[rollei_list] Re: Surprised
- From: Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:33:25 -0500
On Tuesday, March 29, 2005, at 08:15 PM, Allen Zak wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2005, at 7:10 PM, Marc James Small wrote:
>
>> The M4 does have an inflated price, one that I regard as improperly
>> inflated, as I find it a weak sister in the Leitz line and a camera
>> which lives much more on reputation than on performance. The M3 and
>> M6 are substantially superior cameras.
>
> Could you elaborate on this, please. My recollection of the time I
> used an M4 was that, while lacking some of the M3 finesse, it was a
> capable and substantial camera. My impression of the M6 (I don't own
> one, my last was the M42) is that, light meter aside, it is not up to
> the fit and finish of the M4.
As I understand it, the M3 is a superior camera compared to the M4. I
don't know about the M6, never having even seen one.
Indeed to me the M3 - which is the only kind of Leica I have used - is
the most desirable Leica. As Dante Stella writes at
<http://www.dantestella.com/technical/m3.html>: "In the end, the M3
just feels... cool. For the 50mm lens that is the mainstay of
rangefinder photography, it is the ultimate driving machine."
> Actually, my favorite Leicas were the IIIf and the IIIG, but they were
> pretty well mated to the 50mm lens and awkward with other focal
> lengths.
True, but that's not necessarily a drawback.
The Leica IIIs - virtually all the models - are lovely to look at, but
not QUITE as wonderful (in my eyes anyway) as the M3.
If I had an M3 I'd load it with Gigabit film and go to Yosemite Valley
and reproduce some of Ansel Adams's shots. (Did anyone see "The Sharper
Image" at
<http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Staffan_Johansson/sharp.htm>?)
Cheers.
Ardeshir <http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir>
Other related posts:
