Re: Mr. Puts' Thoughts

[Dan Cardish <dcardish@microtec.net>]

I don't think its fair to say that the Leica was built for a certain type of
photography.  The camera has been around too long to be able to lump it into
one catagory or another.  Perhaps I am wrong, but my reading between the
lines of Mr. Puts letter suggests that the only proper use of a Leica is
'street photography'.   I am certain that there were times when it was used
as a point and shoot camera by (well heeled) amateurs as well as by
photojournalists.  It was the only game in town.   I have baby pictures of
myself taken by my father with a borrowed Leica  (probably a IIIC) in the
mid fifties.  What other camera would he have used back then at that quality
level?  Today he probably would be using a top of the line Nikon for the
same pictures, or maybe a cheap point and shoot, or worse, a camcorder.
Does this mean that taking baby pictures is not a proper use for a Leica
nowadays, when it was perfectly acceptable in 1955?  I've seen pictures of
sporting events where all of the photojournalists have Leicas around their
necks.  Nowadays it most likely will be Canon SLR's.    It may not be
profitable for a Leica toting photojournalist to try to compete with
motorized autofocused cameras, but does this now mean that using an M-Leica
at the Olympics (for example) is not a proper usage of the camera?

Dan C.