On Aug 7, 2005, at 7:57 AM, Frantisek wrote:
Sunday, August 7, 2005, 4:41:23 PM, Shel wrote:
SB> This line in the article really makes me laugh: "This is
really a big deal
SB> since Leica photogs are legendary for preferring small
cameras." The Leica
SB> M is NOT a small camera, nor is it particularly light.
Yeah, that always gives me a laugh too. The Ur-Leica was considered
miniature in the early 1900s, but a Leica M is far from the "small
and light" camera that Leica enthusiasts ballyho so much. It's really
no smaller or lighter than my old Nikon FM, although the lenses
sometimes are (not the modern ones, though).
IMNSHO, both in weight and size it's just about right. Smaller and it
would be worse to hold, lighter and it wouldn't be so easy to hold
long shutter speeds. And it is substantially smaller than even the MX
- not in some dimenstions but in volume, or how to say it... simply,
the camera under your coat doesn't create a bump, unlike MX with a
same spec'ed lens, or god forbid a DSLR with equivalent lens. The M
fits perfectly into a Domke satchel pouch, with a lens or two.
Perceptions of size and weight are somewhat personal. The Leica M is
pretty much the same size relative to a Domke F5XB that a Nikon FM/
FE3 is, but the lenses are a little smaller for their focal length.
Not enough smaller that I can stuff more Leica lenses in the same
space though ... My traveling kit for years was either an [Leica M+24
+50 or 35+75] or [Nikon FM/FE+20+50+85], both kits carried in the
F5XB. (The *ist DS kit provides very similar feel to me: DS + DA14 +
FA20-35 + FA50/1.7 fits in the same bag, although I now prefer the
slightly larger Billingham L2 bag instead. The DA14 is a bit bulky
and its lens hood gets in the way.)
Godfrey
