Digital BW, The Print

Back when I used film and Leica rangefinders, this was the general 
rule.  You could prove that Leica equipment would provide superior 
optical performance as compared to Nikon/Canon, etc., but it took a very 
solid tripod and careful technical technique to do so.  I was earning 
well and had started with a rangefinder Leica IIIf in the 1950s, and so 
used Ms (3, 5, 6 and a CL) for their compactness, reliability, silence 
(when I was doing theater shots) and the joy of the Leica "feel," but 
honestly can't say I got better images than I would have with one of my 
SLRs.  And once my daughter got into horse jumping and Nikon got fast 
autofocus and reliable autoexposure, my Leicas stayed home.

Now if you have the skills of a Tina Manley and the photo opportunities 
she gets into, you'll be able to get /some /images with a Leica M that 
you're unlikely to get any other way.  But I think that for most 
photographers with less than stunning skills, using a Leica M is more 
about the Leica Experience than higher quality images.  Not to say you 
won't enjoy it if you can afford it  (I certainly did) but you probably 
won't see much improvement in the quality of your output.

chen.benedict wrote:
>  
>
>
> < snip > There are tangible improvements no doubt but one would need 
> exceeding craft to full really bring out what the M9M can can do.   < 
> snip >
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]