Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/12/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]From: Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net> SNIP <<< 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?>>> SNIP It's obviously true, arguments can be posed but not defeating this basic premise. Now if someone says the...IIIg or similar is the "Barnack" idea, what would that mean? For someone to say that the M3 is less true to 'Leica' than a IIIf so then what? It comes down not to raw historical facts but to the implications and meaning of those facts within the greater, more complete timeframe. It's "what's essential" about Leica (Leitz? This could get unreasonably complex if we have to further define our definitions and round again) I'll save myself from having to answer this. But the "original idea" the "source" is NOT necessarily a fulfillment of the essence intended. It answers what the intent is but not what the fulfillment is or will be. The M6 is Leica more than the R7. Sounds dumb. But it can, is and will be answered. Or M6 and R8 to make it more clear. But much more so is the M6 "genuine"? I'd hope the answer would be "that's a stupid question" with the answer in the positive. Some think the M6 has achieved a sort of perfection of the whole idea in general. Either way it's 'possible' that that germ of essence fulfills itself much much later. The M6 becoming AF may be a sign of moving too far away. The R8 is odd in size for Leica. MOST would say it's a Leica project "beside" the essential properties of a Leica camera. But even this could be argued differently. But talk of lenses and it changes a bit. As has been noted many times the older e.g. 50/2 were not 'made to give leica pictures'. They were made the best they could be, or the best they were. So the new 50/2 has a different look but it's not 'less' of anything it's an improvement. The R same thing. Perhaps in the R line the R8 is an improvement. I wouldn't argue that. I also wouldn't argue against it. Maybe someone 'is' in a different and better position to give a good answer. It doesn't matter what the R9 looks like or does, just the R8. To me it's absurd to claim anything less than as good as it gets for the M6, it's getting pretty picky. The whole thing may be fallacious. I don't know but it's more than on topic. I personally think more like Mike and others do, but I guess with about the same amount of inquiry. <<<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?>>> SNIP ?????????? eno