RE: [Leica] Is a little camera from Leningrad the heir to the Barnack throne?

["B. D. Colen" <BDColen@earthlink.net>]

To respond to the question Alan raised in the subject header of his
thoughtful post - absolutely not.

True, there were those who dismissed out of hand the very idea of the first
Leicas. And, yes, the camera was small, slight, quiet, unobtrusive, and
forced the photographer to get "up close and personal." But, and this is an
enormous BUT, an objective analyst wouldn't have described the Leica the way
you, Alan, described your little Russian beauty, as having  "almost every
distortion in the book."  No, the Leica did not and does not produce images
of a quality that compares to those produced by large format cameras, but
the Leica was and is a quality piece of optical and mechanical eqiupment.

As strange as it may sound, if you're looking for the heirs to the early
Leicas, look to today's quality Point & Shoots. Some of them literally slip
in a shirt pocket, they have sharp optics, they have good metering and
autofocus, they have good flash, and they allow you to carry a camera
anywhere and everywhere, to get shots you might otherwise never get.

As an aside, I have to say that while the collecting of Leicas might make
Barnack proud, it should make every working photographer seethe - no insult
intended to the collectors on this list. The reason that used Leica
equipment is so damn expensive is that so much of it has been snapped up by
collectors who lock it away in cabinets for display and "investment"
purposes. As the supply of available equipment dwindles, the price rises.
The collectors win, but the shooters, priced out of the market, lose.