Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/07/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I would have to agree with Eric. My understanding of the birth of the Leica was that Ernst Leitz like to go trooping off into the mountains and forests and simply wanted a smaller lighter camera. The Ur-Leica was cobbled up by his employee, Oskar Barnack, who used a device then employeed by cinemaphotographers to make test exposures. He devised a lens arrangement,and thus Herr Leitz could carry a smaller, lighter, and more manageable outfit into the field. It was a compromise, but there was no compromise on the quality of the optics. Leitz had been around since about 1849 making microscopes and other optical instruments for which they had a well deserved reputation for excellence. I myself have a microscope from Leitz, circa 1919-1920 with which I have made photomicrograph, and the lenses are quite good, even after almost 80 years. I used it all the time to look at the grain of negs and slides. There is nothing wrong with using a tripod- the camera comes 'tripod ready' and I'll grant you that it helps with tricky longer exposures; and I'll grant you that you'll not get a grainfree image like one made from an 8x10, but I have seen 16x20s done by a friend at the camera store, and made with Tech-Pan, and I was so amazed at the acuity and contrast, that I decided 16 years ago to sell my Hasselblad stuff and get a Leica. Leitz optics do provide an image that is clearly superior than MOST glass ( I won't get caught in absolutes here! :)). And a damn sight easier to carry than a 4x5, I can tell you personally! Dan'l dwpost@msn.com