Re: [Leica] Do we care? We do. (Who's we?)

[Rob Schneider-Laura Tully <robslaurat@earthlink.net>]

"To think of Leica going under and not caring is so much B.S."

Speak for yourself, don't speak for me.

Clearly Wilber and Mike Johnston are coming at this from a different
perspective than I am.  As I've said before, I love using my M6's; I'm glad
I've got 'em.  I love my 75 Summilux-M and I'm supremely impressed by the 21
ASPH and the 35 Summilux ASPH.  Glad they're available.  And no, I'm not so
addled as to think that if Leica had gone out of business in 1952 that I
would have an M6 today.  Nor would I use a screw-mount Leica.  I'm not a
masochist.  (Though by continuing this thread, maybe I should reevaluate.)

But, apparently I am soft-headed to believe that if Leica disappears from
the photo marketplace tomorrow my cameras and will continue to work for
years to come.  That was the inference I took from Mike Johnston's post.  I
don't care a whit if my M6's won't last 100 years.  I won't either.
Something else will come along to lure me away from my Leicas?  Could be; I
wouldn't doubt it.  So what?  And in what way is that a relevant point?  At
the moment, as we speak, right now, January 26, 2000, there is nothing else
in the marketplace to make me want to give up my M6's.  Leica M's work the
way I want to work, the lenses I have RIGHT NOW do what I want my lenses to
do, I don't need or want a different camera, now.

"Even assuming you personally WOULD stick with Leica for 30 years after its
demise, most people wouldn't."

So?  Is this the local shopping mall and I'm supposed to be ashamed and
embarrassed that I don't have the latest T-shirt from Abercrombie & Fitch?
If MY cameras work for another 30 years, what the hell do I care what "most
people" are using.  "Most people," from what I can tell, are using Nikons
and Canons these days.  Rats, I chose the wrong camera.  Anyone want to buy
my Leicas so that I can hang with the homeboys?

And if my M6 does fall apart the day after Leica throws in the towel and
every functional Leica M in the world mysteriously disappears from the
marketplace, well then I guess I'll have to suck it up and buy a G2, or
whatever the closest RF equivalent is at the time.  Or I'll figure out how
to do street photography with an SLR.  Others do it, I can too.

I hope Leica comes out with some interesting extensions to the M line.  I
hope the company thrives and prospers.  But if they don't, I will shrug my
shoulders, load another roll of Tri-X and go out and make pictures.

My M6's are machines, working tools, means to a particular end.  For me,
they are not fetish objects.  Your mileage may vary.

Rob Schneider
- --------------------------------

Wilber GFE wrote:


> I for one do not wish to be stuck in the dark ages as technology marches on.
> To think of Leica going under and not caring is so much B.S. Yes there will
> and are other fine camera companies out there that will take up the slack,
> but look at the new 35-70 2.8 (This is the finest example of the art out
> there)(Yes it's an R lens and that is what I and a lot of others shoot) Any
> company capable of this has lots more where that came from and I for one
> want to see and use it. Sure there are lots of old glass out there and for
> different asignments it can be better than new, but lets not throw the baby
> out with the bath water.
> My 2 cents.
> Cheers Wilber GFE
>
Mike Johnston wrote:

> > I can't agree with this. If Leica had gone out of business in 1952, we'd
> > all be shooting screwmount? I doubt it. For every one hobbyist still
> > shooting screwmount regularly, there are thousands who have migrated
> > away from it since 1952. If Leica had gone out of business in 1983, we
> > wouldn't have a metered M. If they'd gone out of business in 198?
> > (sorry, don't know the date of the first aspherical lens) we wouldn't
> > have any of the aspherics.
> >
> > Incidentally, the Rolleiflex is still made and still able to be
> > purchased new.
> >
> > Any discontinued camera gets less convenient to use as time passes.
> > Qualified repair people aren't much good if they can't get needed parts.
> > And, usually, there are always features that are improved by advances in
> > technology that make older cameras obsolete. If you don't believe this
> > is generally true, try shooting Pentax M42 screwmount for a while
> > (obsolete by about 1972). They exist in about the condition of your
> > postulated defunkt Leica, except they're cheaper. You'll find they're
> > not that easy to use--CdS instead of silicon meters; relatively dim
> > screens; inferior WA lenses (for the most part) because retrofocus lens
> > design hadn't come as far by 1972 as it has since then; very limited
> > motor drive capability; almost non-existent flash capability by today's
> > standards; repair parts have to be cannibalized off parts cameras; and
> > there's no chance of new accessories or new models. Professionals used
> > these cameras in the 1960s. Now, very few people, even amateurs, use
> > them regularly.
> >
> > You'd be okay for a while if Leica went belly-up, but not forever, and
> > maybe not even as long as you think--something new would come down the
> > pike that you feel you just have to have, something that a healthy Leica
> > AG would have been able to adopt in order to keep its customers. Time
> > doesn't stand still, even for the "perfect" (?) Leica M6 (formerly
> > "perfect" M4, formerly "perfect" M2, formerly "perfect" M3, etc.). Even
> > assuming you personally WOULD stick with Leica for 30 years after its
> > demise, most people wouldn't. History is our guide on this point and the
> > evidence is unambiguous.
> >
> > --Mike
> >
> > P.S. Please don't cite exceptions to me. I know I'm going to hear from
> > people saying, "I've been using my Barnack camera since before they
> > mucked it up with that darned rangefinder contraption on top, sonny boy,
> > and I've gotten great shots for years," etc. The exceptions don't
> > disprove the generalities.
>
>