Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/09/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Gary, How is it "meaningful" to compare a high end, extremely well built, manual, precision range finder camera and its set of equally high quality cammed lenses to automatic, essentially throw-away cameras other than to say that they both take 35mm film and/or have digital chips in them and/or will allow the making of a photograph? I don't dispute that folks make comparisons. However, in my mind, that does not make such comparisons "meaningful." I already have a pretty good idea that any box with a hole in it will allow the exposing of film and the formation of an image; and that autofocus, autoexposure, auto film advance cameras are available within a price range of $20 - $10,000. Of course the simplicity, precision, accuracy, build, and image quality of a number of fine RF cameras can certainly be meaningfully compared. But comparing a top shelf RF to a P&S has about as much meaning as comparing a 35mm camera to a 4x5 camera. Regards, George Lottermoser george@imagist.com On Sep 13, 2006, at 1:45 PM, Gary Todoroff wrote: > George - the LUG has meaningfully compared M's to Yaschica T's, > Ricohs, and other point and shoots. Meaningless comparison? I've > compared my Leica M's to every other camera I've ever owned. > Usually the Leica comes out ahead. But the Olympus E-330, which can > also be used as a P&S, represents an advance in photography that > eclipses almost anything the M can do, digital or not. I am > extremely disappointed in Leica's approach to digital.