RE: [Leica] re: Leica M - small and compact?? thoughts (long)

[Godfrey DiGiorgi <ramarren@bayarea.net>]

> Given that the top of the professional line means Nikon F5, a house
> with a lens on it, the Canon EOS 1n or even EOS 3, houses with lenses, or
> the new Minolta - I doubt that anyone would call an FM2 a top of the line
> pro camera by today's standards.

I don't particularly care for the size of the current top line widget
kings either. 

According to Nikon, the FM2n is primarily purchased by professional
photographers for use when they need a rugged camera and don't want to
risk batteries or electronics problems due to environmental concerns
(extreme heat and cold). The FM2n was completely overhauled
and upgraded internally in the early 1990s to further this end. The users
who buy it are seeking the same kind of qualities that Leica M users
generally seek but wish to utilize their existing Nikon lenses. It's not
state of the art but it's professional calibre and targeted at
professional usage.  

> As to the F3, it's a great camera, but it is considerably bulkier than the
> M6...

I don't have an M at present to compare directly against the F3, but the M
is very close to the same length, very close to the same height and
thickness with the exception of the prism finder and mirror box. The M is
just about identical in size to the FE2/FM2n, except for the top of the
prism. I don't find the differences all that noticeable. Much like I don't
find the difference in size between the F3/T and the FE2 all that
noticeable. The FE2 and M6 are almost identical in weight, the F3 is a bit
heavier. (I have the F3/T which is lighter than a standard F3 by a few
oz.)

> Ounces add up...and, by the way, compare your Nikkor 50 1.4 to the
> Summilux 50, or the Summicron 50 to the Nikkor 50 f2...or even more to
> the point, the 35 1.4 Nikkor to the 35 Summilux ASPH....

I used to use a Domke F5X shoulder/hip bag to carry my M4-P kit. Body,
50/2, 28/2.8, 90/2, small flash unit, lenshoods, and Sekonic L328 meter
all fit in it snugly. Now I use it to carry a Nikon F3/T, 50/1.8, 20/3.5,
70-300/4-5.6D, plus hoods and small flash unit. It weighs exactly the
same: 7.6 lbs.

The glass difference is there for some lenses in both ranges. It's hard to
see, though, unless I put them on a test rig and shoot resolution charts.
I realize this is blasphemy but I normally only print 6x9 to 12x18 sizes,
it's rare that I print 20x30s. The look of Leica pictures is, in many
cases, superior due to bokeh differences, but it doesn't seem to influence
most of my picture taking. The Nikkor lenses I use where it would be
important to me seem to have quite nice bokeh.

> I wouldn't, by the way, get too hung up on the "precise" framing of the
> SLR....

Framing and composition with a reflex camera are simply very different
from a viewfinder camera, which one you prefer is a matter of using that
which works best for you. 

I used to do some scientific and research photography, I also used to do
portfolio work for sculptors and painters. For the former, the only
sensible camera is a reflex camera with a 100% viewfinder and a calibrated
grid ... I had a custom focusing screen made up from a Nikon E screen with
mm indices and grid lines. The art portfolio work was not as critical as
the science work, but the E screen with reference grid was still
important.

> I find that with the reflex, I am more intent on the subject per se
> than I am on the over all composition of the photo, thus when I look
> at the finished results, I find that my M shots tend to be better
> composed and framed than do my reflex shots.

For pictorial and people work, yes, it's more a matter of which type of
framing system works better for you. For instance, I prefer less in way of
framelines in my viewfinder on a Leica ... one of the reasons I prefer the
CL is that it shows only the 40/50 frame lines. I find the clutter of the
75, 90 and 135 frames distracting. 

> Hey, if a rangefinderless Minox makes you as photographically happy as an
> M6, go for it...

A side note: scale focus and DoF is not inaccurate. It's simply harder to
use accurately. ;) Shooting with a Minox subminiature is a great way to
improve your photography. And they take remarkably good pictures. When you
return to the enormous film area of 35mm cameras, it becomes very easy to
achieve the technical quality that you fight for with a Minox. Sometimes
the Minox is exactly the right camera.

> Yes, there are some great point&shoots...In fact, I would suggest that some
> of the cheaper ones you would blow off are virtually everybit as good as the
> $1000 badge carriers you prefer. 

I don't blow off the cheaper PnS cameras, I have several of them. They do
not have the lens performance of the premium priced models, though. The
Yashica T4 Super has a wonderful Zeiss Tessar lens, but the Contax T2's
Zeiss Sonnar lens is far better. And the Contax T2 allows the photographer
more creative control when in a pinch. A Rollei 35S Sonnar lens returns
results that to my eyes are comparable to the Leica lenses I've owned ...
no, I haven't owned the latest Leica exotica ... and is a fully manual,
fully controllable camera like the M6.

> By the way, as longer-time Luggers know, I am NOT in any way a member of the
> Leica Right or Wrong Etc. brigade. I just find that the M is the best tool
> for what I want to do photographically. My P&S is an Olympus, and my reflex
> is a 27-year-old Nikon F....

Yup, we just have different preferences. Whatever works for you is the
right thing.

Godfrey
  <http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/>