Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Eric writes: > I thought you said that Nikon's top glass > was just as expensive as Leica's ... Overall, yes, depending on what you consider top glass. As I've said, my Nikon SLR and Leica rangefinder equipment cost about the same. Both systems were expensive, but not astronomically so, all things considered. Keep in mind that I don't try to duplicate one system with the other. I don't try to buy exact Nikon equivalents of Leica lenses, or vice versa. On the Nikon, I buy high-end zooms, because these fit my requirements for that system. On the Leica, I buy primes (high-end, of course, since there isn't any medium or low end in Leicaland), because those fit my requirements for the Leica system. And the overall price tag for both systems comes out about the same. > ... and that pictures between the two were > indistinguishable from one another. They are. If I don't write down which is why, I can never tell them apart. Perhaps with a 16,000-dpi scanner I'd see a difference, and surely there are certain specific circumstances in which one or the other would stand out, but overall, and in my workflow, they give the same results. In summary, both the best Nikon equipment and Leica equipment give pretty much the same results overall. Which system you use is purely a matter of personal preference, as nobody looking at the results is ever going to know.