Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/03/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I don't wish to start a war, this is simply my educated and experienced Humble Opinion. I use a 4x5 Linhof Field View for the majority of my landscapes, My R camera for the rest. My M camera is not in this class. But my view and my R cannot do what my M can do. The greatest landscape camera available is a view camera. The R camera is closer to the view, by a long shot, than the M. I think the bottom line is that the R camera has better tools for landscape photography. Yes, a good photographer can do good "limited" landscape things with an M camera, but the R camera opens up another dimension, that simply cannot be done with an M camera. Perhaps adding a Visoflex would help. But even an M plus Viso is outclassed by a whole bunch of R lenses (15mm - 800mm, TTL) that produce exquisite landscape photographs, assuming the photographer is capable. You can see your DOF, see a filter effect, change film without disturbing your tripod set-up, composition on a ground glass with a grid (like a 4x5 view) is super, PC lenses to extend DOF or straighten that old water tower or red bard, all viewable TTL, this list could go on for pages. Don't get me wrong, as I said, a good photographer can indeed make good landscapes with an M camera. But they're limited in scope and tools. But an R camera is a whole lot easier, under far better control, and simply in another dimension for this type of photography. Look at the M6 and R8 (or any R) full color brochures side by side. The illustrating photographs, for these two types of cameras, basically depicts the kind of photography that each camera is best suited for. Street stuff, fast moving, candids for the M; landscapes, macro, superwide, and telephoto for the R. There, of course, is an overlap, but clearly, the two different camera systems are more comfortable in their respective areas of intent. Jim