Re: [Leica] Nikon S3 war

["Timothy R. Kuntz" <covbldrs@usit.net>]

Mike -  Now that I've written a flaming response, have you run across my brother Joel (from Lake Oswego, Oregon)?
Tim Kuntz

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Leitheiser" <flyh2o@worldnet.att.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2000 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Nikon S3 war


I don't understand this picture Marc keeps painting.  Marc says that the
photographers owned their own gear so they wanted to use cheaper Japanese gear
because of the risks involved.  That part of the picture makes sense to me.  At
the same time he says they had to hype the quality of the Japanese goods to
impress the boys paying their way, the editors buying the work and apparently
they were succesfull.  Thats the part I don't get, how does it go?

photog:    I have some great shots, better  than the ones I could have made
with a leica or zeiss because the glass is better.
ed:          Oh. OK, here's the check.  By the way,  when do I get to see the
pics?

  or was it like this?

photog:   I know these are lousy, but they would have been worse with leica or
zeiss because the glass isn't as good.
ed:         Oh, Ok, here's the check.

    or

ed:    Great pics, but since you used N* or C* glass (L* or Z*)  instead of L*
or Z*(N* or C*)  here is a small check(big check)

   I don't think so.

Probably went more like this...ed:  You got some great stuff.
                                               photog:  Yup.  That low cost
Japanese glass I got to keep from going broke does a bang
                                               up job.
                                                ed: What! You saved $$!  We'll
have to turn the rest of the boys onto this.

Marc James Small wrote:

> At 09:42 AM 2/25/2000 +0000, Mike Johnston wrote:
> >David Douglas Duncan was very clear
> >that he switched to Nikon lenses because their sharpness blew him away,
> >and he got other Korean War photographers to do the same thing for the
> >same reason. The superior sharpness of Nikon lenses was what established
> >the company in America. This is a part of the historical record. You're
> >grafting current perceptions onto historical situations.
>
> Mike
>
> This is simple horse-shit.  American editors did not trust Japanese lenses,
> so Duncan and his ilk made this huge production about their "quality" to
> assuage concerns from the boys who were paying their way -- this, after
> all, was in an era when most editors didn't trust MF at all, much less 35mm
> gear.  The Japanese lenses were direct thefts of Zeiss designs, no better
> and no worse than the originals.  BUT they were cheap -- $10 or so for a
> 1.5/5cm as opposed to several hundred dollars for a Zeiss Jena lens and
> more than that for Oberkochen, if you could find one.
>
> These guys OWNED their own gear.  If I were going into a combat zone and
> had the choice of risking a $200 lens or a $10 lens, both of equal quality,
> I know where my heart would be!  And if I had to rig a "test" to allow the
> folks with the check books to go along with this, well, so be it.
>
> Popular Photography contacted Dr Bauer, the head of Zeiss USA for his
> comments.  He tried to explain this to them but, alas!, Pop blew this one,
> as they have so many other issues over the years.
>
> Marc
>
> msmall@roanoke.infi.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
> Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!

- --
Mike Leitheiser
Lake Oswego, Oregon

"When the trout are lost, smash the state."
   Tom McGuane