re: [Leica] What the heck

[Larry Kopitnik <kopitnil@marketingcomm.com>]

>>>>>>>>>>
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?
<<<<<<<<<<

Mike, never have I read anything on this list more right.

>>>>>>>>>>
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.
<<<<<<<<<<<

I really think you've hit the nail on the head; this is principally why the
R8 is failing commercially. When I got into photography, before I ever saw
a Leica, I knew Leica by reputation as a small, light yet outstanding
quality camera. Stories of early R8s damaged that camera's quality
perception (undeservedly so; I believe most problems were fixed promptly
and fairly by Leica). But I find the excessive size and bulk of the R8
about as unLeica as a manual wind 35 mm camera gets.

Though I couldn't use an Aria, either. I use manual exposure probably 90%
of the time, and Kyocera insists on putting the shutter speed dial on the
wrong side of the Contax SLRs (Contax S2 excluded). If they didn't, I'd
trade my Nikon SLR system for Contax in a second.

But I don't because - as with the R8 - no matter how good the glass is, I
use a camera SYSTEM. And to my hands, I find a critical piece of the system
lacking.

Larry