[Leica] I didn't say that!

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

Ahh, Erwin! You made it ALMOST all the way through your lovely message
with a dispassion and probity that was most dazzling. You only allowed
emotion to creep in at the very last line!

I've archived your message; 'twas eloquent, good, and true.

I also don't disagree with anything you've said, except I think that bit
about suicide was a bit, er, passionate.

Mark Davison's post is also excellent (I trust he posted it to the group
and not just to me; I only get the digest).

My litttle post was a "rant" and labelled as such, not a considered
exegesis of my core beliefs.

To continue to refine the debate, of course I do not believe some of the
things that seem to have been ascribed to me in some of the follow-up
discussion (shame on you, Roger; I _never_said_ "all lens testing is
ridiculous," which you put in quotes as if I had).

I'm naturally not "against" lens designers, optical science,
objectivity, intellect, the family, or virtue. I take an enthusiastic
interest in lenses--it's probably my greatest purely technical interest
in photography.

The point I'm addressing has more to do with emotionality and snobbery.
The ideas I object to are that 1. "goodness" in a lens used for
expressive photography can be defined technically; 2. that one lens can
be said to be absolutely "better" than another even though the
parameters of intended usage are undefined; and 3. that one lens being
"better" than another makes a whit of difference to anyone but pure
snobs when and if the difference cannot be detected in the results,
i.e., in pictures.

Among other things.

Photography is a craft, and any craft has technical features. But most
crafts also convey aesthetic impressions through the finished product.
The problem is that objective evaluation of the technical properties and
subjective evaluation of the aesthetic impressions DO NOT CORRELATE back
and forth between them as regards quality. Not absolutely, anyway.

This is a fancy way of saying that the technique can suck and the
picture can still be great, and also _vice versa_, the technique can be
absolutely perfect but the picture can still suck.

Of course, I would be the first to admit that it works the other way
'round as well: what would otherwise have been a good photograph can be
ruined by poor technique or inferior equipment, and sometimes great
technique can be all or most of what makes a picture enjoyable.

Yes, the two DO influence each other. Good workers take technical
properties into account when judging subjective aesthetic impressions.
Technical and scientific workers of course disregard aesthetic
impression and pay attention to conveying information, so that's not
what I'm talking about here.

Technical properties of lenses do matter to me, of course. I'll even go
further out on a limb here with regard to the original topic, despite
the fact that some people have a tendency to ascribe opinions to me that
I have not stated and to exaggerate claims I do make. In my opinion, the
Olympus 50mm f/2 macro, for one, is a better lens than the Leica 50mm
Summicron-M. Objectively? Measurably? Can't say that. I mean: it looks
sharper, contrastier, and makes better-looking, more impressive, more
vivid pictures with a variety of real films under shooting conditions.
I'd think that anybody--and any of you--could see it in a direct
comparison. Yes, I've done the direct comparisons.

And it's not a lens I own or use, so you can't claim I'm merely trying
to justify myself, my pictures, or my purchases (which is what I think a
few folks are doing when they make insufferable claims about their Leica
lenses, dismissing everything else under the sun).

You'll remember that all this began because I labelled as propaganda a
phrase that's been kicking around for decades now--which may never have
actually been used by the company, but which has been repeated
critically and uncritically for years. So now that I've got your ear,
Erwin, answer these two questions for me: first, in your judgement, is
the current Leica Summicron-M the pinnacle of what can be achieved in a
camera lens today? And, second, would it be technically possible for
Leica to build and market today a 50mm f/2 lens that is better from a
purely scientific technical standpoint than the current lens?

- --Mike