[Leica] What the heck

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

What the heck. Anticipating various snide cracks arising from my message
to Mark Rabiner about Contaxes, I'm going to go ahead and go all the way
out on that limb here, so when I take my fall it will at least be my own
fault. (Sorry, I have a tendency to pursue my metaphors too far <s>.)

I think the Contax Aris is what the R8 should have been.

Think of it. The original Barnack camera was a sub-miniature camera for
its day. When the rangefinder was incorporated in the design, no one had
ever made a rangefinder meachanism so small: but Oscar Barnack himself
was adamant that the basic small size of the original camera not be
appreciably violated. To me, a fundamental and essential part of the
"Leica ethos" is small size. Surely, one of the great defining features
of the M4 / M4-2 / M4-P / M6 is its "perfect" size, neither too big nor
too small, neither too heavy nor too light. With a 35/2 attached, it is
just about as close to ideal in terms of size, weight, and operability
as a small-format picture-taking mechanism comes--am I right?

Imagine you could line up the following cameras on a table: Leica IIIf;
Pentax Spotmatic; Canon EOS-1; Nikon F5. In cameras as in cars,
computers, or anything else, the tendency in "progress" (albeit with
some noticeable downward "dips" in the case of cameras--I know about the
OM-1 and Pentax MX), is towards more power, more features, and greater
size. So, some people may like the size of the R8 (as some people may
like the RTS III).

I think it's just...big and fat. There, I've said it.

Now, I'm not arguing with you if you happen to like it. I'm also not
arguing with you if you like, or don't mind, large cameras; lots of
people do. Fine. What I'm saying is that a LEICA should be on the small
side; it's part of the heritage, past of the original mandate of the
marque. Now look at the Aria. Small. Well-contoured. Very light (about
17 ounces / 480g). And what a marvelous feature set it has: all
business, no crap. Motor-wind built in; unambiguous control layout;
choice of metering options; autobracketing at your fingertips; a great
viewfinder. All features competent but not extreme, modern but not
excessive. Nothing fancy, frilly, or goofy. All business. Like the M6.

Its only problem is that you can't attach R lenses to it, so you can't
have a 35/2, a 28mm shift lens, an f/2 85 or 90, an 80-200/2.8, a 400mm,
etc., etc., etc.

Why Leica would replace the R7 with a camera that is the equivalent of a
full-size Cadillac just mystifyies me. It's maybe not a BAD decision;
it's maybe not the WRONG decision; I don't want to argue those things.
But is it the Leica Way? Does the R8 perhaps even signify that a Leica
MEANS something different than it used to mean--that it is now a marque
that is equivalent to big, slow, comfortable luxury cars and not fast,
light, maneuverable sports cars?

I don't know. I'm just wondering. I wonder why an "all-new" Leica SLR
would not look more like the Aria than like the R8. I'm not trying to be
contentious here--this genuinely and sincerely puzzles me, and it has
ever since I first saw the R8.

Rant mode off,

- --Mike