Re: [Leica] What the heck

[Doug Herr <Telyt@compuserve.com>]

Mike Johntson wrote:
>>>
I think the Contax Aris is what the R8 should have been.

Think of it. The original Barnack camera was a sub-miniature camera for
its day. When the rangefinder was incorporated in the design, no one had
ever made a rangefinder meachanism so small: but Oscar Barnack himself
was adamant that the basic small size of the original camera not be
appreciably violated.
<<<

Mike,

99% of the time I find myself in complete agreement with your opinions and
your philosophy of What Photography Ought To Be.  This is the other 1%.

For some occasions the small, lightweight SLR is the one I prefer (for
example, backcountry hikes, where I use the R4sP) but the bulk of my
photographic work is with big lenses, hand-held.

I'm apalled at the size of the modern SLR as defined by N and C, where
feature upon marginally-useful feature has compounded exponentially the
size of the basic film-holding box to where the space allocated for the
film almost seems an afterthought.  I recall being shocked at the size of
my sister's Nikkormat some 30 years ago, having become accustomed to my
mother's Retina I: "All that hardware, just to expose a teeny piece of
film?"  But I digress.

One of the best features of the big (fat?) Leica R8 has going for it is the
ergonomic design.  It's much easier to use either the SL or the R8 than the
R4sP with the 250, 400 or 560 lenses because I can get a good grip on the
SL or R8, but with the R4sP my grip is more tenuous.  The One Big Reason an
SLR with the basic layout we're familiar with can't be as small as an M and
still be comfortable is the location of the viewfinder.  Redesign the beast
with the peephole at the left side and there will be no rational
justification for something as big as the SL, let alone the R8, F5 or EOS
3.  Until this happens a bigger body that can be gripped firmly will be the
most useful when using big lenses hand-held.

Doug Herr
Sacramento
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/telyt