You guys know that I couldn't stay away from this thread.
I've been an OM user since 1974 and a Leica M user since 1998, so I've got some
experience with both systems.
Sound: I'm sorry, but there's no contest between the feel and sound of an M and
an OM-1, especially a well-tuned M3 or M2. The OM-1 is a VERY nice camera, but
the M's are much more solid, quieter, and have a much more robust feel than the
SLRs. The M's also exhibit much less vibration, but the basic RF design has a
lot to do with that characteristic.
Lenses: The Leica lenses are very nice, but not so good that I feel like
spending all my girls' college money on them. Many have a different image
characteristic than most SLR lenses, including the Zuikos (the bokeh thing).
I'm not privy to detailed tests between all the Leica lenses and all their
competitiors, but I'd be surprised if the latest lenses aren't at the top of
the test-bin of ALL lenses. Those would be the 21/2.8 Elmarit ASPH, 24/2.8
Elmarit ASPH, 28/2 Summicron ASPH,, 35/2 Summicron ASPH, 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH,
90/2 Summicron Apo-ASPH, and 135/3.4 Apo-Telyt. Most of the others are older
designs, and while great lenses, have many equals amongst the Canon "L"'s,
Zuiko f/2's, Contax Zeiss, Nikon AFS's, etc.
I haven't seen the tests that CH talks about, but I'd like to see where any
other manufacturer's 35/1.4 beats the Summilux-ASPH. I also wouldn't be
surprised if the 50/1.4 Summilux isn't surpassed, as it's a 1961 design.
The 75/1.4 is a unique lens, and there aren't many medium teles with that fast
an aperture. I'd like to see a test vs. the Contax 85/1.2, Nikon 85/1.4, or
Canon 85/1.2. The 75/1.4 Summilux is also an older design, from the early
80's, if I remember right. But it's very nice. Many M users don't like the
lens because it's difficult to use wide open becauase of the razor-thin DOF and
mis-matches between the lens and camera rangefinders. I see many pro shooters
substituting a Nikon or Contax f/1.4 lens in the 85mm range. They feel that
the SLR is easier to get proper focus on with that focal length.
Application: The Leica and similar RF's are unique tools that excel at certain
types of photography. I've found that my candid, people, and family
photography has markedly improved by using a Leica M camera. BTW, I only have
three Leica lenses (35/2, 90/2.8, old 1950's 50/2), with Cosina-Voigtlander
lenses filling out the rest of the stable. So it's not a religion, it's just a
camera. But it's a camera that might change your photos for the better with
use. And isn't that what it's all about?
Skip
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Please reply to [skipwilliams at pobox.com]
Direct responses to the email address on the header may get lost
----------------------------------------------------------------->
>Subject: [OM] First night in Leic*-land. ;-)
> From: "R. Jackson" <jackson.robert.r@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 22:12:13 -0800
> To: OM <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>I had my first night of class in my new photo class tonight. It's an
>elementary photography and darkroom techniques class. Gotta love it. We
>all had to let the instructor take a look at our cameras. There were
>about 30 of us there and my OM-4T and OM-1n were the only system
>cameras there, although one girl did have an OM-2000. After making the
>rounds, the instructor pulled out an M6 (black tape over the logo,
>natch) and started telling us how nothing in the 35mm gauge will take
>photos that look as impressive as those from a Leic* rangefinder. He
>explained his assertion, commenting on how they invented 35mm
>photography and that a rangefinder has a much less complicated
>light-path than an SLR, etc, etc, etc. Then he showed us a slide
>presentation of the work of Henri Cartier Bresson, which he said was a
>good example of photographs taken with one of the Holy Rangefinders.
>
>I think I have Leic* envy. ;-)
>
>His M6 *was* a pretty cool little box. It had an amazingly compact lens
>on it, which kind of reminded me of an Oly pancake lens. It had a
>small, hard Bakelite/plastic/whatever rectangular lens hood. He went on
>to talk about how Leic* won't admit it, but their SLR models aren't
>nearly as nice as their rangefinders. It was like a sales presentation
>for the Holy Rangefinder. The shutter was really quiet, but my shutters
>aren't exactly loud. That's always been a draw of the Oly system for
>me, actually. They were always so much quieter and more compact than
>most other SLRs.
>
>SO, I know there are some of you out there who own both, are their
>optics really nicer than Zuiko optics? I've always been really
>impressed with Zuiko primes.
>
>-Rob
>
>
>< 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 >
|