Leica R System to complement M...(digital future!)

[EricM]

Cranky? It's been raining for three weeks! And it's just begun. Every motorbike crash, rugby match, and punch-up I've had comes back to say hello for three months. You try it. It's to the bones.

 

Chilled.

[fotografz]

Well, we all think something's silly Eric. Like Nikon's desperate attempt to convince it's

users that 1.5X is okay, because they didn't think ahead enough to have a mount to handle

the future. So Nikon lovers buy into it because they have a bag of Nikon glass to justify.

Same concept, different brand ; -)

 

As far as the R-9 being an old body, so's the M. Takes nice shots though. In fact, the R9

has some pretty cool features (like 3 metering modes at your finger tips rather than having

to take your eye away to push a combination of buttons, and a pre-flash meter). The R9's

only draw back when using the DMR is lack of TTL ... which is a flash unit issue not the

camera. Nikon had to replace the SB-28 with a DX version for their digital cameras. That

has to be done for Leica digital cameras by someone like Metz, which is just as slow as

Leica to make changes sometimes. IMO, it'll happen as soon as there's enough demand...

requiring a new module rather than an whole new flash (he said hopefully).

 

Francisco, one of the least expensive "later" R bodies is the R4S, (avoid the R4 because

some had quality issues). IMO, the zoom to hunt down is the German version 35-70/3.5.

Excellent results, a tad faster than f/4 and a non-rotating front element so you can use a

polarizer. With a little shopping, both can be had for about the same price as a used R8

body

alone.

[vivek iyer]

A lot of folks who keep typing words about their AFS/VR lenses could look at Doug Herr's images and learn something.

 

He is truly an inspiration (atleast to me, he is).

[vivek iyer]

Just to be clear- my earlier post was not directed to Eric. There are many AFS/VR tele lens owners out there :-)

[doug herr]

Peter A, Vivek, Eric~, thanks for the compliments. Peter's description of my thought process made me laugh because it's pretty accurate - and it is very much a specialist's approach. Not only a specialist in wildlife, but also a wildlife specialist who specializes in getting close with a relatively short lens and who prefers to show habitat and wants maximum color fidelity and gradation along with compositional flexibilty. For a wildlife generalist (if there is such a thing) my approach would be quite limiting, and the much longer lenses with opto/electronic/mechanical motion control make a lot more sense.

<P>

The more I do this the more I realize that there's no single 'right' equipment choice. Not only is the subject matter a factor but more importantly (as Peter writes) "personal physical characteristics and predilictions which can have a huge bearing on how the individual uses a system".

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

"Leica is the benchmark"

 

For me, Hasselblad is the benchmark.

 

If only Leica had gone into medium format 50 years ago . . .

 

Robert

[fotografz]

Because of his camera choice he made $200K? LOL.

[EricM]

that's not how i read it Marc. but maybe Dave's friend only does photogrpahy for a living and only buys his gear with that income? that's a little different from buying it with blue chip dividends and the income from a regualr non-photographic job, isn't it?

[fotografz]

Maybe he does and maybe doesn't. How would you know Eric? This is the internet and

anyone can say anything and not have to prove it.

 

Haven't bought a piece of gear with anything other than photographic income in 10

years ... so I can't answer your silly question either.

 

But none of that alters the fact that the Nikon mount was obsolete the minute digital hit

the shelves.