Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/07/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 2/7/02 11:52 pm, "Tina Manley" <images@InfoAve.Net> wrote: > At 06:35 PM 7/2/02 -0400, you wrote: >> The Leica myth. >> >> Anyone here could, for $240, buy a Minolta Maxxum 5 or Canon Rebel 2000 >> and have a more capable camera than the $2500 M7. Both run circles around >> the M7's antiquated exposure system. Gone too is the lame excuse, "I must >> have a fully mechanical camera for those times when I go brain dead and >> forget the batteries." >> >> The Leica myth is running out of excuses as the M series becomes a fairly >> modern camera. Soon the excuses will become so thin, "It's the only camera >> that has a red dot I can cover up", will be the answer of choice when >> asked why one paid $2000 more and got less. >> >> Allan > > > Allan - > > How about the quality of the lenses? That has always been Leica's claim to > fame. I started with Minolta's. They are fine cameras, but the lenses are > not the equal of the Leica lenses. As a professional photographer who has > to justify every expense, I am willing to pay the extra dollars for the > Leica quality lenses. There is no other lens like the Noctilux. The > Summilux is also unsurpassed in both the aspherical and non-aspherical > versions. The 100 Macro for the R's is better than any other macro lens I > have ever seen. > > The durability is also unsurpassed. The old Nikons were also very durable, > but the new ones are fragile and quit working with a few drops of rain. I > can still take the M7 into the jungle in the rainy season and expect it to > continue working. As for going without batteries, try finding a battery > when it is a three-day canoe ride to the nearest store!! > > Tina I think we are starting to see the differences between the professional (it's my living) users and those of us who want to justify the cost on other grounds. I accept your reasoning and can see why you go with the Leica equipment. To some extent, the subjective assessment of what you produce comes into play and as you rightly state, there is no other lens like the Noctilux, although as I am sure you know there is a large f/1 chunk of Canon glass available. Your images have to please you and your audience and Leica is a good bet to please everyone. I can fully imagine that with a hefty SLR you would not get the trust and cooperation of the subjects you photograph, or the magnificent images you have shared with us. Last text on this thread from me. I think the Contax N 100mm f/2.8 Makro Sonnar is on a par image quality wise with the Leica 100mm Macro, and surpasses it in usability going to 1:1 with no extension required. In MF, the Contax 645 120 Apo Makro Planar is also regarded as one of he finest macro lenses made, although not a fair comparison to the 35mm lenses. Oh, one more last thing. In England we have many areas that are subject to flooding at the slightest drop of rain. For many of us, the three day canoe ride to the nearest store is a common occurrence, so battery independence is a prime requirement ;-) Simon - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html