Built for each other-The Ms

[travis1]

Dear all,

 

WOuld you use a FM3a body with a 35 summilux?

would you use a M6 with a nikon 85/1.4?

would you use a Canon D60 with an elmar?

 

 

assuming they are all compatible of course..

 

Don't you find that, leaving aside image qualities, the M bodies need

the M lenses and vice versa to really work for us?

 

So, which would you part with, the M bodies or the M lenses?

 

Or you can't?

[travis1]

I have not found many systems as NON-interchangable as the Ms (or Rs). Do you agree?

 

Of course, we have the Hexar rf and the Voigts....

[Robin Smith]

I don't understand the question. If you want M lenses in a reflex form then you need an R camera.

[Rob F.]

I don't understand the question either, but you can have a Nikon body converted to fit Leica R lenses, if that helps.

[travis1]

Robin, it's not so much M-M or R-R..

Its, would you use Nikon body-M lenses or M bodies-Canon lenses?(if they are all compatible)

[travis1]

Rob, it's again not so much COULD you use, but WOULD you use, a Nikon body with a M lens?

[travis1]

I think what Im asking is, which do you think is more important to you, the Leica bodies or the Leica lenses?

[joshroot]

Travis, I get what you are saying.

 

For me, it's mostly been the body (M bodies anyway, I don't care about the R). It offers something that no other camera can offer. The only reason that I'm a fan of the lenses, is their small form factor. But that is an extention of the design of the body.

[ralph_barker]

While your questions make for interesting conjecture, Travis, I don't think I could separate the body/lens issue. I bought into the M system for both the quality of the Leica lenses and the difference in shooting style and vision afforded by the M rangefinder body. Notwithstanding that, however, I haven't sold any of my Nikon gear, and still use it for applications that require a high-quality SLR or digital.

 

I like the "taste" of M & Ms, and don't think an M & N combination would be the same. ;-)

 

Although I must admit that an autofocus Noctilux on the F5 would be interesting.

[michael_kastner]

No.

[ray_moth]

I agree that Leica M lenses and M bodies work best together. If they didn't, I wouldn't be interested in Leica. Having said that, there are exceptions. Some lenses have been built by other companies that work very well with Leica cameras, e.g. my C/V Heliar 15mm f/4.5. However, I don't know of any non-Leica lens that I'd rather use instead of a Leica M lens where such exists.

 

I would certainly NOT be attracted to a system with great lenses but crappy bodies (e.g. Contax G) or one with great bodies but crappy lenses (e.g. Olympus OM, which I used to own but got rid of).

[jsbc]

I don't understand the question. If I can have only one lens, it will be the 35 Lux/ Cron ASPH. For the Leica M. Nikon, Canon EOS or whatever 35mm format camera.

[travis1]

Johnson, you have answered the question. The M lens is more important to you. You seemed to be willing to part with a Leica M body to use that M lens.

 

The question was basically asking you what was more important, in Leica context, the Lens or the Body?

 

I don't understand why so few people can understand that.

[al_kaplan1]

The body of course! I use a 21mm Super Angulon, and it is made by Schneider. Before that I had a 19mm Canon. For some things I prefer my 85mm f/2 Nikkor to my 90 Elmarit. I miss the 50/1.4 Nikkor I once owned. The 15mm Voigtlander has no competition. Leitz/Leica has produced some great lenses (and a few dogs). The M body lends itself to a style of photographic shooting. Each lens design has a unique "signature" of contrast, bokeh, sharpness, etc. Choose what works.