[rollei_list] Re: OT / prove it !
- From: Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:17:00 -0800
Peter,
I am thankful that my photo arsenal permits all those cameras
to coexist in harmony. I use each system for their specific
purposes. I favor Rolleiflexes and Leicas because they enabled
my successful career. I do use Nikon SLR and H'blads when
they are the best horses for the specific courses. I don't let
my emotions get in the way of picking up a tool.
Jerry
"Peter K." wrote:
> Marc,
>
> If you like an M6 that is fine. Others may not, so what you may call
> utilitarian, I call cumbersome and inflexible. Let me know how well
> your M does when you need to use a zoom lens, or better yet when you
> want to use a 24mm F1.4. Oh yes, there are 50mm F1 lenses on SLRs, and
> also 85mm F1.2. compared to your 75mm F1.4. Plus you get to see what
> you are shooting as opposed to estimate through partial viewfinder
> windows.
> Thanks but no thanks, I will srick to my SLRs and of course TLRs.
>
> Peter K
>
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:20:31 -0500, Marc James Small
> <msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > At 12:51 AM 3/31/05 +0200, Fred Fichter wrote:
> >=20
> > >Here is my question : why all this fuss regarding leicas ? Because it=3D=
> 20
> > >produces better pictures ? Then please, show me examples of pictures=3D2=
> 0
> > >that one cannot make with any SLR and a good fast lens...
> >=20
> > That really is not the proper question, Fred. More properly, the questio=
> n
> > 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 witho=
> ut
> > a problem), and the capability of the camera: the Leica camera is reliab=
> le
> > 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=3D
> > conditions.
> >=20
> > Leica lenses are great lenses but they have only recently come to be at t=
> he
> > 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 wid=
> er
> > 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 respec=
> t
> > 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 Summilu=
> x,
> > 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.
> >=20
> > Marc
> >=20
> > msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx=3D20
> > Cha robh b=3DE0s fir gun ghr=3DE0s fir!
> >=20
> >=20
>
> --=20
> Peter K
> =D3=BF=D5=AC
Other related posts:
