Re: Visoflex vs SLR

[Godfrey DiGiorgi <ramarren@apple.com>]

My first Leica I inherited from my father when he died. It was
a IIIf (RD) and came in a very complete kit with 50/2
Summicron, 35mm Elmar, and 135mm Hektor, a Visoflex and
bellows, short and rangefinder mounts for the 135, etc etc. At
the time, I also owned a Nikon F, an extension tube set, a
55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor and an 85/1.8 Nikkor lens (amongst others).

There is absolutely no comparison in ease of use between the
Visoflex and an SLR. The SLR wins hands down every time, even
without considering TTL metering or flash circuitry. It's far
more convenient and precise, has a brighter viewfinder, and on
a professional series camera like a Nikon F, the choice of
prism, waist level finder, high magnification finder, and
various focusing screens for different purposes and focal
lengths completely outstrips the Leica RF/Visoflex in
flexibility.

On the other hand, my father was a dental surgeon and used the
Leica/Viso with ring light strobe for years to record the oral
reconstruction work which he was a master at. It was a
professional quality tool when he purchased the system in 1954
when there were scarce 35mm reflex cameras of comparable
quality. I enjoyed using it for many things, but it was never
my first choice when I had to do precise close up work or long
focus lensed general photography. The SLR was just far better 
suited to these tasks.

When dad passed away, he was considering buying a Nikon F like
mine to replace the Leica in his office as he saw a superior tool 
for this work. I wish he had lived to own and enjoy one as he loved
photography and fine cameras as much, if not more, than I do.
He never lost sight of the fact that a camera is a tool first,
and that a better tool for the job was not a reflection on the
quality of the camera alone.

To me, a Leica RF camera is a superb instrument for certain
types of photography, but its flexibility is limited by comparison
with SLRs available now and there are other cameras with equal
or superior qualities for the range of things that I would select
a Leica RF for. This heresy does not mean that I don't love them
dearly, I hold them as an almost religiously sacred instrument,
but they just don't provide me with the kind of utility that 
other cameras which cost far less do. And the pictures don't look
significantly different enough to cover the difference.

Godfrey