[Leica] Re: John Collier's post

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

>>>
Now what do I like to work on? The old jewel like stuff of course! There
is a pleasure hand fitting beautiful cast pieces with many intricate
adjustments that has to be experienced to be believed. Is it more
reliable
.....no. Is it better quality.....hmmmm.

John Collier<<<



John,
Interesting and apropos posting. It does seem like we're getting down to
semantics (surprise!) as to what constitutes "quality." It's a
philosophical argument at root, probably, because you can define it any
number of ways. For me, what I mean by talking about "build quality" as
opposed to "quality" per se is an almost aesthetic property of the
parts, materials, fit, finish, and feel, as opposed to definitions of
quality having to do with function, reliability, durability, and
interchangeability. I once heard of a man who had a pristine Bugatti
Type 35 with its body and tires removed mounted in his living room as
sculpture, for instance. *That's* build-quality. <s>

Of course no Bugatti ever ran like a modern Toyota. Which one has more
"quality"?

Then you take a modern camera like the Nikon F100 I just sent back to
Nikon. Beautifully engineered and ergonomic, certainly reliable and
ultra-competent, and well enough built of arguably very appropriate
materials; but aesthetically quite below the standard of my Aunt's
beautifully finished, cunning little Zeiss Contessa my cousin recently
sent me. Which one has more "quality"? As you say, hmmm....

(You can see a camera virtually identical to my Aunt's at

http://www.cameraquest.com/contessa.htm )

I've just always assumed that people--okay, some people--who buy Leicas
like and appreciate the "build-quality" aspect of them, the aesthetic
properties that have to do with "parts, materials, fit, finish, and
feel," and that this is what we're talking about when we speak of "build
quality."

But then there is the Shaker-chair, form-follows-function argument of
aesthetics that some people might appreciate equally...in which case a
Pentax Spotmatic (the M of SLRs) is really very close to the Leica M in
quality....

I guess I can be swayed to either argument. I suppose it comes down to
personal definitions. A good litmus test of this might be how people
feel about the M6 meter. This is the major distinction between the M6
and all the M cameras that went before it, and it certainly has a
transformative effect on the usability of the camera as a picturetaking
device. Does the meter add "quality"? If you feel it does, then perhaps
your definition of quality is such that you would most approve of the
functional improvements and simplifications of the M6, and choose the M6
as being of the "highest quality" of all M cameras. Certainly seems that
this is a defensible argument to many.

And as for a litmus test of the aesthetic elements of "build quality,"
consider the "Leica" top-plate engravings. This adds nothing at all to
the form and function of the camera, but most agree that it's
aesthetically pleasing. So if a person feels that the top-plate
engraving adds "quality," then perhaps that indicates that that person's
definition of "quality" is more aesthetic, and that person might prefer
the build-quality of the older models as being superior.

There's no right answer, of course. It's for each person to decide. I
don't agree with the people who say it doesn't matter and we should stop
talking about it, however; it's close to the soul of the machine IMO,
and it has a bearing on the future of camera design and manufacture.

- --Mike