Re: [Leica] Contax SLR Lens Line

[Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net>]

At 12:02 PM 2/1/98 -0500, you wrote:

> I think this is a weakness in the lens line. Contax has said to me in
response
>that they feel the market for a 35mm f/2 would be too small to justify the

They ought to look at the used lens market for Leica 35 Summicron M lenses
right now. The dealers are way heavy with used units right now, from
everyone swapping their non-ASPH lenses for the new ones. Just check
Tamarkin or Chatterton's web sites and see what used lens is high on the
population count. 35 Summicron M by a long shot!

Contax see out of touch. Or they're afraid to compete with Nikon and Canon.
But people put AF ahead of every other interest, it seems, so maybe they're
right to no push Yashica. Stick with a Leica-like small group of buyers,
and keep stuff expensive. But you are right, they need to plug some  holes
before their line becomes truly acceptable to the majority of pros, who
choose Leica over Contax for some reason. Leica is third to Nikon and Canon
in pro choices for 35mm systems.

> Do you really think so? Is it really necessary for a photographer to shoot a
>thousand rolls to make a good essay? I always thought this was to make the
>editors' jobs easier, not the photographers'. Personally, if I were
required to
>shoot 1,000 rolls instead of a hundred to get twenty good pictures, I'd
>consider it an insult to me. My best essay I did with less than 40 rolls!

<g>): "There is only one difference between professional and amateur
>photographers. Professionals shoot more film and use fewer of the pictures."

If you know how they work, you'd understand. They never know until they
come across a subject what they're going to use in the magazine. So they
just keep shooting and covering territory. William Albert Allard shoots
most of the time with his lenses wide open (thus his early conversion to
the 35 Aspheric lens) at "hail Mary" type shutter speeds. He'll prop his
camera on a beer bottle on a table in a bar as he photographs people
dancing with exposures of 1 second or thereabouts. In those kinds of
conditions, you only get a few frames in a roll that are decent, let alone
of high enough quality to run in the magazine.

It's not required by the editors they shoot any number of rolls, or even
what kind of film they shoot. They can shoot Kodachrome, Fujichrome,
Fujicolor, Tri-X (not often, but possible) or even Agfachrome. It's
whatever fits their vision. If they can shoot it in 100 rolls of film, the
editor is happy. It doesn't matter. And that has been why they can attract
the best photographers in the world for $395 to $495 a day. No other place
in the world offers the freedom to explore the world they do. Even today
with much more restrictive shooting days.

I used to shoot about a thousand rolls a year. On a day to day basis, it
doesn't seem like a lot.

Sam Abell complains that maybe National Geographic uses 1 in the 30
pictures that they use in an essay that he thinks is his best from the
take. And nobody at NG argues that he's not the best "artist" at the
magazine. They all seem to agree on that. 

>P.S. Don't you think Leica missed a trick by not calling the R8 the
"Leicaflex
>3"? It is really more closely related to the Leicaflexes than to the R
series,
>all of which were based on Japanese Minolta bodies. 

That's the though of the year. I think some people were talking about an
SL3 when the R6 was rumored to be coming. But the R8 fits the bill much more.  
==========

Eric Welch
St. Joseph, MO
http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch

My Karma ran over my Dogma..