Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I agree with B.D. on this one with one exception. The camera of the century is not the Leica Rangefinder, but just the Leica. After all the rangefinder is just a gadget that was added later in its life. The Leica was a beautiful, ground-breaking picture-taking machine even before Herr Barnak laid his ruler across the knobs and said "put it here". That small portable camera with a great lens made everything that came after it possible. It IS the camera of the century. (And I shot with the Argus C3 and Nikon before I bought a Leica) Mike D - -----Original Message----- From: B. D. Colen <bdcolen@earthlink.net> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 12:51 PM Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica Camera of the century? Why! >I have to agree with Eric here....And not because I am a Leica shooter... > >If there is going to be a "camera of the Century" - and, yes, it's a silly >concept - I believe that that camera should be the Leica rangefinder...Not >necessarily because it did or didn't take the most important photos of the >Century, but because it philosophically made them possible. The original >Leica, more than any other camera, physically made possible, and made >possible the idea of, the photographer as unobtrusive observer and recorder >of the human condition. First came the Leica, then came HCB, Eisenstadt, >Capa, etc. etc. etc., and then came the Contax and Nikons and Canons, etc. >etc......This isn't one to loose sleep over, God knows, nor is it one to >take time away from taking photos.....But I do think that, as silly >concepts go, this is a worthwhile one. > >B. D. > >At 08:52 AM 1/12/00 -0800, you wrote: >>Eric, >> >>So do we discount all the wonderful pictures taken with other cameras such >>as a Rolleiflex TLR(i.e., Marilyn Monroe, Buster Keaton as done by Richard >>Avedon), or the photos taken with the Nikon (i.e., JFK, Jr. saluting his dad >>at his funeral)? Granted Leica has been around longer, but it would seem >>logical that more photos were generated with Nikon than with Leica in the >>last 2-3 decades? So then why Leica? >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Eric Welch [mailto:ewelch@neteze.com] >>Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 5:38 PM >>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >>Subject: [Leica] Re: LUGSeveral topics >> >> >>Sometime around 1/11/00 11:00 AM, Erwin Puts at imxputs@knoware.nl mumbled >>something about: >> >> > BJP's contributor Crawley mentioned that the Leica should be camera >> > of the century and I agree with him. >> >>Truer words were never spoken. Leica played no small role in the fact that >>photography was the dominant form of communication in this century. Some >>word herders may begrudge the power of photos, but as I see it, words and >>photos together are more powerful than either alone. But that doesn't deny >>the fact that photography is the visual medium of choice in art and >>commerce. Only in journalism, ironically, where photography's speical >>quality (reporting impartially what the camera sees - note I did not say >>what the photographer sees) is one of it's greatest strengths, regardless of >>the word folks' attempts to keep it in a secondary, service role to words. >>-- >> >>Eric Welch >>Carlsbad, CA >> >>http://www.neteze.com/ewelch >> >>The difficulty now is that unexceptional adults believe the loss of youthful >>dreaming is itself growing up, as though adulthood were the passive >>conclusion to a doomed activity and hope during adolescence. > >