Re: [Leica] I've done it again....

[Ruralmopics@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/19/99 12:00:38 AM, michaeljohnston@ameritech.net writes:

<<The fact is: I don't consider the Leica a pro camera . . . 
Why would anybody have to argue that it's a mainstream choice of
professionals when obviously it isn't anywhere close?
 >>

The whole "pro" camera thing is so nebulous. As I was first exposed to 
photojournalism I thought a "pro" camera was a Nikon F2 or Canon F1 because 
they were expensive and had interchangeable viewfinders. Then in the late 70s 
a bunch of pros started using Olympus OM equipment because it was so light. I 
guess that made them "pro" cameras because pros were using them. Later when I 
worked in camera stores I met a lot of pros who were using Hasselblads and 
RB67s and Sinars and, well, you name it. When I saw that there were even 
"pro's" who used a Polaroid 600 -- that really made my head tilt. It 
surprised me that "pros" were using Mamiya 645s but they were. I looked at 
the fine publication that Minolta put out -- the Minolta Mirror -- and 
learned that some pros used Minoltas. Why, I even had one "pro" photographer, 
a well respected sports guy who told me he used Nikon FG bodies. When one 
broke he tossed it and grabbed another out of his trunk.

Are Leicas pro cameras? In the hands of a pro they are. They are certainly 
well made enough to qualify under ANY standard of "pro" camera. But the long 
history of documentary photojournalists who have relied on them have placed 
them in the "Pro Camera Hall of Fame." Are they primarily sold to pros? Of 
course not. So what? It's a stupid distinction anyway. Forget it.

Bob (do you have a license to use that "pro" camera, Mister?) McEowen