Re: [Leica] Re: If only one more R lens,

[SthRosner@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/25/01 11:56:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
wlarsen@almondmedia.com writes:

> Because the body is nothing but a film holder that holds the
>  film at the proper registration and  hopefully has a
>  reliable shutter. 

.............Precisely.

>  The system is what you are buying into.
>  The lenses and accessories are the important part of the
>  system. Bodies come and go...

The Leica came in 1925 and stayed for 35 years. The M Leica came in 1954 and 
is still struggling along. So a camera body that has been in essentially the 
same form for 47 years - the M Leica - and constitutes the heart of the 
photojournalist's equipment since 1954 in less important than the lenses? 
Please. 

>  but the lenses is what gives the Leica system its identity.

I ADORE Leica lenses. Have used them since I was 14 when I borrowed my dad's 
IIIa. Yet I would respectfully maintain that the Leica is what gives the 
Leica system its identity.
  
>  We are blessed with a system that  shares commonalities
>  between reflex lenses and rangefinder lenses in terms of
>  rendition.

It's why I am able to use my early 90/2,8 Elmarit and my 135/2,8 Elmarit-M 
with focussing mount and adapter on my SL2 and R-6.

>  I am not going to expound upon your problem with the
>  Japanese 

I don't have a problem with the Japanese. Merely pointed out that the R-3, a 
camera manufactured for Leitz by Minolta, is today a budget investment. Also, 
it was not well-received because it was not problem-free. I bought one new 
and straight-away had a shutter problem with it (see reliable shutter 
referred to above). I simply wanted to suggest that with $4,000. available to 
budget, a second body with a more reliable shutter might be a good idea. 

>  nor with fitting a 25/4 VC to a R body.

Will, on this one I clearly wasn't thinking very clearly, wot?

Best,      Seth       LaK 9
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html