Re: [Leica] Re: Why Leica

["Henning J. Wulff" <henningw@archiphoto.com>]

Dave Yoder wrote:

>I just got a photo essay into the paper that included three pictures shot
>with my 19mm
>elmarit (new model). Critical elements of the pictures included people at
>the extreme
>edges of the frame (no room for cropping). Without a doubt, those images
>would have been
>ruined by the distortion of the Canon 17-35 zoom they issued me.

It's great that you got those pictures into the paper and that it all
worked out, and I'm sure the Canon would have produced optically inferior
pictures. HOWEVER, distortion is not the issue, unless you had used the
Canon at 17mm focal length and had the people in the part of the frame that
the 19 didn't cover. If you had used the Canon at 19mm, the difference in
the distortion levels between the lenses would not be discernible in
pictures of people. Rectilinear wideangles (which both the 19R lens and the
17-35 Canon are), do not have enough difference in their distortion levels
to be noticeable in pictures of people. Astigmatism, coma, lateral color
and even possibly field curvature are noticeable differences between the
lenses when taking such pictures. Not distortion. Categorically.

Distortion levels in wideangles are a big thing with me. At present I have
(and use) 18 lenses or cameras that cover between 90 and 180 degrees, in
all formats.

- -----------------------

Part B:

A dedicated Leica user for 37 years, although I _do_ remember my Sinar 8x10
producing a technically better picture than my Leica one time....

Actually, I have enjoyed many cameras since the early 50's, from Minox to
8x10, and now enjoy things like the 200 Micro Nikkor, 24 Tilt and Shift,
and the 100-400 Image Stabilizer lens. I brought the latter close to my M's
once, but there seemed to be so little mutual comprehension that I gave up.

Still, I've had Leicas the longest, and they are more a 'part' of me than
any other camera. Over the long haul they have been as reliable as any
other camera, if not more so. I never worry about what aperture I'm using
from a performance point of view, and I'm hardly ever dissapointed with
what the camera is able to do for me. With other cameras I've had some
great shots, but I also can sympathize with the person who kicked his
camera around on the sales floor.

'Intelligent' metering systems (especially Nikon's flash system) have
allowed me to get shots with ease that would have required a lot of
calculation and bracketing otherwise, but sometimes they have trashed a
perfectly easy shot, so I leave them off (except for that flash system).
Autofocus is starting to become more important to me on SLR's, and the
Canon Image Stabilizer technology allows me to go places photographically
where I could never venture before. MF and LF allows me to take pictures
that I can't with Leica's, and not only because of the larger film area.
But they sure don't feel as comfortable and natural as using a Leicas,
especially if you have to carry them all day...

So, Leica M's live with me and are an extension of my basic photography.
Other cameras are for special events, special projects, special assignments
to be used and then put away again until another event of that type comes
along.

   *            Henning J. Wulff
  /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
 /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
 |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com