Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/07/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>So, if you and I were not biased and "polluted" by old fashioned habits, >we might feel very secure with such systems, forget about the tech >decisions and concentrate on the main things. Which are not the tweaking >of settings. I came into photography "polluted" by auto-SLRs. I had borrowed my father's Canon Rebel to take to China where I was doing field work. I thought it was great, but the lens wasn't that sharp and the camera was l-o-u-d (almost got me shot on the North Korean border, but that's a different story). I knew when I returned that I wanted to know more about photography and I wanted a better lens. I ended up with a Nikon 8008s and a 50/1.4 (as well as a couple of zooms; I hadn't yet equated low quality with cheap, variable aperture zooms. I figured Nikon would just be better than Canon. Neophytes have some very screwy ideas.) I didn't learn much about photography with that camera. I did learn that it was apt to fail (and did) in cool weather (battery voltage fluctuation--> exposures off, condensation shut down the electronics as well--a complete meltdown). I also learned that it was inherently noisy. And that 50/1.4 was really ugly wide open. Then I read an article on the Leica Mystique in Creative Camera and Darkroom Technique. I wasn't as impressed by the mystique as I was by the practical advantages of the M, and by the quality of the lenses. I rented an M6 with 50 Summicron and gave it a try. It was intimidating but exciting. I shot a whole roll at a friend's soccer game. I had loaded it wrong and didn't notice that the rewind crank wasn't turning. I had no photos. I was thoroughly impressed by the operation of the camera, however. I rented it a couple more times and became convinced that it was what I was looking for. Since having the M I've realized what a disservice the auto-SLRs have done to amateur photographers. They are great tools for some situations, but are oversold. What the world needs is a budget manual rangefinder with a good 50mm lens (the K1000 of rangefinders). It doesn't have to be built like a tank. It needs to cost about $300-400 new, have a simple meter, framelines for 35, 50, and 90mm lenses, and the basic controls of the M. Use some plastic parts, build it outside of Germany, sacrifice some of the size and clarity of the current rangefinder mechanism. Well, this won't happen, but it is too bad that a person has to be so lucky and persistent to stumble upon rangefinder photography. - -Charlie