Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/05/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mark, et. al. Your comments about using Leica are in accordance with my own feelings on making images. I like using my M6, want an M7, and will get one someday. I prefer film, although I have no interest in the wet darkroom anymore, unless I just have to make a 20x24 or larger print. The R series is how I first got into Leica, although the rangefinder took over as a much more ergonomic camera for me, and I transitioned in the mid 90's. I still lust for a R6.2, and the 60 and 100 macro lenses, as well as a few others, but that will have to wait till after the M7. I like what Leica glass can do on film, what a scanner can extract from it, and what an Epson printer can produce for a print. My 4x5 satisfies my need for bigger, and printing on Bergger graded papers using Beers formula developer for split grades does wonders when I have to go big, and want Ansel Adams like print qualities, but for so much of what I do for fun photography, the M series cameras are perfect. For a fun review of what the R's can do take a look at the monograph by Hazel Sanderson, - "The Dales of Yorkshire", ISBN number 1 873319 17 7. She works with a pair of R3's and a 60mm and 90mm lens. Ted's oft repeated but rarely heeded KISS in practice. Get the R camera when you can, and the glass to go with it when you can, if nothing else it vindicates my own lusts, and makes me feel like there are still some who like Leica and film, even if we take our film to digital to finish the print making process. Having said all that, when I can get a Leica M, with a 12M or more digital capture that lets me use my 24mm as a 24mm, at a cost near to the current M cost, then and only then will I change over. Best of light, Norm ------------------------------ Message: 25 Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 08:24:38 -0700 From: Mark Rabiner <mark@rabinergroup.com> Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica R lenses on Canon Digital Bodies To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> Message-ID: <BEB743C6.1574A%mark@rabinergroup.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" On 5/23/05 7:42 AM, "nathan.wajsman@planet.nl" <nathan.wajsman@planet.nl> typed: > Mark, > > I am trying to give advice based on what I think makes sense to someone > who is getting into Canon DSLRs. It is based on the premise that such a > person is extremely unlikely to ever go back to a film-SLR. Maybe a > rangefinder Leica to satisfy that need, but I just do not see anyone who > has experienced a Canon or Nikon DSLR going back. > > So, given that, the question is: is a 100mm Apo Macro better than a > 100mm Canon equivalent? Undoubtedly it is. But is it so much better than > the vastly higher price is justified? IMO no. That is why I said that > someone who is only now building a lens outfit around a Canon DSLR body > should probably stick to Canon lenses. Especially because the longer > Canon lenses are really, really good. If anything, it is on the wide end > that Canon is considered a bit weak. > > Nathan > Nathan I seem to recall you have and here on the internet you sure hear about a lot of guys who just go gung ho over digital and cant see themselves ever going back to film for anything. Just leaves me scratching my head. I have. I've shot more film the past two months than made digital captures. Last year I went nuts focusing on digital getting it down. Love it. It's great. I know how to do it. Now I'm back to shooting a bunch more film. I guess I've already gone full circle. Not that I've printed it in the darkroom I'm using the Epson 2200 but darkroom time will come back soon enough to a proper balance. Like I'll go in there before my hair turns white. I'm basically a Leica guy. I've long gotten over if Leica can justify it's prices or not. It's a small company. I don't think the Herr Cones flew around in Lear Jets. A Leica lens I save for a year to get. That's just been part of my Leica ballgame for a dozen years now. I feel the results are worth it or I'd not do that. That's why I'm here on the Leica users group a list of people who I assume think Leica is worth it for them. We buy the stuff and use it. Thought you were in that category too! IF it didn't I wouldn't I'd just buy Nikon stuff for 35 and digital 35 on a whim or when the mood moves me. To me a reason to get into Leica R, me being mainly a rangefinder shooter is for the 60 and 100 macro. And down the line a real long lens. Maybe if I win the lottery the modular system. The rest I can do with my M system and hopefully have a digital body for it soon so I'll really be using it. I love my Nikon system but would love more to use it less. To me a 100 macro is a very very useful thing. As is a 60. I'd love to be shooting Leica on that instead of Nikon that I am now. Although I cant say shooting Nikon is a painful experience. I did notice when I got my 60 AF macro Nikor last year that for not that much more I could have gotten a used 60 macro Leica lens. Same one Salgato uses for so much stuff and I've seen those prints. And they look better than mine. And its not his enlarger lens or something he's putting in his Dektol. Subject matter not included. Mark Rabiner Photography Portland Oregon http://rabinergroup.com/ ************************