Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/10/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 02:45 PM 10/6/98 -0400, you wrote: >As to the R cameras. Yes they are terrifically well made. Yes they are >serviceable. Yes the optics are terrific. But are the optics enough MORE >terrific than the top Canon and Nikon optics? If they were, I'd wager more >working pros would use them than do, because there would be more of a demand >for that quality. No, the reason more pros don't use Leica are many. For one, they ARE expensive relative to other manufacturer's cameras. They have to justify it form a business point of view (the inner bean counter? Super ego, vs. id?) which has nothing to do with "great optics." Then there's the fact that most are invested in extensive systems already, and to covert to Leica is quite the expense. And until recently, there weren't an adequate selection of lenses to do pro work. The 280 2.8 came out in '84. And until the R8, flash sync. was 1/100. on the other hand, the M system has been complete as a system for decades, and they are very common in photojournalist circles. Mostly 21, 35, 50 and 90mm lenses are the choices preferred. And last of all, pros are sheep. They follow the pack. It's easier to borrow lenses. And until recently NPS game Nikon users an edge in getting equipment taken care of fast. CPS is now the standard. Borrow lenses, get fast repairs, and support at major athletic and sporting events. All these things add up. To own Leica is to be thought of as a bit obsessive. That attitude makes it easier to not buy Leicas. Been there, done that, have the t-shirt. It has nothing to do with optics at all in terms of image quality. - -- Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch Where reason has failed, fallibility may yet succeed. -- George Soros