Re: [Leica] Mythology v Reality - A Call For A Thoughtful Discussion

["Joe Stephenson" <joeleica@email.msn.com>]

DearB. D.
I thought my D-28 was the M6 of guitars. Could it be the M3? Please advise;
I'm confused.
Joe Stephenson
- -----Original Message-----
From: B. D. Colen <BDColen@earthlink.net>
To: Leica-Users@Mejac. Palo-Alto. Ca. Us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Thursday, October 29, 1998 5:55 AM
Subject: [Leica] Mythology v Reality - A Call For A Thoughtful Discussion


>I'll preface this by saying I love my M6, loved my M3 and M2 back when,
even
>the IIIc I started with. The M6 is unquestionably the best camera there is
>in terms of long-term reliability, quiet, accuracy of focusing in low
light,
>etc. The lenses I use - 35 Summilux ASPH, 50 Summicron (German from the
70s)
>and 90 SUmmicron M are wonderful. But...
>
>I spent some time the other evening looking for the umpteenth time at my
>little Aperture HCB book. What struck me was how many not-quite in focus
>shots there were. How soft the lenses used for many of the photos were. And
>how what makes these photos great has nothing to do with technical
>excellence of equipment, but of vision. What makes these great photos are
>the framing, the balance, the subjects, the capturing of the decisive
>moment, the seeing of something another person with the same or better
>equipment might stare directly at and never see.
>
>I will have the timmerity to suggest that there is no "magical" quality to
>the old Leica lenses, just lack of modern sharpness. Perhaps what we wax so
>endlessly and elequently about is not this mythical Leica something that
the
>lenses had, but the fact that we are a bit put off by the razor sharpness
of
>image created by the modern lenses we run out to buy as they come off the
>designer's bench. Yes, I love the Summilux ASPh. Yes, it's flare
suppression
>is unparalleled, and it creates images upon which I can cut my fingers. On
>the other hand, how much lighter and smaller is the previous 35 Summilux.
>And how many staggeringly good photos did it create, how many images in
>Requiem were made with it?
>
>HCB, Eugene Smith, Capa, et al, made images we all revere with lenses that
>today sell used for less than $500 and "don't hold a candle" to today's
>optics.
>
>Isn't it possible that the "magical" quality of the Leica was its
uniqueness
>as a photographic instrument - (I'm not ignoring Zeiss here, Marc :-) )-
the
>fact that it allowed photographers, as I have noted before, to go where no
>(camera) man had gone, and shoot what none had shot; the fact that it
>allowed the capturing of the decisive moment for the first time. The fact
>that it became identified with all that, and was therefore thought to be
the
>ideal, if not the only, instrument capable of doing all that, even when
>other excellent equipment came along.
>
>So what's my point? I'm not really sure. Except to say that while most of
>our equipment discussions are extremely valuable, and the comradship
created
>by this list is truly wonderful thing, we sometimes seem to forget that if,
>like the vast majority of today's outstanding photographers, people like
Ted
>and Eric and Tina and Jim and etc. were not using Leicas, they'd still be
>making terrific images.
>
>On the other hand, I (sort of) play a Martin D-35 guitar, the M6 of
acoustic
>guitars - and that doesn't begin to make me an HCB of the steel-string
>guitar. It makes it a happy guitarist. It makes me sound as good as I
>possibly can. But it still doesn't make me a player anyone would want to
>waste time listening to.
>
>So..."Talk amongst yourselves..." :-)
>