[rollei_list] Re: Pentax ME/MX compared to Leica M - fine points (zero Rollei content)
- From: Jan Decher <Jan.Decher@xxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 12:36:23 -0500
Hi Jerry:
I made it quite clear that I didn't think I was making an "equal"
comparison, by stating in my next paragraph that this was an "unfair
comparison". Of course it's silly to compare an SLR to a RF unless you
assume that some features' advantages, like the SLR TTL viewing, make
up for other disadvantages like the low speed and so-so quality of the
2.8/40 mm Pentax SMC-M lens.
As an aside, the classical training of many on this list is not
completely waisted on me (even though I only attended a "mathematisch-
naturwissenschaftliches Gymnasium"). Anyone else noticed Marc's
correct plural of the Zeiss Icarex recently: "Icarices". I stand in
awe.
;-) Jan
======
On Saturday, April 2, 2005: Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
> Jan,
> When you compare, you MUST use equality. You are comparing a 40mm
> f2,8 lens with a 50mm f2? My Logics professor would call that
> 'contrasting'
> not 'comparing'. The English language is pretty specific in those
> terms. I
> will not consider your contention as it is based on a false premise.
> You could say that a Nikon F with 50mm f1.4 is smaller than a Leica M
> with a 135mm f2.8. It would, but it is BS.
> Jerry
> Jan Decher wrote:
>> Austin:
>> ME/MX thickness is of course slightly in the area of the mirror box.
>> But
>> with the 2.8/40 pancake it's definitely less than Leica M with rigid
>> 2/50
>> Summicron.
>> This unfair comparison aside, I think Leica built it's "pocketable"
>> reputation with the earlier Screwmount Leicas.
Other related posts:
- » [rollei_list] Re: Pentax ME/MX compared to Leica M - fine points (zero Rollei content)
