[rollei_list] Re: "... the weak-sister abilities of an SLR" (was: OT / prove it !)

On Wednesday, March 30, 2005, at 06:20  PM, Marc James Small wrote:

> 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=20
> question should be about the immense utility of a rangefinder camera=20=

> over the weak-sister abilities of an SLR, the wide-ranging capacity of=20=

> the Leica system (my M6, for instance, can use Leitz accessories made=20=

> in 1937 without a problem), and the capability of the camera: the=20
> Leica camera is reliable to a point which Nikon deliberately chose not=20=

> to match and its lack of shutter noise allows great pictures to be=20
> shot in really low-light conditions.

Well, I wouldn't refer to the abilities of the SLR as being in the=20
"weak-sister" category compared with rangefinder cameras. An SLR can do=20=

things a rangefinder camera can't, or do it with great difficulty only=20=

- like for example use zoom lenses, compose macro shots accurately, and=20=

preview depth of field.

What the rangefinder camera user can do is see MORE than just the frame=20=

he is shooting, allowing him to move the camera to capture a more=20
interesting part of the view, if so called for. But note that with most=20=

lenses, the SLR user can also shoot with both eyes open. And when he=20
can't he can briefly open the other eye to see more than the frame=20
under composition at the time.

Other than that, the only advantage a rangefinder camera has over the=20
SLR is the lighter weight. Oh yes, also the ability to use lenses whose=20=

rear elements are close to the focal plane. But nowadays lenses can be=20=

had with rear elements far enough away to accommodate the mirror.

Anyway, compare a Fed II with a Leica lens mounted on it, to a Canon=20
EOS Elan 7e with a Canon L series USM lens with IS mounted on it. Which=20=

of the two outfits has the greater degree of utility? It's almost a=20
no-brainer.

It's not that the RANGEFINDER camera has greater utility, it's the=20
LEICA. And that greater utility has something to do with intangibles,=20
or rather with tangibles like the FEEL of the camera!

And yes, the Leitz system is wide-ranging, no doubt, but how many=20
individuals HAVE it all? I think from a PRACTICAL perspective, Canon's=20=

range (I am not familiar with the Nikon's) is quite as great, if not=20
greater (due to the greater availability of zoom lenses in the Canon=20
range). AND both Canon and Nikon have Image Stabilization or its=20
equivalent, which allows one to shoot with long focal length lenses=20
without camera shake at relatively low shutter speeds. Does the Leitz=20
system have that?

The fact that Leitz accessories were made as long ago as 1937 is hardly=20=

relevant, is it, because I don't think Canon and Nikon were even in=20
existence that far back, or if they were, were hardly big players in=20
the camera world. And anyway, what does it matter WHEN an accessory was=20=

made? It's HOW WELL it works that counts!

As for reliability, yes, the Leica IS very reliable, even in extreme=20
conditions. But only pros and the rich can afford to make USE of this=20
reliability, because of the high cost of the Leica! I take my $45 Zorki=20=

everywhere, in the rain and in the snow, and don't give a damn about=20
what happens to it: if it is destroyed, I can easily afford to replace=20=

it. I could hardly take that attitude with a $3,500 Leica!

As for low noise: digital has the edge there. The Sony F-828 can be=20
used with NO noise at all. And if you lock the mirror up, the SLR has a=20=

low shutter noise too.

And as for photography in low light conditions, isn't that a function=20
of the lens, rather than of the camera? Canon has an f/1.0 lens for its=20=

SLRs, which is as wide open as anything in the Leitz range.

Don't get me wrong: I am in FAVOUR of Leicas (rangefinders, not SLRs)=20
as opposed to Canons, Nikons, Minoltas or indeed any other brand of 35=20=

mm camera, whether SLR or not. But the reasons have nothing to do with=20=

utility. The reasons have to do with the MYSTIQUE of the Leica - or, as=20=

Leica's own web site proclaims:

[QUOTE]

Leica products enjoy a cult status: on one hand they are highly refined=20=

designs that are fabricated with unequaled mechanical and optical=20
precision. On the other hand, they have an extraordinary aura that can=20=

evoke feelings and emotions.

And it is precisely this unique combination of that warm aura and bold,=20=

perfect technology that created the Leica mystique. A person who=20
reaches for a Leica is not just opting for a particular camera, but=20
also for an exquisite new internal attitude that will affect this=20
person=92s way of taking pictures, it will even determine it.

[END QUOTE]

That's exactly it! At least as far as *I* am concerned.

> Leica lenses are great lenses but they have only recently come to be=20=

> at the cutting edge. (The recent 1.4/ and 2/35 lenses, the recent=20
> 1.4/50 Summicron, the somewhat older 1.4/75 Summilux, the recent 2/90=20=

> Summicron and the 135 APO ASPH Televid all are now industry standards,=20=

> whle the wider lenses (I yawn in boredom!) seem to be at the front=20
> rank as well.) But, over the years, Leitz rarely produced=20
> world-standard lenses despite their hype: only the Summitar and early=20=

> Summicron really deserve proper respect but this started changing with=20=

> the NR Summicron, the 2/9cm Summicron, and the epic pace-setter of the=20=

> 1.4/35 Summilux, all in the late 1950's and into the early 1960's,=20
> followed by the 1963 second version of the Summilux, a lens as good as=20=

> Bertele's 1931 1.5/5cm CZJ Sonnar. But, to that point, the Leica=20
> history was based on the production of a grand and most utile camera=20=

> coupled with decent lenses. Only in the recent years has Leica REALLY=20=

> pushed the limits on lens quality.

Ah. Good to know all this. (I mean it!)

BTW: What about the f/1.0 Noctilux? How does it compare?

Cheers.

Other related posts: