In article <4e9ili$4ld@spectator.cris.com>, jph1@cris.com says...

>I have owned or borrowed several cameras. I now have a Leica R and
>medium format camera systems. All I can say is that if you're very
>careful about which lenses you choose, you can get good results from >just about any camera system. Example Canon FD lenses 17, 24-2.8, >50-3.5, 85-1.8 are great. But a bunch of FD lenses--even some of the
>L lenses are dogs. Nikon 18 3.5 AIs, 28-2.8, 55 micro, 105-2.5, etc. >are great. But many aren't. (rest deleted)

Hmmm.... I have been staying out of this one, having fun watching the
statements like, "Leitz lenses are great because, while the resolution
may not be too good, the high contrast.....", and, "While the contrast
may be lower than most brands, the high resolution....", and, "Leitz intentionally leaves in undercorrected spherical aberation, so.....", etc., etc., etc. Whee-ooo!!! And I thought audio was bad! (Yes, people
actually claim that RCA interconnect wires have a "direction", and should be hooked up only one way around!). I can agree with most of
what the poster wrote above (especially, since by using Leitz R
lenses, he is probably actually using several different brands of
lenses, but all with the Leitz name [and prices] attached ;-), but
must take exception to a couple of things: the 17mm Canon I saw was
THE PITS, and the last part of the Nikon comment should have read,
"But a few, out of a huge line of lenses, aren't."
Hope This Helps