Re: [Leica] Leica vs. Contax wars

[john <bosjohn@mediaone.net>]

Mark Rabiner wrote:
> 
> ><Snip>
> > I am John Shick and I live in the Greater Boston area, the e-mail address
> > listed above is real and working. I repeat I use and like using several
> > different 35mm camera systems, as well as medium format and digital.  How this
> > disqualifies me from participating here I cannot guess.
> > John
> 
> Hello John Shick from Boston!
> I am Mark Rabiner From Portland (OR)
> And I am in no position or disposition to disqualify you from our little group.
> I simply questioned you allegiances and forthrightness which I am quicker to do
> with people who cloak their identities from us.
> If you see these systems as qualitatively different why would your uses of the
> two be indistinguishable?
> It's seems a toss-up as to which system you pick up to grab a shot.
> If it's Tuesday it's Leica, if it's Wednesday it's Contax. (I exaggerate)
> Why would to abject so strongly to being parted from you Leica's when your
> Contaxes seem do it's job so perfectly?
> Mark Rabiner from Portland (OR)
>         who does not find the difference between these systems hair spliting
No I don't believe I implied that the choice is a toss up.  When I am working
with people or doing street photography I always choose the Leica, when I am
going out for purposes other than Photography, and want to carry a camera I
may choose the Contax. It is, for me, an elegant and useful point and shoot
with an attitude. My former favorite point and shoot was the Olympus IS10. 
When I want to use long lenses and do close up photography I use the OM
system.  I did not say anywhere that I think the Contax a better camera than
the Leica, you responded to my replies to posts criticizing the Contax
viewfinder and lens system, I merely pointed out that there are some things
about the Contax viewfinder that merit pluses. I wear eye glasses and I can
see all the frame for the 28 mm lens in the Contax.  I cannot see any of the
28mm frame in the Leica m6. Just a point, but for all the eyeglass wearers out
there, an important one.  As for the lenses I responded to a poster comparing
lenses that Leica has and Contax does not, I pointed out Contax has a lens
available that Leica does not. We have discussed them to death but the fact
remains the Contax lenses are capable of delivering credible and professional results.

My Contax will never replace my Leicas, I never intimated that it would.  I
think you read things into my original posts that were not there.  But sooner
or later one has to look at all the data about lens performance and say the
performance is beyond my needs as a photographer and get on with imaging.  I
rarely us my Leica lenses wide open, and I almost always use B&W 400 speed
hp5+ or Tri-x in them.  I do all my own processing and printing, and though I
am not anal about it, I try to exercise care and use repeatable and
predictable methodology.  I cannot see any real world difference between the
negatives I get with the Leica under these circumstances that the few rolls of
B&W I shot with the Contax, except that the exposures with the Contax were
more consistent. When I use the Leicas for B&W I rarely use a meter. You can
check out my web page to see what kind of photography I do.  Many of the
images are Leica images especially the chess photos which were shot primarily
with a lllC and 5cm Summitar.


Bosjohn
http://sites.netscape.net/bosjohnusa/homepage