Re: [Leica] Re: To M7 or not to M7, c'est la question - LONG

["Ted Bayer" <tedbayer@harbornet.com>]

Hi Ted:

I have been watching this thread and believe your comments, and Tina's,
are right on. You both have given some mighty good advice and comments
over the past couple of months on the M7- things that people can read,
digest, and take to the bank.

Maybe it is because I am your age, Ted (no offense there, I hope) but I
get a little peeved at those who jabber on about something which, as you
said, they know very little about from experience.

So, from my perspective, I hope that you folks will continue to tell us
like it is.  We need that kind of input to make intelligent buying
decisions.

And for those who wish to take issue with Ted and Tina, well, unless you
have real down-to-earth hands experience to draw your conclusions from,
please keep it to yourselves.  These threads get long enough without
comments from those who know not whereof they speak.

The Other Ted

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Grant" <tedgrant@shaw.ca>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: To M7 or not to M7, c'est la question - LONG


> Allan Wafkowski 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."<<<
>
> Allan mon ami and others,
> One thing that never came to mind nor am I, nor have I ever been
impressed
> by the Leica myth, doesn't mean a thing and we're talking 40 plus
years of
> leica equipment use.
>
> It has nothing to do with whether for x number of dollars I could
purchase
> some other manufactures gear and have better whiz o things, as it's of
no
> relevance, as I work with the camera and lenses that give me
satisfaction
> for the results published and or screened.
>
> Nor do I ever want anyone else's. Although I'm well experienced in the
use
> of Canon, Nikon , Hassleblad and Speed Graphic, the type of work I've
always
> done has lent itself to Leica M cameras. Or in sports, the R gear.
>
> I don't have any interest in how you and many others are relating with
anti
> comments about the M7, certainly when experience has shown Tina and
myself,
> along with other LUG members that the M7 does a rather excellent job
at
> exposure selection. And by our experience we've learned it works more
> efficiently than the M6. In our opinion.
>
> The AE function has been around for sometime, so big deal, who really
cares.
> Now that it's in the Leica M7 is all that matters!. And that's the
camera of
> choice and the results are more than surprising and much to my / our
liking.
>
> You and many others are ripping it apart and most of you haven't even
had
> one in your hands, let alone pumped a dozen or two rolls of film
through
> one. So to all the nay sayers and bit players how about cooling your
> comments until you've at least tried one with at least one roll of
film.
> Seems like a reasonable request, don't you think?
>
> Then come back and tell the two of us we're idiots for buying and
should've
> stayed with the M6. And until many of you shoot a roll and see the
results
> it would be wonderful if all the comparisons to other "wanna be"
cameras
> could be put on hold until you've all tried the M7. And I don't mean
playing
> with one in a store, work one and find out for yourself, you and the
others
> maybe very surprised at the results.
>
> I see many of the same comments offered as when the R8 came out, and
by
> people who'd only seen the R8 in picture form, so it's amazing how a
group
> of some what intelligent photographers can get their asses in a great
big
> tizzy over something they've only read about, never handled, nor
exposed a
> roll of film with.
>
> It seems some of you would dearly love to see Leica crash and burn,
only to
> prove something about the myth and infallibility or whatever.
>
> I cannot speak for Tina, however I see no reason for Tina nor myself
to
> offer any further words of experience to the LUG regarding the M7, as
our
> offerings appear being totally wasted time, certainly when both of us
as
> professionals have far better things to do than try to assist our
fellow
> photographers with information derived from our experience.
>
> This isn't my style, nor is it Tina's to cut things in this manner,
but I
> think many of you are yapping on over things you have no control over
and
> actually are wasting your time when you could all be out shooting with
> whatever model Leica you own. And unless you have a reason to buy an
M7 and
> would like some assistance with a question, then why not go take
pictures.
>
> If someone wishes to ask me private fine, but on the big screen it's
wasted
> time. Too bad.
> thank you.
> ted
>
>
>
> --
> 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