[rollei_list] Re: OT / prove it !
- From: Chris Wong <chris_wong@xxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:19:26 -0800
>
>
> If you have never tried one, which I take it you have not, then I can
> understand your reticence to believe there is anything "special" about
> them,
> but they are the highest quality rangefinder available, and the
> pictures are
> easily on par with any SLR out there...so it's really a matter of
> preference, and for some they are rather "special", whether others
> believe
> it or not.
>
The new Zeiss Ikon will be coming out soon. The body is around US$1600,
substantially lower than a new Leica M7. Personally, whether the camera
is of "highest quality" depends on the situation. A well-built camera
such as Leica that survives a cliff fall does not auto-magically give
us the highest quality picture. Usually, it's the lens that gives us
different properties of the pictures, the body is merely just a black
box. At least that's how I view it most of the time. For example, if I
mount the new Zeiss Ikon with the same Leica lens one used on the M7,
are we really going to see differences in quality? I admit that
different types of camera bodies influence how you take the picture,
but as to the quality... that's very subjective. If we compare apple
to apple (Leica M7 rangefinder to Zeiss Ikon rangefinder), how much
differences are we going to see?
I can see differences between a Rolleiflex vs. a Leica M due to the
difference in shooting style, but what if we compare two similar
range-finder bodies that take the same m-mount Leica lens?
I don't have 15 or 20+ experiences in photography, but I just can't
understand how different types of black boxes can make a drastic
difference on the light traveling from the lens to the film. >:-)
Disclaimer: I assume all the bodies have accurate shutter speeds and
comparable mechanical vibration that may or may not contribute to the
degradation of picture quality.
Chris "is a newbie"
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>
>
>
Other related posts:
