RE: [Leica] Canon really has AF figured out...

[Jim Laurel <jplaurel@microsoft.com>]

Hello Guy,
Clearly, the Leica M isn't suitable for shooting action like white water
rafting.  The M system has its special niche, and I think Leica is doing the
right thing by developing it slowly and deliberately, while keeping it true
to its roots as a fine photojournalist's tool.  The M system has a very
unique value proposition.

But what is the R system's unique place in the photographic world?  What are
the characteristics that set it apart from Canon, Nikon, et al?  Is it
better suited than any other brand of SLR for sports?  journalism?  studio
work?  Are the ergonomics of the R8 better than the Nikon F5 or Canon EOS1n?
No, the only factor that you can rightfully point to that sets the R system
apart from all others is the lenses.  And I'd argue that the incremental
improvement in image quality in the R system over other top lens lines is
too small to matter in most cases.

So, are these great lenses enough to offset the lack of features as compared
to other pro-grade systems?  I have a small R system, and love it, but I
never use it when I'm on an assignment...only when I'm shooting for fun.

On the other hand, I understand that camera manufacturers make very little
money from pros.  The consumer market is where the big money is made.  But
are most consumers more interested in a reasonably-priced product filled
with the latest electronic features and bearing a name they see
professionals using?  Or, are they interested in finely crafted Geman
machinery that works with fantastic lenses that cost as much as some compact
cars?

- --Jim

- -----Original Message-----
From: Guy Bennett [mailto:guybnt@idt.net]
Sent: Friday, June 04, 1999 5:50 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] Canon really has AF figured out...
why does leica have to do what canon and nikon et al are doing? it is
necessary that leica compete with them? is comparing manual rangefinder
cameras with autofocus slrs not comparing the proverbial apple with the
proverbial orange?

if i needed to photograph white-knuckled rafters shooting through boiling
rapids at 2000 mph i would certainly not grab my m6; clearly, an
autoeverything slr is going to give better results. but for the type of
photography i'm interested in (and i suspect this is true of most of us on
this list, otherwise we wouldn't be here), the leica m is great.

there seems to be a perception amongst lugnuts that, to compete in a global
market, leica has to give nikon and canon a run for their money. and they
would have to, if it was their goal to become the camera of choice among
sports and other photographers who need a machine that responds extremely
quickly, allowing them to squeeze off a dozen shots per second while only
thinking about keeping the subject in the frame, and i frankly wonder if
that's what most photographers, pro and/or amateur, really want.

the manual rangefinder camera is a unique tool. it is not inherently better
or worse than automated slrs, it is just better or worse suited for
particular photographic tasks. whatever direction leica may take in the
future, i hope they will not abandon the m line, because there doesn't seem
to be a better rangefinder camera available.

guy