Re: [Leica] Why we use Leica (was potential image quality)

[Charles Babington <cbabing3@swbell.net>]

I hope we're not going to get into a long "is too - is not" fight over
Eric's comments.  Note that the circumstances here are quite specific -
marginal light, no flash, (presumably) no tripods in the barns, and at
least as to the 35 and 90mms, faster Leitz lenses.  Is it any kind of
stretch to imagine that in bad light, with no extra support, one or two
extra stops of great glass can make the difference between gorgeous and
unuseable (for publication) results?  Eric says (or at least implies)
that flash would have saved the day for the Canon pix, but that it
wasn't an option on that particular shoot.

I suspect that Eric's story illustrates what many of us probably feel
without having had such a graphic experience - that Leica will come
through under SOME circumstances when others simply won't.  Not that
Leica gear will always produce better results than anything else - I
think we all know that's not so, however much some might wish it. 
(Please, no flames from the Noctilux folks.)  But we will use Leicas
most of the time because, in addition to all of the small, light, tough,
feels good, etc. etc. etc. reasons to like the gear, SOMETIMES it will
be the only stuff that delivers the goods for us.  Isn't this really
"why we use Leica?"

In any event, I hope we can focus our energies on more substantive
matters.

Cheers,
Kip Babington