Re: [Leica] Should I buy a Noctilux?

["Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>]

Brad Daly writes:

> as a migrant from EOS, i always do a double
> take when anyone on here mentions the heaviness
> of leicas and their lenses.  i've never toted
> around a noctilux, of course, but i constantly
> think to myself, "my god, this thing is light,"
> when shooting with my new camera.

Finally, the voice of reason.

To me, a longtime Nikon user (and I still use Nikon all the time), everything
about the M is light and compact.  All of the zooms I use on my Nikon are larger
and heavier than a Noctilux (albeit somewhat less expensive!).  The M body
itself is a featherweight, and is so tiny that I can hide it behind my hand.

One of the things that fascinates and delights me about the M system is that I
can get images that are equal to or better than anything I can get with my Nikon
with only a fraction of the size and weight.  It seems too good to be true.
'Course, the M doesn't have all the bells and whistles of the Nikon, but for a
lot of photo ops, you don't need anything fancy (I don't photograph Formula 1
cars or fighter jets very often).

My back has never hurt after carrying the M around, even after many hours.  In
contrast, I'm usually pretty slouched over after a day out with the Nikon, and
that's with a short lens (with a long zoom mounted, the weight of the ensemble
becomes a preoccupation after two or three hours).

The M is also something you can carry as a "part-time" camera; in other words,
it's the sort of camera you can carry around even when your primary goal for the
day isn't necessarily to take pictures.  With a large SLR and lens, this is not
practical--they are so heavy to lug around that you only go out with them if you
plan to dedicate your time to taking pictures.