[Leica] Exposed!

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

>>>You speak in the past tense.  Do you no longer use Leica cameras?  --
Anthony<<<


Now you're going to get me in trouble! I'm about to lose ALL credibility
here. <g>

You have to remember that I'm not always my own man in this area.
Because of my job, I spend a lot of time "living with" cameras that
would not necessarily be my choice for spending my own money on. In the
lastest issue of _PHOTO Techniques_ I've written a full feature review
of the Contax Aria. I really do feel that any camera manufacturer
deserves a reviewer who really commits to the camera for a significant
chunk of time, and who really "comes to grips" with it, as Andrew
Mattheson once wrote that you can do with the M. It used to be my
personal standard when I was reviewing cameras for _Camera & Darkroom_
that I would use the camera in question for my own work for at least 3
full months. I used the Aria off and on for almost 8 months, and even
got myself a few assignments to use it for. This is just a matter of
principle for me; most "camera reviews" are just padded-out recitations
of the spec sheet, with a few tepid, vague, approving sentences of
opinion tacked on here and there. I really feel that our readers, who
are generally knowledgeable and experienced (like most of the people
here), deserve more than that. It's impossible for any one reviewer to
be truly objective, but at least he can be thorough.

And, sometimes, I don't spend my money on cameras I otherwise might buy,
simply because I know I'm going to need to "clear the decks" for the
next camera to be reviewed.

But (<*sigh*>--here goes my cred <g>) no, at the moment I have no Leica
M. I'm shooting with a Nikon F100, courtesy of Nikon.

I've also been using a number of 1970s cameras for an article I'm
piecing together called "Classic Metal Boxes of the 1970s." I have a
Nikon EL2, a Pentax Spotmatic F, and a Leica R3 in the cabinet for that
project. The project evolved from my interest in the cameras and their
lenses, not the other way around.

In the interest of honesty, I have to confess that so far I absolutely
love the F100. It's a totally different style of photography than the
M6--it's a big ol' point-and-shoot with tailor-it-yourself features. But
I find it really nicely thought out, very controllable, and just super
to use--the autofocus gloms on to anything, even in near-darkness, and
doesn't seem to know the meaning of the word "hunt." The viewfinder is
as bright as life and somewhat *more* contrasty than my own eyes! Very
nice. With its giant handgrip and high-eyepoint finder, plus the fact
that it's large for its weight and thus feels rather light, it's
probably the most comfortable camera I've ever used, for whatever that's
worth. And it gets my second-place award for Best Noise during its
shutter release...second only to the M6 and its bretheren. Which--yes,
y'all--are unparalleled, as I need not even bother to say.

For a number of years now I've been interested in making photography
_less_ easy...learning to pre-focus an M6 by feel and eye judgement,
learning to expose film in an M4 without carrying a meter, learning how
to deal with older and used lenses of more restricted performance than
modern ones, learning how to do everything with a 50mm lens to the
exclusion of other focal lengths. These have been useful challenges to
me personally. The Nikon is just the opposite experience--it makes
photography very easy again. At this point, this is something that feels
extraordinarily luxurious to me, and I admit I'm basking in it...for the
time being, anyway.

My credibility here is now officially and totally trashed. I know I
might as well slink away right now, since nobody will ever listen to me
again. <gg>

However, another camera that has impressed me far out of proportion to
its reputation is the R3. Ever since its introduction, this camera has
been saddled with, and tainted by, its status as the first "Japanese"
Leica, from a time when Japanese manufacture still had a slight aroma of
cheapness, flimsiness, and lack of prestige clinging to it, and Leica's
collusion with Minolta had about it an air of admitting defeat. The R3
has never recovered from that initial reception. It has never had much
of a reputation, as is reflected in its very low prices right now and
its lack of collectability.

From a user's standpoint, however, I find this lack of acceptance and
poor reputation almost totally groundless. I am really surprised by this
camera. By today's standards--with polycarbonate now ubiquitous--the R3
is a TANK, solid and hefty. It may have seemed "lightweight" or cheaper
compared to the SL and SL2, but even compared to the R4-R7 and certainly
in comparison to the average Wunderplastik of today it comes off very
well indeed in this regard. The viewfinder is exceptionally bright, the
smooth analog needle has the look of bygone-era quality, and the shutter
release and action is very pleasing indeed--very solid and smooth.
Winding is a bit light but certainly smooth.

The exposure system strikes me as nearly perfect for an AE SLR. Again,
we have to remember the historical context--the R3 came out in an era
when "multi-mode" cameras were the hot, coming thing, and many cameras
had only one mode--witness the "matched set" of different cameras
centered around the best-selling shutter-priority Canon AE-1 that each
had only one exposure mode. Cameras that offered more and more modes
were all the rage, and were driving the market. And remember how "space
age" the Canon A-1 seemed? Remember when every new camera HAD to have
program mode simply to survive in the marketplace? We can smile, but
only in retrospect. In context, at that time, the R3's choice of only
centerweighted aperture-priority AE or spot AEL might have seemed not
quite at the cutting edge, easily dismissed. But now that all that
"mode-mania" has calmed down, and all exposure modes (aperture-priority,
shutter-priority, manual, and program) are commonplace even on cheap
cameras, the R3's sensible, restrained, but cunning combination seems
just perfect to me. I would rank it second only to Maitani's excellent
system on the OM-4T for ideal usability in an SLR.

Like most cameras of its vintage, the R3 is getting a little old now,
with mint samples fewer and further between, and electronic failures are
more common than in newer cameras of its relative price-point. But I
think it is a victim of an overwhelming perception problem that it has
never been able to overcome--but that is fundamentally simply WRONG when
the camera is placed more objectively in context. It's really quite a
wonderful camera. At the prices it sells for today, it is a flat-out
steal. I'll bet in 10 years, R3 prices will have skyrocketed. Bookmark
that crystal ball.

And I won't even get into the fact that I rank the R lens line higher
than the M line on my list of the world's best lens lines. (Oops!
"Pandora's Box Effect" begins!)

I imagine I have only a day or two left on the LUG before I depart
again--my workload and e-mail traffic just don't allow me to linger very
long. But one more comment I mustn't forget to add is that I agree
wholeheartedly with Dan Khong's astute assessment of what you want in a
portrait lens. And no, a Softar filter won't get you there. A great
portrait lens is something to be truly prized--they are rare, and they
are never "sharpness champs."

Skulking away,

- --Lowdown Wuthless F100-Using Mike