Gary D. Whalen wrote in message <3467B26D.B97D9FEE@whalentennis.com>...

>1. Is film "capable" of picking up the subtle differences between say a
>Zeiss lense vs. a Nikon lense?


Yes - but I would go back and emphasize the word "subtle"...;-)
The *best* lens lines do have slightly different design objectives, but
they may produce irrelevantly small differences in image quality if
you stick with the best lenses in each line.

>2. Are Contax or Leica cameras worth the extra money? If so, why?

No, unless a particular unique feature is unusually important to you.

>3. If you had $5,000 to spend on any 35mm camera you wanted AND it was
>the ONLY camera you could use for 5 years, which camera would you buy.
>You get to pick three lenses of your choice to go with this camera.

Depends on the amount and type of use. A cheap P&S would be fine for 10+
years in some hands, and three Nikons and 10 lenses would be inadequate
in others...

>4. Rank these cameras in order of their OPTICAL quality: Nikon, Canon,
>Pentax, Leica, Contax, Minolta. By this I mean the avg. quality of all
>their lenses.

I am only really familiar with Nikkors (see my "SUBJECTIVE Lens
Evaluations [Mostly Nikkors]" under "I babble" on my web page...), but
they are pretty consistently high in optical quality as a line, and the line
(especially if you consider the vast number of still-useable older lenses)
is VERY broad, and Nikkors also hold their resale value very well, making
them (especially if bought used) good buys. If you stay with the top end
of other lens lines, quality is probably comparable to Nikon (though resale
value often isn't...).
Hope This Helps
David Ruether - http://www.fcinet.com/ruether