Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/10/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]"I have a Contax SLR with several lenses that I use in my research laboratory and am impressed with the quality of the images it produces, but have never felt any special interest towards this tool. I cannot even recall its model number; I just use the thing. This is probably the right way to treat cameras. However, I do not practice my own preaching when it comes to my Leica rangefinders. I treat and love them almost as if they are my children." I think Glenn Robinson has captured the Leica mystique beautifully in that quote. So many cameras come and go. They have no personality, no identity. Many have fancy features, which, when it comes to the basic technique of photography, amount to nothing. And most do take good pictures, at least from a technical point of view: they have sharp lenses, accurate shutters and do manage to hold the film flat. But how many last? How many really help the photographer to see into creation with the kind of power a real artist needs to have? Only a handful. Personally, I wouldn't trade my M2 for an M6, my unmetered Nikon F for an F5 or, for that matter, any other 35mm cameras. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read that some Leica users want Leica to come out with an M7, a camera with an electronic shutter and various other technological "advancements." Why? So they can have a $5000 point & shoot!? Don't they realize that the essence of a Leica is the very fact that it IS so simple? Frankly, I think it's tragic that Leica no longer makes an "M" without a built-in meter. Do they think the only reason that people have M2s, M3s & M4s is because they can't afford M6s?! Has it ever occurred to them that perhaps the M2 is a purer, finer tool than the M6 and that's why some people choose it? If Leica should do anything it should be to remake the M2, precisely as it was made in 1959. (Of course, it would cost twice as much as an M6 to make it as well as they made it then!) Of all the great camera manufacturers, it seems that only Hasselblad understands the value of manual cameras. IMHO it's the beginners, the rich amateurs and the hack pros who are so entranced with technology-in other words, the ones with the least vision and the sloppiest technique. They want the camera to compensate for their own inadequacies. They look for the camera with the most metering modes, with the best autofocus, the fastest motor drive. They search through chemical catalogs and photo recipe books for esoteric developers and toners. They compare resolution test charts (and prices) to find which is the "best" lens. They study the Zone System before they learn the "Sunny 16" rule. Then they take their junky images, scan them and manipulate them in PhotoShop. They forget (or never knew) that most of the greatest pictures ever taken were taken with manual, unmetered cameras and common materials. Cartier-Bresson, Gene Smith, Edward Weston, Paul Strand, etc. These people used cameras that most photographic technophiles would turn their noses up at. Screw mount Leicas, wooden 8x10's with clunky shutters and uncoated lenses, etc. And they didn't need built-in meters because they understood exposure. Last year I purchased a 10" WF Ektar for my old Deardorff. I wanted to save a few bucks so I got one with "polishing marks" on the front element. Only later did I discover what magic this lens is able to create, polishing marks and all. Needless to say, I wouldn't trade it for a modern lens under any circumstances. Most of today's equipment feels dead and sterile to me. Soulless. Not so my M2, my "F", my old 8x10 outfit. They let me do what I do best: make photographs. In other words, they get out of the way. And how few cameras are able to do that. Peter Hughes Raven Visionary Arts