Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>>>>>> Larry Kopitnik wrote: >>> If in real-world photography, using a camera and lens the way I'm going to use it day in and day out, I will not be able to tell the difference between a photo taken with, say, a $2000 50 mm Summilux and a $300 50 f/1.4 Nikkor or EOS, why in heaven's name should I -- or anybody not made out of money -- spend $1700 more for the Summilux? <<< Doug Herr wrote: For me it's not just whether I can tell the difference under identical circumstances, but also whether the $2000 Summilux will allow me to work in a greater variety of circumstances.<<<<<<< Well Guys, I use both brands: The Nikon 50mm / 1.4 and the Leica M Summilux 50/1.4. Just last weekend I had an editorial portrait job for a newsmagazine and because of the circumstances I used my Nikon and my Leica with a Ektachrome 100, the Nikon because of the longer lenses and very fine flash technology and my Leica... well you know ;-) itīs just that special magic little thing... I also shoot some pictures with the 50mm of both brands. After processing I got the slides back in archive sheets to look at. I could see the difference! The Nikon is sharp, no problem, but when you see the Leica Slides, you see how sharp a picture can be. The difference is huge for an educated eye of a professional photographer! But when you donīt have this possibility to compare the results directy, then you would be also happy with the Nikon of course, which is a fine tool anyway. I cannot understand, why a Summilux would allow me to work in a greater variety of circumstances as a Nikon canīt? Best regards, Deniz