Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/07/02

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: To M7 or not to M7, c'est la question - LONG
From: Jeffery Smith <jls@runbox.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 19:54:00 -0500
References: <20020702232002.70069.qmail@web11104.mail.yahoo.com>

I have to agree that the newer SLR cameras with built in motor drives 
capable of 3 fps don't seem to exhibit as much "traumatic" mirror slap as 
the older SLRs. My older Nikons did tend to show what appeared like slight 
double images when I tried hand holding them at 1/15.

JLS

At 08:22 PM 7/2/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>I am here because I own and use a Leica camera. The one outstanding asset 
>of Leica cameras is that they are the quietest interchangeable lens camera 
>I know. All the rest is myth. It is myth to believe that modern SLRs have 
>mirror "slap" that causes them to be less able to be used at slow shutter 
>speeds. MY Canon EOS 3, Minolta 5, Minolta XG-M, Contax 137 MD, and the 
>half dozen other SLRs I use DO NO EXHIBIT MIRROR "SLAP". In fact, the 
>camera that I am able to hand-hold at the slowest speed is the 
>hard-shooting Nikon FA with motor drive. I can squeeze out 1/4 second with 
>that camera and have a good ratio of usable shots. It has everything to do 
>with the weight and ergonomics of the camera, and nothing to do with 
>mirror slap.
>
>I question the awe some have expressed at the technological wizardry of 
>the M7's metering system--a metering system that is at best mid-range 
>consumer in the SLR world.
>
>Allan
>
>
>Darrell Jennings wrote:
>>OK I'll ask...then why are you here?
>>
>>If you don't like Leicas, don't use one...if you do
>>like Leicas, then you already know the answer.  That's
>>like cousin Elda Mae telling me she can get great
>>pictures with "one a'them thoaway camrs"...and you
>>know what, for her she is right. If you can't see the
>>difference any extra you spend is throwing away money.
>>
>>
>>I use a Leica because it is light, quiet, and has
>>great lenses...a reasonable compromise to hauling a
>>bunch of medium format stuff around. I gave up on 35mm
>>for over 25 years and ONLY came back to it because of
>>these three reasons.
>>
>>--- Allan Wafkowski <allan@sohogurus.net> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>Simon Lamb wrote:
>>>>What I don't quite understand is, if Ted, Tina and
>>>others find the AE of
>>>>such benefit to get many more perfectly exposed
>>>images, why didn't
>>>>they a
>>>>long time ago purchase one of the competitors
>>>(that accept M lenses)
>>>>that
>>>>have the M7 features and much more?
>>>>
>>>>This is a genuine questions and hopefully Ted,
>>>Tina or someone else
>>>>might
>>>>answer.
>
>--
>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

In reply to: Message from Darrell Jennings <darrell_jennings@yahoo.com> (Re: [Leica] Re: To M7 or not to M7, c'est la question - LONG)