[Leica] Which camera to take to Israel?

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

Wouldn't the pictures themselves you've been getting from these two system
speak for themselves? Instead of lists of specs and concepts?

--------------------
Mark William Rabiner
Photography
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/
mark at rabinergroup.com


> From: "Peter A. Klein" <pklein at threshinc.com>
> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 23:46:21 -0700
> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Subject: [Leica] Which camera to take to Israel?
> 
>   It looks like we are going to Israel for 2 weeks later this fall. It
> will be our first time there. We'll be spending the first week in and
> near Tel Aviv and Haifa, sometimes on our own and sometimes with
> relatives who live there. Then we'll take a weeklong bus tour around the
> country. We'll be moving around quite a bit, mostly on foot or in buses.
> So whatever I take will be carried around a lot.
> 
> I'll have a decision to make about cameras. I could take:
> 
>      * M8, 28/3.5 VC, 35/2 or 35/1.4, maybe 50/1.5 and/or 90/3.5 VC.
> This is what I usually travel with.
>      * G1, 14-54 f/4-ish  kit zoom, 20/1.7, and VC 90/3.5. This worked
> pretty well for me on my recent Canada trip.
> 
> Right now, the heart is saying Leica and the head is saying G1. I have a
> painful "frozen" right shoulder, which probably won't get better until
> next year sometime, so it's better to keep things light on my neck and
> other shoulder.  I'm also developing a cataract on my right (shooting)
> eye.  So far it's just softened things a little and lowered my visual
> contrast.  My glasses still correct my right eye to 20/20, so it's
> nowhere near the surgery stage.  It's not really hurt my ability to
> focus yet, but it has reduced my confidence.
> 
> In favor of the M8:
> 
>      * Higher image quality.
>      * If I want a big print for my wall, likelier to have sufficient IQ.
>      * Better low-light ability for family, dusk & night shots, or
> cloudy days.
>      * Optical VF and no blackout, so faster to shoot and get what I saw.
>      * No issues with autofocus focusing on the wrong thing
>      * All the controls are where God and HCB intended  :-)
>      * What's the point of having a Leica if I don't take it on a
> highlight-of-my-life trip?
>      * Camera is insured
>      * I could take a fanny pack or photo vest to keep some of the
> weight off the bad shoulder
> 
> In favor of the G1:
> 
>      * Image quality, while not Leica, is probably good enough esp. in
> sunlight and 8x10-ish or less.
>      * Significantly lighter, smaller kit
>      * The 20/1.7 is a great lens; I'm still covered for reasonable
> lower light, though not for true "available dark"
>      * Won't be changing lenses nearly so often.
>      * More versatile.
>      * The 90/3.5 makes a great almost-200m equivalent.
>      * Don't have to worry about focusing (except for the 90).
>      * If it gets damaged or stolen, it's not the end of the world.
>      * Built-in flash for family snaps if necessary, and for fill in the
> bright desert.
>      * Won't have to worry about cleaning the sensor (dust-buster 
> built-in).
> 
> What do you think?  There are some genuine trade-offs here, and I really
> could go either way.
> 
> --Peter
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information