Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Rangefinders are much less suitable for macro than SLRs. The viewfinder of M Leicas is parallax corrected but is of fixed size so the accuracy of framing varies with focusing distance. It is accurate enough for me! Until I started using digital I used M for about 80 to 90% of my photography and SLRs for macro and long lens stuff. Obviously SLRs are better for zoom lenses but I prefer primes. cheers Frank --- k@mail.net wrote: > Greetings, > > Being the technology enthusiast I am, my photography > experience has primarily > revolved around exceptionally uninteresting digital > p&s camera shots. Only > within the last 3 months have I delved in and become > enamored with film > photography. Subject matter of my experimentations > have rotated between > urban landscape, architectural, and the occasional > street photography. > > Due to my lazy^H^H^H^Hminimalistic preferences for > toting equipment, most of > my shots are handheld with either an R4 or R6, using > natural and available light. > Low light conditions have naturally produced utter > crap as I am having an > extremely difficult time with the mirror reflex. > > So before I continue to spend my hard earned bread > purchasing more R lenses, > I was wondering if anyone could enlighten me of the > inherent advantages and > disadvantages of specifically Leica rangefinders VS > Leica SLR cameras. > > Also, > > 1. How is accuracy and precision achieved with > framing the subject? > 2. Especially with macro photography? > > Thanks, > kevin > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for > more information