: [Leica] RE: Frank van Riper of the Washington Post Reviews the
M7
- --- David Enzel <dhenzel@vei.net> wrote:
> Ted,
>
> None of the stores where I live have an M7 to try and I will try
> one when I
> have the chance. I also have to Nikon SLRs that have matrix
> metering (which
> I love), AF, auto bracketing and of course AE. If I want a small
> light
> automated camera I can buy a Nikon N55 or N65, both with the
> features I just
> mentioned. I had Nikon equipment before buying the M6. When I
> pick up the
> M I want something simple. The M7 strikes me as being part way
> automated
> that I don't understand. It is not a manual camera and it is not
> an up to
> date modern camera. Van Riper tried it and prefers the M6.
> Thanks for
> your thoughts and enjoy your M7.
>
> David
>
======================================================================
"The M7 strikes me as being part way automated that I don't
understand."
I suspect that you either don't understand or don't fully
appreciate the difference between rangefinder ( RF ) cameras and
SLRs.
They both create a photographic image. But while they both do
the same thing, they are really meant as tools to be used under
different conditions.
I have come to learn and respect the different qualities of a
quality rangefinder camera compared to a SLR:
The RF excells when you need something small and unobtrusive.
Something that does not attract undue or unwanted attention .
Something that does not intimidate the subject.
They can be much quieter.
The RF excells in poor lighting conditions where focus is
critical. With modern, hig speed films they excell in low light
where flash is not wanted or advisable. The AF SLRs will not work
reliably under those conditions.
They excell with wide angle lenses. If critical focus is needed
it can be faster and more precise. Design limitations imposed on
wideangle lenses for SLRs are not a factor when designing for a RF.
Try to use any true infrared b&w film through a "black" filter on
a SLR. Focus? Compose?
Some, and I would emphasize SOME, SLRs excell where composition
is critical, ie., when you have to crop through the viewfinder. A
SLR will work with a PC/Shift lens. They are the only practical
choice for long or telephoto lenses. ( I expect MJS to disagree, but
mirrorbox attachments, while interesting to work with, are really
cumbersome anachronisms.)
While some of the newest automated or programed metering systems
offer more speed in some shooting situations, they are not
infallible. It is my belief that you cannot learn how to discern and
correct for the other situations with automatic cameras. This is
where experience and having to think it through come into play. You
might call it trial and error, the thoughtful analysis of successes
and failures.
So in comparing the M7 with Nikon AF SLR or a Canon equivalent
is really like comparing apples with oranges. They are two different
things.
I have never met "van Ripper", nor have I read any of his
columns. I do not know his credentials or qualifications to speak as
an expert on the subject.
I have yet to spend any time with or put film through an M7. But
all that I have seen and heard is that it is another step along the
evolutionary path of the M series. It also seems to correct some of
what are perceived as shortcomings of the M6 series of cameras. So
while it may not be the quantum leap that some hoped for, it does
seem to be a needed and welcome step forward. Are the changes great
enough to justify selling a nearly new M6 to get one. That is a
question only the M6 owner can answer.
Will I own one soon ? Probably not. Since it will not be an
income generator for me, it would not pay its own way. And my
current perception is that the people who own and control Leica are
marketing it as expensive snob jewelry, the same as Rolex watches.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com
- --
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