[Leica] More nattering from Johnston

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

Erwin Puts: >>>>>>
I never made any comment about people liking the feel and handling of
any Leica. Feelings are not at issue.
<<<<<<

...But they are for me, Erwin. I said that's what I was talking about.

EP: >>>>>>
Mike concludes: "But at the summit of the contest for 'best' tactile
and visual quality--the feel, the look, the sense of it--I just don't
think it can be argued that some of the older equipment was more
precise, better machined, more luxurious, and of better finish."
As I said above, we were not in a contest of which camera feels best...
A feel of a camera might inspire confidence and admiration, but the
assessment of its
engineering is a QC and shop act, not a gutfeeling
<<<<<<

In that case, most of the praises ever written of the M are invalid.
Many users value such intangibles highly. Just today, Godfrey DiGiorgi
gives us his impressions: "The M6 is delightful...All the controls, the
wind and shutter, operate with a seductive, silky smooth, positive feel
that is so right...." This is typical of the way users respond to the
kind of "quality" I've been talking about...subjectively.

Further, this "look and feel of quality" is a large part of the
rationale for the Leica. So I don't believe I'm off base to be
critiquing Leicas on the basis of it. Why otherwise are we not all out
photographing with Minolta X700s and 50mm f/1.7 Rokkors or something
similar, and saving our money? The world is awash in compact,
manual-focus cameras with good, fast lenses.

Furthermore, there are many countervaling cases in photography where
"good" engineering has very tight tolerances and works very well, yet
looks cheap and feels bad. In fact, we are surrounded by examples all
the time, and these are among the reasons why people take pleasure in
their Leicas. It does make a difference to people that a polycarbonate
lens creaks and wiggles, even if its performance is not compromised.

EP: >>>>>
I do agree as I noted in my 1997 post that current Leica products
have been subject to some measures of manufacturing rationalization,
which in my view is not equal to saying that the current products are
shoddy, a joke or less well buil[t].
<<<<<

I think we agree on this. Here's what I said:

"Neither am I saying that current Leica lenses are "cheap" or
that the current M6 is a lousy camera. Far, far from it--Leica lenses
are generally about the best-made lenses you can buy, and the M6,
because it offers such an excellent meter that cannot be left on the
shelf at home, is the best Leica M ever made. It has a wonderful feel
and great quality."

Perhaps in general I should have been more careful with my language, and
confine myself to statements I can support:

1. I have used both the M4 and the M6. To me, as a matter of
connoisseurship and without quantifying performance, the M4 looks and
feels better;

and

2. I have used both the older f/2.8 50mm Elmar and the current f/2.8
50mm Elmar-M. To me, as a matter of connoisseurship and and without
quantifying performance, the new lens seems cheaper and less pleasing by
comparison.

There were several things I also said that I cannot support with
objective evidence. I said, among other things, that the M4 was the last
M camera to be built as if cost were no object. Erwin objects to such
statements and I think rightly so. I presented speculative conclusions
as facts. I admit that was wrong, not just with this conclusion but
several others as well.

I will still stand my ground, however, with regard to connoisseurship
and statements 1 and 2. Perhaps Erwin and I are at cross purposes here
because of conflicting definitions of the word "quality." He is talking
about engineering quality, which he reasonably insists must be
quantifiable, and I'm talking about aesthetic quality, which I
reasonably insist is evident to the senses upon examination and use of
the device.

I should also point out first that Erwin and I have discussed our
difference privately, in a friendly fashion, and clarified our areas of
agreement and of disagreement. I offered to withdraw from any further
discussion if there was a chance he would take any offense, and he
assured me there is no need to do so. I don't want people to have any
impression that these arguments include personal rancor between Erwin
and I; they don't. Even if I do find myself in agreement with Stephen
Gandy on the substance of old v. new.

                                *   *   *

I was beginning to feel such a pinching in my soul from my own nattering
disputatiousness here that I had to go into the darkroom just now and
blast out half a dozen prints. No fiddly crap: look at the neg, nail the
time; look at the contact sheet, nail the contrast. Good workprints, my
favorite part of the process. It made me feel better.

I have an emotional attachment to this art of making small
black-and-white prints showing the blackline, of subjects snatched from
life and on the fly, even to the grays and the grain of Tri-X and the
blur of the lens. It's a visceral thing at this point, not entirely
voluntary. Call it sublimated narcissism or Pavlovian response or simply
a mental habit, but I really love these pictures I can make--actual
impressions of light on film from the rows of days I'll spend in the
world, souvenirs of sights I've seen. I perceive it all as a whole, and
it includes the parts I cannot measure. Bottom line is, I really love
classic 35mm photography.

I can't defend that; it's just the way it is for me.

- --Mike