[Leica] Re: Love/hate

[LRZeitlin@aol.com]

A couple of recent posts have prompted me to examine my love/hate 
relationship with Leica cameras. As some of you know, I have not been shy 
about my criticism of the RF models yet I have bought and used Leicas for 
most of my life and own a closet full of cameras and accessories. 

Why do I use them? First and foremost they are rangefinder cameras. I find 
that they permit me to participate in the event that I am recording rather 
than viewing it as a ground glass image in a SLR. In this regard it is the 
method of visualization not the camera that is important. I use Leicas 
because they are (almost) the only game in town.  In the past I used Nikons, 
Canons and Contax RFs as well but these have largely been history for thirty 
years. I would like to get my hands on a Contax G2 but financial realities 
prevent me from supporting two systems. At least I could interchange some 
Canon and Leica lenses.

Second, I enjoy playing with well crafted, high precision mechanical devices. 
There is a sensual pleasure in moving the levers and twisting the dials of a 
Leica and a satisfying melody of syncopated sound when the shutter operates. 
I repair and maintain my own equipment and am in awe of Leica's simple but 
elegant mechanical design. Contax cameras were just as functional but used 
twice the number of parts to accomplish the same objectives. In this regard 
the M series is less elegant and less fun to play with than the screw mount 
Leicas.

Third, along with mechanical simplicity comes reliability. As a former 
professional photojournalist, reliability is ultimately more important than 
image quality. Leicas, while not hockey puck sturdy, do hold up well in 
difficult environments. The fewer the parts, the less likely that something 
will break. A couple of my cameras are fifty years old and function almost as 
good as new. This lack of mechanical complexity permits an evolutionary 
rather than revolutionary philsophy of product improvement. For the most part 
the Leica RF product line aged gracefully permitting most Leica lenses and acc
essories to be used on succeeding models. The best adjunct to reliability is 
a backup camera in the bottom of the bag and the evolutionary design approach 
lets me keep the older cameras as spares. Unfortunately only Nikon has seen 
fit to follow this approach in its SLR line.

Fourth, there is an element of cognitive dissonance in my relationship with 
Leica cameras. Because of the money and time I have invested in the system my 
feelings for it tend to be emotional rather than rational. I treat its faults 
as virtues, else how can I justify my decision. For example, carrying a 
couple of M series cameras with attached lenses on neck straps is roughly 
analogous to tying a bag of bricks around your neck. My rationale is that the 
weight makes for steadier pictures with less vibration. The non-opening back 
and needle threading loading is justified by following the party line of 
camera solidity. The currently outrageous prices for equipment is justified 
by a hope that you get what you pay for and that Leica ownership admits you 
to the secret fraternity of the photographic elite.

I could not, in good conscience, advise someone starting in photography today 
to buy a Leica system, particularly the RF cameras. Image quality hardly 
reflects the price premium. Leica must have fully amortized most of the 
expenses of product development and production decades ago. If Nikon and 
Canon can sell high quality 50mm F1.8 or F2.0 lenses for approximately $100 
then the ten times greater price of a similar Leica lens represents a 
marketing decision rather than the actual cost basis. Unfortunately, I am 
committed to Leicas and like any addiction it is hard to quit. When I die, I 
intend to leave my cameras to my kids but I expect that they will wonder what 
the old man saw in this pile of mechanical junk when all image making is 
electronic and digital.

LarryZ