[Leica] Summicron v. Nikkor; SLR v. RF (longish)

[BBAIN@imnet.com (BBAIN)]

          Thib speaks of the "quality" difference between his mid-60s 
          Summicron and his Nikkor.  Herewith a couple of thoughts:
          
          1.   Every lens is a compromise in contrast, resolution, color 
          fidelity, and probably countless other parameters, including cost 
          (at least to some degree).  It's pretty easy to see that there's 
          a difference between an f2 Sonnar and an f2 Summicron, although 
          both are fine lenses (typically).  "Better" is a term that begs 
          the question, since the real question is whether the choices the 
          manufacturer made are the ones that you would have made *for your 
          type of photography*.  I have read. for example, that the 
          (in)famous Leica "roundness" is a result of a conscious decision 
          not to totally correct certain spherical aberrations.  Obviously, 
          if your work involves architectural or other types of large plane 
          surfaces, a different compromise *might* be in order. 
          
          Having said that, there should be no discernible "vignetting" 
          with a 50mm Summicron wide open (most likely we're talking about 
          edge falloff here). The physics of making what was, even in the 
          50's, merely a relatively "fast" normal lens were well understood 
          and I doubt that any designer, let alone Leitz, would have 
          tolerated visible edge falloff in such a common design, unlike 
          the falloff seen in the "super-speed" lenses of the period (Canon 
          f1.2, f0.95, Zunow f1.1, Nikkor f1.0, and even the Noctilux).  I 
          have not seen any discernible edge falloff in my Summicron in any 
          of the test rolls I shoot about annually to make sure that 
          everything's working ok.
          
          It is possible that your Summicron is out-of-whack.  It is also 
          possible that comparing a 1950's lens with a 1970s or 1980s lens 
          is a bit unfair because of the advances in coatings which helped 
          *all* manufacturers by making available increased contrast in 
          multiple element lenses and allowing them to "redistribute" the 
          above-mentioned compromises.
          
          If you've already done this, forgive me, but it would be 
          enlightening to shoot a test roll or two of slide film on 
          suitable targets when you get your M2 back to see if the problem 
          is still there.  It might be even more enlightening to shoot the 
          same test with another Summicron and another body and switch 
          lenses and bodies to make sure that it is indeed a lens problem.  
          Despite the "relative" simplicity of the M-series, it's still 
          pretty doggone complex and anything can get out of whack given 
          enough time!
          
          On SLR v. RF - I believe that one "sees" differently through a RF 
          as opposed to a ground glass.  Because there are large portions 
          of the GG that are out-of-focus, one becomes more aware of 
          "masses". This is abetted because of the experience in viewing 
          the field as a bright area surrounded by blackness.  In the RF, 
          one becomes more focused on "lines" and being able to view what's 
          going on outside the frame can be an asset (although there's not 
          much room outside the 50mm frame on an M3!).  Both views are 
          valid compositionally and what works depends on what you're 
          shooting.  I've seen enough Leica Ms. Nikon SPs, Nikon Fs and 
          Canon EOS's shoved in folks' faces to come to the belief that 
          "confrontational" is a question of style, not equipment, although 
          the sound of a motor drive has become the universally recognized 
          sound accompanying a camera shoved up some poor subject's nostril 
          by the paparazzi (sp?).  In that sense, the M series is less 
          confrontational, not more.
          
          The delay between shutter press and shutter fire is real.  The 
          Canon EOS RT with its pellicle mirror can be set for either 8 ms 
          delay or 30 ms (so that it simulates the delay of the mirror in 
          an SLR).  While I don't know what the delay is on an M-series, 
          it's probably closer to the 8 ms, I would guess.
          
          Bottom line:  pick your horse for the course.  If the M system 
          didn't have any deficiencies, there wouldn't be any need for the 
          R system!
          
          OK, I'm off the soapbox now, who's next?