re: emotive lenses ... or is it emotive photographers?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi <ramarren@apple.com>]

Not that I know much about optical design and glass formulation,
but Leica lenses have a very nice characteristic which is different
from Nikon lenses which is different from Zeiss lenses which is
different from Schneider lenses ... etc, etc. and so on.
I like Leica lenses, they have a nice feel. I also like Nikon,
Zeiss, Schneider, Canon glass ... they have attributes that are
excellent as well. Which I choose to work with depends upon my
mood and what I want to shoot.

If they were all the same, what would be the point of having
any one over another? Either you find a lens' characteristics
satisfying or you don't. Either it's sharp, or fuzzy, enough
to get you what you want.

Taking pictures that are emotive and special is an art which
transcends the glass and the camera.

>In what you say, the case is made: on the complex flagship teles
>that pros need, Nikon and Canon do spend the money. On a 50 mm.
>low-end lens, they don't--so you get a low-quality, poorly built
>piece.  Others fit somewhere in between.  

I take some exception at calling a Nikon or Canon lens 
"low-quality, poorly built". Even the el-cheap Nikkor
50mm f/1.8 E series lens I bought at a flea market 10 
years ago for $30 produces flawless pictures after being
pounded with a 4fps motor drive for the past 10 years. 
No Nikkor lens I've ever purchased can be said to be
low-quality or poorly built, they've all done me up to
18 years of brilliant service so far with no end in
sight. And most were bought used, already thrashed by
pros. They are still in great shape.

>amateur photographers often think that people pictures are taken
>by sneaking up on them with a long lens, as SLR's permit, but in
>fact this is unpleasant for the subjects.  You have to work right
>in the heart of things and interact with your subjects 

Right there lies the truth of it as far as I'm concerned. A Leica
M is reasonably unobtrusive compared to an Nikon F5 or Canon EOS-1,
but how you use the camera is every bit as important as the camera's
appearance. The M is quiet and doesn't have a big lens sticking 
out of it, so it's easier to be unobtrusive. I find a smaller
camera even better: some of my very best people pictures have 
been done with a Rollei 35 and an Olympus Stylus. 

In all of it, each of these cameras and lenses have 
a personality and a sensitive photographer works to get the
most out of whatever it might be.

I personally like doing people photography with 20-50mm 
focal lengths, most usually 35-50mm. It lets me get in with 
the subjects and interact with them. More dedicated portraiture
and scenics I do with 85-135mm, sports needs the long long 
lenses usually. Graphic stuff tends to the wide and the 
very long.

>with an M,
>and they accept your presence.   I have another, simpler
>explanation to suggest, based on my own experience:  I think
>people these days react to a Leica M, especially in black, as if
>it were a point and shoot.  SLR's, especially pro ones like the
>Canon EOS-1 and the Nikon F4 and 5, have become huge and
>intimidating machines--think of an EOS-1 equipped with their
>excellent f2.8 28-70, for instance.  The contrast with the M is
>tremendous.

The big guns in the SLR world have, in my opinion, distanced
themselves from the fine art photographer's needs by size, 
complexity and just plain too much stuff. My Nikon FMs, on
the other hand, are small, light and reasonably unobtrusive,
about as much so as my Leica M is (was... I just sold it). 

Hmm, I think I'll do a people show exclusively with Leica 
Minizoom, Rollei 35 and Nikon One Touch. And I'll ask the 
judges to tell me what cameras they think the pictures 
were made with.

Godfrey