Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/12

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica Camera of the century? Why!
From: "Mike Durling" <durling@widomaker.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 21:03:37 -0500

I agree with B.D. on this one with one exception.  The camera of the century
is not the Leica Rangefinder, but just the Leica.  After all the rangefinder
is just a gadget that was added later in its life.  The Leica was a
beautiful, ground-breaking picture-taking machine even before Herr Barnak
laid his ruler across the knobs and said "put it here".  That small portable
camera with a great lens made everything that came after it possible.  It IS
the camera of the century.

(And I shot with the Argus C3 and Nikon before I bought a Leica)

Mike D

- -----Original Message-----
From: B. D. Colen <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica Camera of the century? Why!


>I have to agree with Eric here....And not because I am a Leica shooter...
>
>If there is going to be a "camera of the Century" - and, yes, it's a silly
>concept - I believe that that camera should be the Leica rangefinder...Not
>necessarily because it did or didn't take the most important photos of the
>Century, but because it philosophically made them possible. The original
>Leica, more than any other camera, physically made possible, and made
>possible the idea of, the photographer as unobtrusive observer and recorder
>of the human condition. First came the Leica, then came HCB, Eisenstadt,
>Capa, etc. etc. etc., and then came the Contax and Nikons and Canons, etc.
>etc......This isn't one to loose sleep over, God knows, nor is it one to
>take time away from taking photos.....But I do think that, as silly
>concepts go, this is a worthwhile one.
>
>B. D.
>
>At 08:52 AM 1/12/00 -0800, you wrote:
>>Eric,
>>
>>So do we discount all the wonderful pictures taken with other cameras such
>>as a Rolleiflex TLR(i.e., Marilyn Monroe, Buster Keaton as done by Richard
>>Avedon), or the photos taken with the Nikon (i.e., JFK, Jr. saluting his
dad
>>at his funeral)?  Granted Leica has been around longer, but it would seem
>>logical that more photos were generated with Nikon than with Leica in the
>>last 2-3 decades?  So then why Leica?
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Eric Welch [mailto:ewelch@neteze.com]
>>Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 5:38 PM
>>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>>Subject: [Leica] Re: LUGSeveral topics
>>
>>
>>Sometime around 1/11/00 11:00 AM, Erwin Puts at imxputs@knoware.nl mumbled
>>something about:
>>
>> > BJP's contributor Crawley mentioned that the Leica should be camera
>> > of the century and I agree with him.
>>
>>Truer words were never spoken. Leica played no small role in the fact that
>>photography was the dominant form of communication in this century. Some
>>word herders may begrudge the power of photos, but as I see it, words and
>>photos together are more powerful than either alone. But that doesn't deny
>>the fact that photography is the visual medium of choice in art and
>>commerce. Only in journalism, ironically, where photography's speical
>>quality (reporting impartially what the camera sees - note I did not say
>>what the photographer sees) is one of it's greatest strengths, regardless
of
>>the word folks' attempts to keep it in a secondary, service role to words.
>>--
>>
>>Eric Welch
>>Carlsbad, CA
>>
>>http://www.neteze.com/ewelch
>>
>>The difficulty now is that unexceptional adults believe the loss of
youthful
>>dreaming is itself  growing up,  as though adulthood were the passive
>>conclusion to a doomed activity and hope during adolescence.
>
>