[Leica] to see or not to see

[Erwin Puts <imxputs@knoware.nl>]

Mike J noted that it does not make sense to try to got to the limits 
of what might be the optimum/maximum image quality of a 35mm negative 
as this elusive realm will not be observable by mere mortals, that is 
normal photographers in average working and viewing conditions. Now 
this is quite a weak argument:
first of all: without challenging the limit you never know how to 
progress and how to evaluate where you stand.  Imagine that a Zen 
master would say to his pupils: forget about striving for your inner 
self. Nobody will be able to see when you have reached this state. If 
leica designers would have followed the dictum that you can stop when 
it is good enough we would never have seen the current much improved 
optical systems.
Second: it is a consistent line in Mike's prescriptions that Leica 
lenses are overhyped (my interpretation!) and that most users will 
not see any significant or important difference in image quality when 
Leica lenses are used in situations they are designed for: hand held 
35mm shooting of dynamic objects. In these conditions any Pentax lens 
presumably would deliver equally well.
Now I would like to challenge these assumptions.
Leica lenses are designed to deliver the best optical quality that 
any computer can calculate and a highly trained craftsman can 
assemble and adjust. This will give you potential imagery to medium 
format levels. To exploit this quality is not a matter of not being 
able to see it, but of willing to see it and having the expertise to 
extract the quality. Again imagine the average cardriver, put him in 
a racing car: let him drive around the block and ask him if he now 
has experienced the best of modern automotive  engineering. So let a 
Leica user shoot a roll of film in his backyard and ask him if he now 
sees Leica imagery.
When competently deployed Leica lenses do deliver above all others 
and and no no  a tripod is not a sine qua non. Many of my images 
(whatever the content) are handheld shots on 100ISO film even in 
twilight hours and they do give that unique quality that Leica lenses 
give their outstanding fingerprint. Anyone can see it.
It is easy to deny it: that clever Englishman said it hundreds of 
years ago: beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
If we wish to settle for average quality in average conditions, the 
quality difference might diminish. But would we really like to buy 
expensive equipment and than aim for a quality level far below the 
possible.
I really wonder why this attitude is as persistent as it is wrong: 
the intriguing and challenging and gratifying possiblity of Leica 
lenses/bodies to produce medium format like imagery in all sorts of 
shooting environments (from studio to hospital theatres) and add that 
specific Leica flavor to your imagery, is what we want to accomplish. 
Of course we may miss quite often, but without aiming we will never 
hit the target. To get to this standard of quality we are entitled to 
use every possible trick of the trade: tripods, low speed film, train 
for a steady hand, use a tree and shoot at an EI of 32000. This is a 
Leica list is it not?  So let us get and strive for Leica images. I 
will reflect on any suggestion and advice, unless I am ordered to 
forget my tripod, that I must shoot handheld, that I may only use a 
Leica lens at full aperture, that I may not enter a studio with my 
Leica, and that I should settle for a quality level of (generically 
speaking) the Pentax type and that going any further is an illusion 
and only acceptable as an excuse for spending too much money on 
equipment that is as anachronistic as it is expensive.


Erwin