[Leica] Re: Why is Leica no longer the choice of many Pros?

[Jim Brick <jimbrick@photoaccess.com>]

This is totally dependent upon the type of business the "Pro" has.
Commercial/studio photography, fine art photography, portraiture,
journalism, news, etc... AND, how he/she approaches the work. What's
important? Is it spontaneity, color fidelity, B&W sharpness and dynamic
range, big prints little prints, transparencies, book publications,
magazine publications, newspaper publications, brochures, and the list goes
on forever. And you'll find the "Pro" using a plethora of MF & LF equipment
as well. What ever best fits the job.

The statement "Why is Leica no longer the choice of many Pros?" is totally
meaningless.

As many of you LUGgers know (thank you all) I just sold a bunch of Leica R
equipment and bought, in its place, Hasselblad equipment. I kept the pieces
of Leica R equipment that I always use and sold those pieces that I used
very seldom. I need to keep abreast of my photographic requirements.

We have all discussed why we use Leica. Other people use Nikon for reasons
that suit them. Some race car drivers race BMW, others race Ferrari. Why?
Sometimes it is simply trust. You feel like the equipment and you are on
the same wavelength, the same page, together as one. I have an aversion to
Nikon 35mm equipment. It feels foreign and unfriendly. My best photographic
friend, and roommate from Brooks Institute of Photography, has always used
Nikon equipment. It feels right to him.

The reason I moved into MF Hasselblad is that I need a larger original
image size in a camera that is easier to setup and use than my 4x5. Each
system has its place. The reason a photojournalist will choose Canon or
Nikon is that they need lightweight fast zooms to get their job done
efficiently. Or perhaps some other equally valid reason.

All cameras cannot be all things to all people.

Look at Fred Maroon. A celebrated professional Leica photographer who
photographs all conceivable subject matter. Always with a Leica.

Jim