The photograhper at my brother's wedding used exclusively Leica M7/M6 with Leica glass. Results were good, but I think my Zuiko lenses or even my Kiev will perform similarly. Butt the grain and resolution were not up to MF level. No comparison what so ever!! I think it is not worth the investement.
This is never ending discussion...
I have switched from nikon (FM2,F3..with some of the best lenses available) to Leica. Can I tell the difference? Definitely yes. Especially in low light situations (black man in the mine and albino on the snow..) But what makes me fascinated is some indefinable gravy look of pictures taken with Leica. Illusion or reality? I really do not know but Im willing to pay extra bucks for it.
There is only one camera for street photography which makes even more fascinated is Hasselblad SWC!!!
g'day
this all very interesting, but what does it benefit to have the 'best' if the photographer cannot 'see' or compose an interesting image
these differences are so subtle it may be more advantageous to actually go and take images by utilising the available equipment to 'its' best rather than talk up its assets
Well, if you don't have to worry about lens flare when shooting into light, and light falloff on edges of frame, etc... then it is easier to fully concentrate on "seeing". That is benefit of having "the best"
There is a story that when Olympus released their 180mm f2.0 and their 100mmf2.0 they were so much better than their equivalent Leica equivalents that Leitz immediately redesigned their lenses!
Yes I am interested in the sharpness but it goes beyond that as well, it is also the special look that you note.
I shoot 5 Mf systems and 1 4x5 camera all with great optics. If I wanted just a superior print I'd shoot one of the above, but I also want speed, a lighter smaller body and carry kit, better shadow contrast from a 35mm frame and a special something type of look, so now I'm interested in the Leica glass and bodies again.