At 15:15 06/08/99 +0800, JIM_TEO@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Such comparison is somehow totally out, how could we compare a
> primitive camera to a high tech one? It is just like recording a 100M
> sprint timing using a sundial to a digital watch.
>
Indeed - the comparison is really akin to that of two types of digital
watch. A fairer Leitz vs Oly comparison would be between OM and the Leica
*R* system, for there are significant operational differences between SLR
and RF systems. A friend of mine has used both OM and Leica R systems
extensively and feels that in general the Leica lenses perform more
consistently, e.g over a wider range of apertures, but acknowledges that
there are Zuikos which are at least the equal of some of the Leitz
equivalents. He has considered going back to OM for reasons of cost and
weight when travelling. I have no *personal* experience of any SLR system
other than the OM with which I've always been perfectly happy, ever since
my first OM-10 in 1978, so like Will von Dauster, who wrote
>I feel no need to "upgrade" my cameras on a regular
>basis. The few times I have bought and used different systems, I have latter
>regretted it. I suppose this makes me a marketer's nightmare.
I'm probably a marketeer's nightmare too :-) I've certainly no intention
of changing to another system at present. Will also wrote
>it is
>better to have fewer "things," but that those things that one acquires be of
>exquisite quality. In the case of my tools, Olympus and Leica seems to have
>met that criteria well.
Agreed. I took my underused OM-1n out on Sunday and was delighted to be
reminded of the smooth operation of all the controls and the general
feeling of quality that it exudes. The wind-on mechanism in particular
feels nicer than my OM-2SP and OM-4 suggesting that perhaps the newer
models have had some of the quality engineered out of them - anyone noticed
the same thing or are mine exceptions?
Another friend collects and uses older quality cameras precisely because of
the quality engineering therein - he likes them as objects. The technology
in modern wonderbricks is remarkable, but they just don't *feel* so good to
either of us. For my part, if it doesn't feel good then I won't get the
best out of it; a tool (for that is what a camera is at the end of the day)
has to feel like an extension of oneself.
If a Leica feels right to you, buy a Leica, but don't buy one simply
because it's the most expensive, or because it's regarded as a status
symbol, or because it's "what the professionals buy". I'm in a postal
print portfolio, and one of the Leica owners in it produces consistently
badly exposed and unsharp prints (his compositions aren't up to much
either!). The best prints, consistently, are produced by an OM user (not
me I hasten to add!) and a Canon EOS user. The performance of the top
camera brands doesn't vary that much, but what *does* vary is the
versatility, handling and feel. Compare an F5, an OM-4Ti and an M6.
Horses for courses - they couldn't be more different in handling but when
handled by people familiar with them and used in suitable conditions the
results aren't going to differ by much at all.
Regards
Richard
Richard Ross
Hemel Hempstead, England
rhdesign@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|