Re: [Leica] Leica bug [long post]

["Jeff S" <segawa@netone.com>]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Alastair Firkin <firkin@netconnect.com.au>
>Lets hear about you and how photography entered your
>life, and how the LUG has emptied your bank account ;-)
>
Well...
I was exposed to Exakta and Rolleicord cameras from an early age, but the
first camera I really badly wanted for myself was the Minolta Autopak 470: A
aperture priority, 110 rangefinder camera. But, by virtue of the fact that
it was free, my first camera was a secondhand Pentax Spotmatic with 55/1.8
Super-Takumar, a gift from my grandfather. He had no luck with it's shutter,
and neither did I, but between repairs, it was a good beginner's camera, and
stopped-down metering has it's advantages for teaching a new photographer
the effects of different apertures.

Eventually, probably as much out of pity as weariness at having to help me
with the repairs, my dad presented me with the amazing gift of Nikon's new
FE, with 50/1.8, calling it, I think, an early graduation present. That
camera did NOT break, and over the years, as my disposeable income grew,
gthat FE lead to a string of other Nikons (F2AS, Nikkormat, F3, much later,
an F4), and various lenses (28, 50, 55 micro, 105/2.5, 35-70/2.8) Favorites?
F4, the 35-70 and the 55.

I was keen enough on photography by the time I had the F3, that I took a
class at the university, headed by Wayne Levin, whose underwater photo of
surfers may be familiar to some of you. Humbling experience, as I finally
saw my photos for what they were: Filled with extraneous junk. I did get
some nice ones, seemingly at random. Following the class experience, I note
that my photos begin to show some attempt at leading the viewer's eye
through the scene, as well as giving some sense of place and scale--or
deliberately confounding it.

As for when I first heard of Leica, I can't say for sure--I may still have
an R4s (1982?) brochure packed away somewhere, but the name wasn't new to me
then either, and I made special trips to see the gear, and to be offered the
opportunity to handle it, if briefly.


Around '88, I was feeling that The Big Nikon System was becoming too much of
A Big Production, so I traded
all of the N gear in for a dented Leica M4-2, 50 Summicron and 90
Tele-Elmarit with what looked like the remains of a tiny insect squashed on
it's
front element. What a difference; The camera bag felt empty! Having had a
feel for depth of field from the earliest days, I did
not find the transition from SLR difficult, though I sometimes missed TTL
viewing for macro work (I no longer worry about it--I have a second camera
system which does this pretty well)

But despite some early success with the M-system, I sought out an equally
handy camera that was better, cheaper, and preferably, both. I went
Leica-less for some time and tried a number of compact MF cameras, which
mostly worked well, but in general, something was always amiss: Maybe they'd
be kind of poor in low light, or fragile, or heavy, wouldn't focus close
enough, or maybe the handling wasn't quite what I wanted.

So I decided to give the M system another try, and I established a great
goal of keeping
the basic M body + 50 lens under $1000, and preferably, around $800, and
promptly broke the budget by choosing an M4 and a new 50 Elmar. "This is
nuts", I figured, and "boy, did I go overboard on this one". After receiving
the first photos, this becomes "It's nuts, but it sure works well", which
has evolved to "*I'm* nuts, and I'd like another M6, please!"

One benefit that I'll concede is that the M made photography more of an
everyday occurance for me: Just carry it about, and see if photo ops don't
suddenly seem to appear! Even if you don't take it out of your briefcase
some days, just knowing it's there seems to increase awareness of the world:
overgrown vacant lots become dark jungles, puddles are transformed into
reflecting pools, and graffiti scrawls become social commentary begging to
be documented! Not a bad deal, I think.

Jeff