RE: [Leica] Are leica users Luddites??

["Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk@lucent.com>]

These are your words Erwin, not mine.  You make some good points, but some
of the fallacies were not part of the discussion.  As I remember, and please
correct me if I am wrong, Zeiss screwed up in the 35mm market because they
refused to recognize that people did not want a shutter in every lens.
Doing this made their lenses expensive heavy and slow.  Zeiss made some
great glass, as Leica does, but sometimes that's not enough.

Peter K

- -----Original Message-----
From: imxputs [mailto:imxputs@knoware.nl]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 4:03 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Cc: imxputs@knoware.nl
Subject: [Leica] Are leica users Luddites??


The current AF versus MF (manual focus, not medium format) discussion is
based 
on  a remarkable underlying assumption, most forcefully presented by Peter
K. 
This assumtion seems to be that you must embrace modern technology whenever 
that is available and that in photographic technology the autofocus
mechanism 
embodies modern technology to the full. The logical argument then is simple.

Leica has no AF, therefore it is obsolete, as AF alternatives are available 
and by implication using a Leica is being anti-technology.   
The first fallacy is of course to equate modern high technology with AF. Or
to 
assume that any product that could be equipped with AF but does not have it,

is old technology.
The second fallacy is to state that not employing the most recent technology

is per definition being anti high tech. 
The third fallacy is to assume that AF as a technique has added value to
every 
kind of photography and that any photographer who takes pictures without
using 
AF is a product from the 19 th century.
The fourth fallacy is to state that modern photography is adequately defined

as action photography (or sports photography). Indeed a topic where AF if
not 
a must is a most welcome supporting technique.
The fifth fallacy is to assume that any 35mm camera must be useable for all 
kinds of picture taking and be good at it for the full 100% per specialized 
field.

To bring some history in the debate (or better exchange of views) consider
the 
famous Contarex. Introduced in 1959 is had a very advanced specification for

its day. It lacked one item: interchangeable viewfinders. The Nikon F had 
interchangeable viewfinders and so everybody cried that the Contarex was not
a 
professional camera becaues it missed an item the other camera, the paragon
of 
a profssional camera, had. BUT; the stated goal of the Zeiss designers was
not 
to build a clone of the Nikon F or to build a camera that competed for the 
same group of users. The Zeiss people had in mind a different concept of
35mm 
photography.   They wished to produce the best built 35mm camera in the
world 
with technical specifications to be able to compete image wise with the 
Hasselblad. (Another non AF camera only for anti technology idiots). Zeiss 
wanted to build the 35mm equivalent of a Hasselblad, technical but also 
thematically. The camera was excellent for the same kinds of picture taking 
you could do with a Hasselblad: fashion, portrait, studio, closeups, 
landscapes, architecture and human interest photoraphy.

Now to zoom in on today. The R8 is a camera (system) that covers almost the 
area as the Contarex once did. The R8 is an excellent and sometimes superior

image producing tool for a broad spectrum of themes (human interest,
portrait, 
studio, fashion, architecture etc.) It is good at action photography if you 
master some technique (as Ted and Eric tells us) but it not the tool par 
excellence in this field. To assume that AF makes a camera a modern one and 
that non-AF makes a camera oldfashioned or obsolete is the same as saying
that 
reading a book is an old fashioned technology because a mindmelt would be
the 
high tech way to transfer ideas.


Erwin