[Leica] "State of the Art"

[John McLeod <johnmcleod@worldnet.att.net>]

Adrian,

In a sense, I can't really disagree with your comment that even for "those
for whom
money is no object Canon and Nikon define the state of the art".  If state
of the art means fast auto-focus, motor drives, and matrix metering, then,
sure, Nikon and Canon are the leaders.

But after using a Canon EOS1n and Nikon F5 for a while, I am convinced that
these technologies cause us to photograph differently, and not necessarily
better, except for a select set of conditions when speed and
auto-calculation are everything.  For many photographers, these state of the
art capabilities can be detrimental to their photography.  The standard
response is, "well you can manually focus an F5 if you want and you can
manually meter", etc.  True, but IMHO, these cameras are not set up well
ergonomically for this approach.

While there is not much to criticize about Canon's and Nikon's offerings, I
found myself thinking far too often about how the camera was set or how I
should set it.  Am I in
Dynamic Focus?  Should I be in Dynamic Focus?  And geez, I love Single Servo
and focusing with the shutter button for static subjects, but if somethings
happens, I need to quickly change to Continuous and Custom Function 4.  And
man, that Matrix IS good, but what's it going to do here?  This is an
important shot, better go out of Matrix.   But hmmm, I've been in Matrix all
day, and I'm not altogether sure what the center-weighted meter is going to
do here.

While I didn't have the F5 that long, I knew that camera cold.  I wasn't
confused by when to use what.  I knew how every custom function worked,
better in some areas, in fact, that many heralded Nikon experts with Web
pages, etc.  And I liked the camera quite a lot.  But in some ways, I
photographed less well with it.  For example, autofocus simply doesn't work
well for off-center, moving subjects.  If the subject is moving very fast,
from sensor to sensor on the F5, the F5 will maintain focus.  But it can't
hold the focus on a slower moving subject that is moving from sensor to
sensor in a random way (e.g. a child walking around the backyard, this way
and that).

Sorry about the long diatribe here, but just because "most people" think
auto-everything defines State of the Art in photography, doesn't make it so.
 Leicas are so different from Canons and Nikons that it is difficult to
compare them.  They aren't trying to be the same thing.  Another good
example of this problem is the whole M6 vs. Contax G2 debate.  Heck, the G2
does almost everything.  Does it define the State of the Art in 35mm
rangefinder camera design?

John McLeod




- ----------
From: "adrian bradshaw" <abpeking@public.bta.net.cn>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica-Users List Digest V3 #31
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 11:00:22 +0800


Eric wrote - 
>

>Excuse me? Hear of the S1? It's THE state of the art studio digital camera.
>Leica through and through. And even uses Hassleblad, Rollei and other MF
>lenses as well as all M and R lenses.

Yes I have heard of the S1 and it is impressive but it is hardly Leica
through and through - where in the Leica tradition does a state of the art
studio camera fit? and is the S1 anything more than a mock up? I mean have
they actually put it on the market and is anybody buying it? My impression
and that of the people in the business of selling Leicas I have spoken with
is that it is nothing more than a design project. And I would have to add
that Sinar have digital studio cameras that are streets ahead of the S1 and
are selling widely - even in China!

I would also contend that the 70-180 is state of the art only in imaging
performance and that is really not the be-all and end-all of 'state of the
art': it may be sufficient for certain hobbyists and a tiny proportion of
the pro market but for the majority it is clear that even those for whom
money is no object Canon and Nikon define the state of the art. Don't get me
wrong - I know that Leica makes wonderful lenses and in many cases the
optical quality more than compensates for the other deficiencies but lets
not kid ourselves that they are really pushing the envelope in optical
technology. The distinction IMHO is simply that they make a niche product
that suits us: it is like comparing Aston Martin to Mercedes and I know
which I would prefer and I also know which is (relatively) 'state of the
art' in engineering.

Bests

Adrian