Re: [Leica] Available light and leica M

[Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net>]

At 08:03 PM 1998-10-08 +0200, Erwin Puts, man of worth and repute, wrote:
>In the early days of Leica photography the highest aperture lenses were NOT
>be offerd by Leica, but by Zeiss for the Contax, the best example of an
>anti-HCB style camera (excuse me Marc, no offense intended). It is
>interesting to propose the idea that the higher apertures for the Contax
>were needed as the camera was clumsier to use. (we need Marc for an answer).
>

First, let me point out the obvious, that I am perhaps the only member of
this list who has photographed with virtually all of this gear, from the
Contax I and a Leica Standard clear up to an M6 and modern Contax SLR's.  I
like 'em all, though my natural bent always leans towards a rangefinder
over an SLR.

Second, the Contax I is not as clumsy as its reputation would have us
think.  It is not as svelte or user-friendly as the Leica Standard or II,
its main competitors, but the differences are minor, and the Contax offers
some advantages, including a wider shutter-speed range and "better" lenses.  

Third, the Contax was clearly designed (by Emmanuel Goldberg, incidentally,
one of the Jews later shielded by Zeiss) to overcome the many virtues of
the Leica -- it preceded Leica with interchangeable lenses, slow speeds, a
self-timer, and an inbuilt rangefinder, and offered such niceties as a
higher top speed and faster lenses.

Fourth, the Contax was designed as a general system, as was the Leica.
Neither were intended for purely natural-light use though the Leica
probably holds a slight edge in that regard.  But both are fine general-use
cameras.  The last Contax RF was produced some 38 years gone by, but I do
occasionally use mine on that most amazingly adaptable tool, the Metz 45CL-4.

Fifth, most of this will be discussed in a forthcoming book I am working on
with another.  But research keeps interfering:  every time I look to the
two rival lines, I can see why Leitz did this, or Zeiss Ikon did that.  And
I keep buying things.  How can I write a book, when playing around with
equipment and analyzing results in the darkroom is so much more fun?

Which system do I prefer?  I love the Contax RF and the Contax lenses:  I
wish Erwin would analyze the 1.5/5cm CZJ Sonnar, as I BELIEVE (note:  a
matter of faith!) mine rival, though probably do not equal, my 1.4/50
Summilux.  I like the Contax inbuilt meter, especially the Postwar IIIa's.
And the 2/85 CZJ Sonnar is a stunningly wonderful lens.

Much as I like Zeiss, and Zeiss Ikon, I shoot Leica far more than Contax.
I often shoot Zeiss lenses on my Leica's, but I still prefer the Leica
bodies, be they LTM or M's.

The Baptists in this neck of the woods chant "love the sinner, hate the
sin".  Well, Prewar Leica users might well have chanted, in a similar vein,
"love the camera, hate the lenses", as only the 3.5/5cm and 4/9cm Elmars
were truly adequate optics (and I have used a slew of these:  the lamented
Alf Bruell and I went round and round about the Summar, which he liked, but
I do not).  It wasn't until the Summitar appeared in '39 that Leitz
produced a decent, relatively fast, normal optic, and the 1.5/8.5cm and
5.6/3.5cm were stopgaps, at the best.

Well, stay tuned for my forthcoming book:  the analysis of corporate
politics defines the history of Leica as much as does hot glass and cold
prints.

Marc

msmall@roanoke.infi.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!