Winsor:
I think that most photographers are either Leica fans, are bemused by
Leica, or simply ignore Leica altogether. I've had a M3 since 1974, and
would not replace it with a more modern M is this one were
lost/stolen/broken, simply because it would not be worth is to me
financially. If I had Bill Gates' money, I would probably collect
pre-W.W. II. Leicas, and Leica gadgets and accessories. My complaint
about Leica is that I really can't afford their new stuff, and the used
stuff is "collectible" so I can't afford it either.
Nikon and Canon seem to generate the most "lovers" and "haters". My
experience with Nikon photographers has been uniformly negative
(arrogant), and the old ones had the "advance lever in the right eye"
problem for left-eyed photographers. I like the Canon F1, but don't
know if anything modern would even have any appeal.
Bill Stanke
Winsor Crosby wrote:
>
> >Winsor,
> >
> >I think it is human nature to find some subliminal "something" to
> >justify the extra expense. My completely unscientific opinion is that
> >Leica lenses (LTM and M) were "better" because they did not have as many
> >compromises. My 90 mm Elmar and 135 mm Hektor are not telephotos, they
> >are long-focus lenses. A rangefinder doesn't have the swinging mirror,
> >to deal with, so a retrofocus design isn't needed for the wide-anlge
> >lenses. It's probably still easier to design a rangefinder lens,
> >compared to the SLR design.
> >
> >BTW, there were some Leica lenses produced after W.W.II that WERE
> >radioactive. The early Summitar* and Summicron lenses used Kodak High
> >Refractive thorium oxide glass. This stuff was radioactive enough that
> >it could not be used for the rear element of the lens, to prevent film
> >fogging. Leica later used their own lanthanum oxide glass, which they
> >proudly advertised as thorium free.
> >
> >Dick Gilcreast has an article on this in Volume 34, No. 1. 2001 issue of
> >the Viewfinder. It is available as a PDF file on-line at:
> >
> >http://www.lhsa.org/
> >
> >Scroll down to the "viewfinder" link, and pick the article from the
> >list.
> >
> >Bill Stanke
>
> Actually I am a Leica fan. I was not being critical of the cameras.
> I owned a couple of M3s and a number of lenses and accessories long
> ago before they were stolen and could not afford to replace them at 5
> times the price I paid originally. They are fine cameras and have a
> great mystique. I am amused sometimes at the excesses of enthusiasm
> of fans. Interestingly Nikon made its reputation by producing lenses
> for Leica rangefinders that reporters snapped up because they were
> better than Leica's. I have thought that if something awful happened
> and my beloved OMs disappeared it would be a hard decision whether to
> replace it with another OM or maybe a Leica R and fewer lenses. At
> this point I think the OM would win because I really am not too
> interested in learning a new camera unless I get dramatic
> improvements which probably lets out digital too.
> --
> Winsor Crosby
> Long Beach, California
>
> < 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 >
< 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 >
|