[Leica] Why a digital M

[doubs43 at cox.net (Walker Smith)]

B.D., I'm afraid you've combined my post with that of another poster. I 
mentioned my early Elmars - not my Summar - and their *mechanical* 
excellence....... not their optical qualities. That was in reply to the 
original post which commented upon the mechanical qualities of the 
1960's Nikkors. (It was he who owns the Summar mentioned. Although I own 
one, I didn't bring it up.) I think you'll readily agree that the best 
optical formula ever conceived and made of the best rare earth glasses 
possible would be compromised by a poorly constructed mount or one that 
became sloppy over time.

Of course, no one would logically argue that the lens of almost 75 years 
ago are a match for today's lens. Anyone who did so would be - and 
should be - dismissed as mad. But, anyone who argues that the latest and 
greatest lens is everything has also missed the boat. The photographer's 
eye is probably the most important element of all and great pictures can 
be -and are - taken with less than the highest quality equipment. If I 
waited until I could afford the best body and optics made by Leica, I'd 
never take a shot. I can't allow that to get in my way so I do with what 
I have.

Really, I think we're in agreement and someday maybe I'll have a chance 
to try one of the newer wonder lens. (I'd mention the Noc but I already 
know how that sets you off! LOL)

Best Regards, Walker

>With all due respect, Walker, your Summar from the 30s may still be
>mechanically sound - as, btw, are many Nikon lenses from the 60s - but
>your Summar from the 30s is an optical joke compared to today's Leica
>lenses, or even today's Cosina lenses. So that fact that it's still
>around doesn't mean that, objectively, it should be. If you use it and
>enjoy it, more power to you, but please don't try to argue that it's
>anything approaching a first, or even second class lens by modern
>optical standards.
>
>B. D.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net at leica-users.org 
><http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug>
>[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net at leica-users.org 
><http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug>] On Behalf Of
>Walker Smith
>Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 2:16 PM
>To: lug at leica-users.org <http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug>
>Subject: [Leica] Why a digital M
>
>
>the aluminum barreled lenses
>that Nikon sold in the sixties are just plain loose and sloppy now. Even
>my Summar from the 1930's is still useable today in the same conditions
>it was good for in the thirties. 
>

>An excellent point. Quality costs.
>There's simply no getting around it. I own a couple of Leica lens (35mm
>& 50mm Elmars) that pre-date the 
>1933 and up serial number range. They are both well-used and still as
>tight and smooth as one could wish for. That sort of quality comes at a
>price.
>