Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/01/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]May I use this thread, on which I do have a little knowledge, to emerge from lurking and introduce myself? I am a dinosaur amateur photographer, having neither digital camera nor cellphone. First love was a Rolleiflex TLR; more recently manual-focus Nikon has been the main medium. But the World turns, and digital cannot be avoided forever. Which brings me here. Mindful of the 40 lp/mm limit on amateur photography (with a prime lens, a lightweight tripod, and 160 ASA colour print film) only a full-frame sensor will do. And full-frame DSLRs are heavy: I want something as light as the 25 oz of my F3/T; but from Nikon, even the D800 weighs 35 oz with battery and memory card. Hence the attraction of a 21 oz digital Leica M rangefinder. Needless to say, if anyone has any information or opinion they think will be useful, I?d be most grateful. On Wednesday 23 January 2013, at 01:18 EST, Mark Rabiner wrote: > To me it really would not make sense for a company I have to say I > certainly > respect, Nikon to have their step up lens (from a basic kit lens) be a > looser. If they can make a bottom of the line lens be a solid performer > then > why would the totally blow it for people who want to spend some real extra > money and get some glass with more functionality.? I?m not sure that the 24-120 really is a step up lens. Granted, you can use it as one, but I see it as being a specialist lens for people who want to use just one lens from wide-angle to portrait length. (For which it is a far better choice than the 28-300.) If someone wants to step up from a 24-85 kit lens, I would hope they would consider using two zooms: adding the new 70-200 f/4 to a 24-85 kit lens would be a huge improvement. If they decide they want a better standard zoom, then the 24-70 f/2.8 is far better than a 24-85 kit lens, and only 50% more expensive than the 24-120. If 50% more is too much, then using prime lenses would also be far better than a 24-85 kit lens; a set of three f/1.8s -- 35m, 50mm, and 85mm -- would cost significantly less than a 24-120. If, after all that, they decide that their needs are best met by a 24-120, then fair enough. It?s a specialist lens aimed at specialists like them. Mark also wrote: > If you cant shoot Leica than Nikon is not such a terrible way to fly. Quite so. Though I am considering the converse: if you cannot lift a Nikon DSLR system, then Leica might be the best way to fly. Later, Dr Owl ---------------------------- John Owlett, Southampton, UK