Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/04/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Tina, I have an M9. I'd agree with you that if there's a situation where the M9 is suitable, then there is no point of using the GF-1 or whatever. However, there are plenty of situations where the GF-1 or other micro 4/3 are more appropriate: - Cost, well, if you can't afford the M9 and at least 2 lens, then it's a non-starter - Portability. Yes, the M is pretty small. But you know, let other people decide whether it's small enough. - Flexibility. My wife has a 14-150mm zoom for her EPL-1 (or is it ELP-1?) Great lens for everything. If one shoots the same scenes with an M9 and a GF1 and then one prefers the M9 shots, well, all I can say is, it better be!!! :-) OTOH, among Bob Adler's many 20x30 30x40 etc. prints are a couple GF1 shots. I know they are GF1, but you sure cannot say, "dang, those two would have been so much better if he had taken out his flexbody with that P45 back like those over there." At least not at normal viewing distance. On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Tina Manley <images at comporium.net> wrote: > I almost disagreed vehemently, but then I saw "IF YOU AREN"T AIMING FOR > THAT > ULTIMATE QUALITY", > > I regret most photos made with my GF1 instead of my M9 or R9/DMR. It's > very > good at snapshots though. > > Tina > > -- // richard <http://www.imagecraft.com/> // icc blog: <http://imagecraft.com/blog/> // photo blog: <http://www.5pmlight.com> [ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all previous replies in your msgs. ]