Re: [Leica] JB, filters, flames, and technique

[Walter S Delesandri <walt@jove.acs.unt.edu>]

Hello, Jim and group

I am getting a kick out of the filter thread.  I posted my 
"sometimes" answer a while back, which means I'm wishy-washy 
on the  subject.

I, of course, stirred up a few folks with my "real" i.e. "M"
Leica jab (I still don't like R cameras - too much electronics
for me -- but I admit that the mechanical construction of the 
lenses is superb -- too bad they don't fit an "F" - "F2" body....

I read with interest the ideas that folks use Leicas for 
their image quality.  I have NO problem with their image quality --
BUT  nor do I have a problem with Nikon/others in this regard. 

Lets look at some things objectively -- my opinion, yes, but 
substantiated by MANY others:

1950s lenses by Leica -- 
Optically slightly behind the competition, when new.  (except 
the 50 summicron -- )  Mechanically fine.  Most exhibit MANY 
more optical problems than Nikon/Canon of the same vintage 
(haze, soft glass/coating/cleaning damage that DIDN"T seem 
to affect Nikon/Canon)
1960s:
Optically on par-- Leica's best equalled Nikon's best, neither 
seemed to have dogs by this time -- the 50 'cron and the 90 
Elmarit hold their own against the 50 nikkor and 105.  (I own and 
have shot these, as well as later ones- of both brands)

1970s to date:  Leica lenses continue to improve.  Mechanical 
quality stays high -- performance improves -- durability of 
glass/coating MUCH improved (thank goodness)  Nikon starts 
cutting mechanical quality with the AI lenses -- all time low 
comes with early AF stuff -- it was hideous -- glass improves 
slightly, not as much as Leica.  Yes, I've owned/repaired most 
of these vintages of optics.

Summary: Leica continues to improve, mechanical construction stays 
high, Nikon tapers off in improvements and mechanical goes to 
shit.

Now the kicker (the "filter" issue):
I'm going to make an assertion that MOST working photographers
DO NOT use Leica M for it's optical quality.  They assume and 
accept that the quality is extremely high, an overkill, BUT 
they use the camera for OTHER reasons.  Light/small/accuracy 
of focus in dark/with W.A. lenses/hand-holdability at slower 
speeds/inconspicuousness/etc --These are the reasons I hear 
for using the M-s (and are my reasons) We accept that the 
optics are "among" the finest in the world (depending on the 
lens/f-stop/etc)  BUT we USE the camera for >OTHER< reasons!!

Most of us agree that the quality of most lenses, filter or 
no filter, Nikon or Leica, 1960s-Date, are an overkill for 
shooting with Tri-x or Fujicolor etc.  For us, the sky filter 
is worth having so we can clean our lenses less often and not 
worry about salt spray/sand/etc. abrading the surface. In fact, 
after dropping my 35 1.4  (in a quiet courtroom, no less) and 
denting the front ring, I'd say that the filter is worth it 
just to protect the front flange!  I also feel better wiping 
rain or dirt off the UV filter with my dirty golf shirt!!

As I stated before, when I go to a national park with plenty 
of time and shoot with a tripod and slow film, I remove the 
filter to get that "Leica" edge (or Nikon, for that matter)
But for day to day "reportage", I'll keep my UV-s, thanks!

Sorry for the long post, but I think it has some sanity/merit.

What say?

thanks, 
Walt in Denton, Tx.