Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/07/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]There are some strong similarities between owning high-end hi-fi and top quality camera equipment. Both have a 'professional' cachet about them, even though the majority of users are not professionals per se. Pride in ownership, the knowledge that you don't run with the mainstream pack, and build quality far above run-of-the-mill products all add to the experience. So does the performance, which is far above those regular products, or at least that's the perception of the owner of the high-end hi-fi/camera/watch/whatever. Trawling around the hi-fi shows, one notices a number of - admittedly predominantly male - high-enders who seem to share the same interests. I cannot cound the number who wear Swiss watches, use Leicas (although a fair number seem to wear both as fashion accessories) or know the best place to buy a good Cohiba. Is this all overkill? Could the owner of an SME Model 30 turntable or a Krell Audio Standard power amplifier tell it apart from less expensive kit in blind listening? Or could the average Leica owner tell a photograph made on a Leica M6 apart from one made on a Samsung compact? We'd all like to think so and in as near scientific tests as any commercial magazine can muster we find there are differences in both subjective and objective perofrmance. But the actual result is unimportant if you believe there is an improvement. Good hi-fi won't make one a better listener or improve one's recordings, but neither will a good camera make one a better photographer. Avedon has often limited his new students first assignment to a photo booth (it's a remarkably useful exercise) and a good photographer will get good pictures from even the nastiest camera (perhaps this is why the best musicians often have the poorest hi-fi). That said, there is no sense in using second-best tools for the job.