[rollei_list] Re: prove it !
- From: "dnygr" <dnygr@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:05:39 -0500
Regarding all the fuss about Leicas, let me say a few things.
I like Leica lenses because the images they render have a three-dimensonality
to them.
This is not to say that lenses of other manufactureres are bad. I simply prefer
the negatives the Leica renders. I sometimes think that Leica has a different
aesthetic (than lets say Canon or Nikon)that guides it, but in thinking this, I
feel I am on thin ice and I'd welcome any discussion any of you might have on
this point.
I also like the Leica M for its quiet shutter. This is particularly nice when
you don't want to draw attention to yourself with the slap of the mirror of a
SLR. It can mean that you can take photos in a church during a service without
disrupting the ceremony with the sound of your camera.
I also like being able to work without having to depend on a battery to operate
the camera. This is also a reason I like the Rollei TLR and because of the
quality I get from its lenses, too.
These are some of the reasons I like my Leica M. They are only opinions, my
opinions. I recognize and respect that others may feel differently.
Best to all of you--Doug Nygren
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Marc James Small <msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:20:31 -0500
>At 12:51 AM 3/31/05 +0200, Fred Fichter wrote:
>
>>Here is my question : why all this fuss regarding leicas ? Because it=20
>>produces better pictures ? Then please, show me examples of pictures=20
>>that one cannot make with any SLR and a good fast lens...
>
>That really is not the proper question, Fred. More properly, the question
>should be about the immense utility of a rangefinder camera over the
>weak-sister abilities of an SLR, the wide-ranging capacity of the Leica
>system (my M6, for instance, can use Leitz accessories made in 1937 without
>a problem), and the capability of the camera: the Leica camera is reliable
>to a point which Nikon deliberately chose not to match and its lack of
>shutter noise allows great pictures to be shot in really low-light=
> conditions.
>
>Leica lenses are great lenses but they have only recently come to be at the
>cutting edge. (The recent 1.4/ and 2/35 lenses, the recent 1.4/50
>Summicron, the somewhat older 1.4/75 Summilux, the recent 2/90 Summicron
>and the 135 APO ASPH Televid all are now industry standards, whle the wider
>lenses (I yawn in boredom!) seem to be at the front rank as well.) But,
>over the years, Leitz rarely produced world-standard lenses despite their
>hype: only the Summitar and early Summicron really deserve proper respect
>but this started changing with the NR Summicron, the 2/9cm Summicron, and
>the epic pace-setter of the 1.4/35 Summilux, all in the late 1950's and
>into the early 1960's, followed by the 1963 second version of the Summilux,
>a lens as good as Bertele's 1931 1.5/5cm CZJ Sonnar. But, to that point,
>the Leica history was based on the production of a grand and most utile
>camera coupled with decent lenses. Only in the recent years has Leica
>REALLY pushed the limits on lens quality.
>
>Marc
>
>msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx=20
>Cha robh b=E0s fir gun ghr=E0s fir!
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________
Other related posts:
