Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/19

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] Aesthetics vs. Function
From: "Austin Franklin" <austin@darkroom.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:24:45 -0500

> > Just how much
> > esthetic design do you really think one can do on a lense?
>
> A fair bit, actually.  Again, look at the current crop of Voigtlanders, or
> the early Leica lenses:  the Summitar is lovely, as are most of the lenses
> produced around the time of the M3.

Do you KNOW that they intentionally took esthetic design into the equations,
or did it just happen that it is esthetically pleasing to you.  Also, what
you believe is esthetically pleasing, may be not so to others.  I personally
prefer elegant simplicity.

> These really don't have to
> be competing
> goals:  function vs. beauty.

They CAN be competing goals though.  They also may be a cost consideration.

> The
> current Rollei TLR is gaudy

I completely disagree with that.  I have both a GX and an F, and I prefer
the looks of the GX over the antiquated look of the F.  That does not mean I
do not appreciate the look of the F mind you.

> Leica has simply become lazy, and complacent in the face of
> mediocrity.

That's bullshit.  Leica is a small company, and the companies you compare
them to, like Sony and Canon, have entire departments devoted to this stuff.
I believe there is elegance in simplicity of design...uncluttered and
functional.

Replies: Reply from "A.H.SCHMIDT" <horsts@primus.com.au> (Re: [Leica] Aesthetics vs. Function)