Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Think about it! Do you folks have any idea how collectively moronically dumb >assed >stupid we look in the eyes of the management of Leica every time we get all >snitty assed as we've seen this past couple of weeks? Ted, Well, I'm trying. I'm really trying to "get with the group" and humbly accept all the Canonical Presumptions, as follows: 1. All current Leica lenses are outstanding, no matter how old the design. 2. Every newly introduced Leica lens is clearly better in some way than the Leica lens it replaced, as well as (well, this follows) every Leica lens Before That. 3. Other manufacturers' lenses in M or LTM mount can be said to be as good as the same focal length Leica lens of one or two generations back, but can never be said to be as good as the current Leica lens closest to its focal length and speed. 4. Everything Erwin says is proved by virtue of the fact that he said it. 5. All technology is bad or unnnecessary until Leica adopts it, at which point it becomes good and necessary. 6. Everything made in Germany is superior to anything made anywhere else. 7. No other manufacturers' lens in any focal length can be assumed as good as the Leica equivalent (with or without evidence), nor can it take pictures of as much value. 8. Any Leica lens that any other manufacturer had anything to do with (24mm R, 40mm Rokkor-M, early zooms) cannot be as good as any "pure" Leica lens. 9. No *other* Leica lens may be stated to be "as good as" (still less, Barnack forbid, "better than") the acknowledged best Leica lenses, such as the 100mm R macro. If one of the acolytes slips and makes such a statement, others must jump in and helpfully suggest possible reasons why he is mistaken. 10. Everything Leica sells today is as good or better than anything it sold in the past. 11. Though sometimes it "surpasseth our understanding" why, everything Leica the Company does is done for a very good reason, and is the right thing to do. 12. Leica lenses are necessary to use in order to produce the best picture (often stated as "maximize your photography"). I'm just having a little trouble with my Fourth Step, is all. We all stumble somewhere along the Path. Other LUGGERS are being helpful, sharing their own experiences, and urging me along. Actually (although I tremble to admit it), I have a couple of other Leicalogical questions with regard to a few of the other Canonical Presumptions, as well. For instance, regarding Step Eight, I understood it to be a given that this did NOT apply to camera *bodies* before the introduction of the R8. Now that the R8 has been introduced, has the Rule been made pure again? What of the troublesome vestige in the catalog of the R6.2? Is it enough merely to _never_ imply that the R6.2 is enough of a Leica to lick the boots of the R8 (while still being better than every other SLR)? Regarding Step Two, if we have heard of any Famous Leica Photographers who have, say, purchased a 35mm Summicron ASPH but then gone back to the pre-ASPH, we are obligated to Suppress this information. I understand this. (See, I *am* making progress.) And, regarding Step Six, what are we to make of the fact that the manufacture of a number of current Leica lenses are outsourced to Elcan in Midland, Canada, a subsidiary of Raytheon Corp.? Is it enough that this facility was founded, and once owned, by the German parent? This strikes me as a potentially troubling Leicalogical issue, since the Noctilux (out of chair...down on knees...kowtow...back to keyboard) was _never_ made in Germany and I believe the 90mm APO/ASPH and 35mm Summicron ASPH are also made in Canada, and it seems to me that these lenses must be accepted as Leicalogically pure under Presumptions 2. and 10. Is this a genuine Leicalogical conflict, or am I (as usual, WHIP! WHIP! *ow*) missing something important? I'm only asking for help in resolving my poor understanding, mind you, not raising Doubts about the Presumptions. I thank everyone for their help with my Struggles, and for remembering that they, too, were callow acolytes once long ago! - --Mike P.S. Meta-commentary: the above can be interpreted three ways: 1. humor, 2. actual gospel, 3. snittiness. If you laughed, chances are good that your interpretation matches 1. If 2. describes you, why, you're in the right place! No worries. If you angrily suspect 3., please accept a humble blanket apology, take ten deep breaths, and recite three "Hail Oskars." I assure you it was intended as 1. P.P.S. I cannot take credit for the concept of this post or some of its contents, for it is the work of another. However, I name no names in order to protect the guilty!