[Leica] Leicology

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

>Think about it! Do you folks have any idea how collectively moronically dumb
>assed
>stupid we look in the eyes of the management of  Leica every time we get all
>snitty assed as we've seen this past couple of weeks?


Ted,
Well, I'm trying. I'm really trying to "get with the group" and humbly
accept all the Canonical Presumptions, as follows:

1. All current Leica lenses are outstanding, no matter how old the design.
2. Every newly introduced Leica lens is clearly better in some way than the
Leica lens it replaced, as well as (well, this follows) every Leica lens
Before That.
3. Other manufacturers' lenses in M or LTM mount can be said to be as good
as the same focal length Leica lens of one or two generations back, but can
never be said to be as good as the current Leica lens closest to its focal
length and speed.
4. Everything Erwin says is proved by virtue of the fact that he said it.
5. All technology is bad or unnnecessary until Leica adopts it, at which
point it becomes good and necessary.
6. Everything made in Germany is superior to anything made anywhere else.
7. No other manufacturers' lens in any focal length can be assumed as good
as the Leica equivalent (with or without evidence), nor can it take pictures
of as much value.
8. Any Leica lens that any other manufacturer had anything to do with (24mm
R, 40mm Rokkor-M, early zooms) cannot be as good as any "pure" Leica lens.
9. No *other* Leica lens may be stated to be "as good as" (still less,
Barnack forbid, "better than") the acknowledged best Leica lenses, such as
the 100mm R macro. If one of the acolytes slips and makes such a statement,
others must jump in and helpfully suggest possible reasons why he is
mistaken.
10. Everything Leica sells today is as good or better than anything it sold
in the past.
11. Though sometimes it "surpasseth our understanding" why, everything Leica
the Company does is done for a very good reason, and is the right thing to
do. 
12. Leica lenses are necessary to use in order to produce the best picture
(often stated as "maximize your photography").

I'm just having a little trouble with my Fourth Step, is all. We all stumble
somewhere along the Path. Other LUGGERS are being helpful, sharing their own
experiences, and urging me along.

Actually (although I tremble to admit it), I have a couple of other
Leicalogical questions with regard to a few of the other Canonical
Presumptions, as well. For instance, regarding Step Eight, I understood it
to be a given that this did NOT apply to camera *bodies* before the
introduction of the R8. Now that the R8 has been introduced, has the Rule
been made pure again? What of the troublesome vestige in the catalog of the
R6.2? Is it enough merely to _never_ imply that the R6.2 is enough of a
Leica to lick the boots of the R8 (while still being better than every other
SLR)?

Regarding Step Two, if we have heard of any Famous Leica Photographers who
have, say, purchased a 35mm Summicron ASPH but then gone back to the
pre-ASPH, we are obligated to Suppress this information. I understand this.
(See, I *am* making progress.)

And, regarding Step Six, what are we to make of the fact that the
manufacture of a number of current Leica lenses are outsourced to Elcan in
Midland, Canada, a subsidiary of Raytheon Corp.? Is it enough that this
facility was founded, and once owned, by the German parent? This strikes me
as a potentially troubling Leicalogical issue, since the Noctilux (out of
chair...down on knees...kowtow...back to keyboard) was _never_ made in
Germany and I believe the 90mm APO/ASPH and 35mm Summicron ASPH are also
made in Canada, and it seems to me that these lenses must be accepted as
Leicalogically pure under Presumptions 2. and 10. Is this a genuine
Leicalogical conflict, or am I (as usual, WHIP! WHIP! *ow*) missing
something important?

I'm only asking for help in resolving my poor understanding, mind you, not
raising Doubts about the Presumptions. I thank everyone for their help with
my Struggles, and for remembering that they, too, were callow acolytes once
long ago!

- --Mike

P.S. Meta-commentary: the above can be interpreted three ways: 1. humor, 2.
actual gospel, 3. snittiness. If you laughed, chances are good that your
interpretation matches 1. If 2. describes you, why, you're in the right
place! No worries. If you angrily suspect 3., please accept a humble blanket
apology, take ten deep breaths, and recite three "Hail Oskars." I assure you
it was intended as 1.

P.P.S. I cannot take credit for the concept of this post or some of its
contents, for it is the work of another. However, I name no names in order
to protect the guilty!