Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/12/05

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Reflex vs. RF
From: "Jeffrey Fass" <happy.eyeball@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:14:11 -0500
References: <1C2DF1BE-0855-11D7-806F-003065D6E648@umich.edu>

Then it surprises me that Leica took the route they did. The easy way is not
of itself bad, but hooking up with a middle-of-the-road manufacturer like
Minolta is not what I expect from Leica. Then again, what choices did they
have otherwise? Many other manufacturers are competition.

Dog-o'matic -  didn't I see those on the Home Shopping Network?

Jeffrey

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dante Stella" <dante@umich.edu>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Reflex vs. RF


> Wow.  How dogmatic.
>
> 1. Cameras have no souls.  After seeing War Photographer, I am not
> convinced that James Nachtwey has one either.  But he takes better
> pictures than anyone with some kind of plastic EOS.
>
> 2. Do you really think that Leica would adopt a body casting
> (relatively cheap) and then design and manufacture all of the internals
> itself?
>
> On Tuesday, December 3, 2002, at 03:14 PM, Jeffrey Fass wrote:
>
> > Yes, so I've heard.
> >
> > I wanted an inexpensive body to carry the lenses is all. I can tell
> > that, in
> > working the deal with Minolta, Leica made a body with the soul of a
> > consumer
> > Japanese model, at least that's how it feels. What's going on inside
> > is a
> > different story I'm sure.
> >
> > I think if I wanted to go full-SLR again, I'd get a R9.
> >
> > Cheers, Jeffrey
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Douglas Herr" <telyt@earthlink.net>
> > To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Reflex vs. RF
> >
> >
> >> On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 14:17:45 -0500 Jeffrey Fass
> >> <happy.eyeball@verizon.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> After having used the M for only several months
> >>> I was struck how different
> >>> and strange the R felt.  The viewfinder is
> >>> darker, the 90 makes everything
> >>> *big* in the viewfinder (I've become used to
> >>> the M 90 frameline). Most
> >>> significant is the *slonk* of the
> >>> mirror/shutter. It's got quite a kick to
> >>> it. The M is so stealthy by comparison.
> >>>
> >>> Mind, in general I think, at least comparing
> >>> the R4, Nikon has the reflex
> >>> thing down. Quieter, smoother, faster. The
> >>> lenses are a whole 'nuther story,
> >>> though.
> >>>
> >>
> >> If you want a real Leica reflex, try a Leicaflex SL.  Much brighter
> >> viewfinder, smoother mirror/shutter action, less shutter lag, and it
> >> feels
> >> solid the way a Leica ought to.  The SL even smells like a real Leica.
> >>
> >>
> >> Doug Herr<BR>Birdman of Sacramento<BR>http://www.wildlightphoto.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
> >
>
> --
> 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 Dante Stella <dante@umich.edu> (Re: [Leica] Reflex vs. RF)