Ran across this site and thought I'd pass along this person's view of Leicas, and rangefinders in general. If this is old news and you've seen it before, my apologies.

Go Here

-- Jim Tardio (jimtardio@earthlink.net), April 16, 2002

Answers

Now i have had a few beers after a long hard day.A Leica or any camera does not make you a better photographer.A craft person(think about it)will use the tools which get them as near to the soul of the work.Most craftpeople do it by hand..hence the value in there work.The final product has soul.A machine is a machine..it replicates.It is a button to press and it does it all for you.Does that make you satisfied;i think not.We all like to do things for ourselves, if it is important to us.Photography makes us look at the world in a different way,a bit of soul really...further we can get away from the machine happier we are.Instint gratisfication has never been the answer to anything.Sorry about spelling or grammer if that is important to you...few beers.

-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 16, 2002.

dante, IMO, has a very good technical knowledge, a good feel for photography in general and a very informative web sites that I keep visiting. i believe he does most of his work with the Konica Hexar RF (perhaps so would I if I didn't dislike the small (o.6) viewfinder)

i agree with most of his points

cheers,

-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), April 16, 2002.

Dear Jim and Evreryone,

At first, to tell the truth, I was a bit put off with the truisms about equipment not making great photographers. I think this is something we can all argee on. But as I read on I was very impressed-- extremely impressed with the writer's common sense insights into the realities of Leicas and other cameras and his technical knowledge. I think my trusty Pentax LX is an excellent camera and I used it for street photography for years. I also use a couple of Canon EF's. They are retired now for the most part. Why did I switch to RF? Pretty much for the positive reasons the writer outlined.

Also because there are no quieter cameras that are as versatile as Leica and as compact. Certainly, the compactness and the optics of Leica and other RF lenses are as important. But I do agree with the writer about certain quirky things intrinsic to Leica's, like bottom loading.

Best,

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@suma.kobe-wu.ac.jp), April 17, 2002.

What is it with people who say loading a Leica M is difficult? It is, to the most a bit tricky if you compare it with modern all automatic loading, where you just pull the leader to the red mark and close the backplate, that's for sure. But if you compare it to the older loading where you have to slip the tip of the leader in the little slot on the roll (try that with an aging eyesight!) then make sure the cogwheels fit in the punch holes of the film, cock the lever once while keeping the film taught and aligned, then close the backplate... I find it very easy. As easy as the modern automatic loading. Sure, you have an extra piece of camera to hold somehow. But come on, how clumsy can you get?

Olivier

-- Olivier Reichenbach (olreiche@videotron.ca), April 17, 2002.

With that "clumsy loading" I consistently get two, sometimes three extra frames per roll.

-- Ken Geter (kgeter@yahoo.com), April 17, 2002.

Interesting site. Some points are valid, others reflect a bad case of "Leica envy".........eh? LUGgers? Just because some aspects of Leica use are different or perhaps quirky, doesn't make them bad or inferior. Just different and quirky. I find them endearing and wouldn't change them. Maybe that's why I prefer a 48 year-old M3 DS to a 2 year-old Nikon No-stroke AF.

-- Ben Hughes (ben@hughesbros.com), April 17, 2002.

Sure, there is some Leica hype out and about and it is an easy target. Funny he doesn't mention anything about low light, hand held photography with the Leica M, where it shines the most in my experience. Lenses that are excellent wide open are also not found very often, and just about every Leica lens made is very good at its widest aperture. He also compares apples and oranges when he says leaf shutter cameras are quieter than a Leica. How many leaf shutter 35mm cameras with interchangeable lenses are there currently on the market?

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 17, 2002.

These so-called sophisms are no such thing. One or two of them are recognisable as advertising spam. DS doesn't seem to have any experience of using a Leica rangefinder. The comments about the size of the M6 versus an SLR is just poppycock !

These comments don't add anything to the knowledge of Leicas that so many on this site have. No camera is perfect but wisdom comes from experience not sophistry.

-- Tony Brookes (gdz00@lineone.net), April 17, 2002.

Whether you agree w/him or not, & I happen to agree w/most of his points (although he seems to exaggerate for effect), I'm pretty sure Mr. Stella owns &/or uses a Leica in addition to many other rangefinders (just click on the "Equipment" & "Technical" links on his site). He often posts to the LUG & for a while seemed to have been some kind of official (or semi-official) US importer for the Kobalux LTM 21/2.8 lenses. Let's face it, as good as Leica equipment is, they're just tools & there seems to be an awful lot of hype & geeky cult-like behavior associated w/Leica ownership.

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), April 17, 2002.

The site strikes me as very judgmental. For someone who professes that equipment doesn't matter, the site talks a lot about equipment! And the photos look like snaps. To me that's the real test. With all that talk I expected really good pictures.

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), April 17, 2002.

Ditto above!

Best regards,

-- Boris BRECELJ (bbrecelj@mac.com), April 18, 2002.

He has interesting thoughts on retro-focus design:

Non-retrofocus wide-angle lenses like the 21/3.4 Super Angulon, the 35/2 Summicron and the 21/2.8 Kobalux. There is no question that symmetrical rangefinder lenses outshine retrofocus SLR versions in distortion and resolution. They're also smaller front-to-back. You can get teeny 28s, for example, that make a rangefinder camera pocketable. Retrofocus design (which underlies SLR wideangles) also works better for rangefinder wideangle lenses (as it does in the new Cosina lenses), because with rangefinders it is used to increase the number of lens elements to improve correction rather than being used to radically increase the backfocus distance to clear a 45mm-deep mirror.

Lenses with well-defined optical fingerprints. These are the 50mm Sonnar-type lenses which could never be made for an SLR due to back-focus constraints. All modern SLR 50mm lenses are planar-type. With a lot of modern lenses you lose bokeh and highlight separation.

Comments?

-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), April 18, 2002.

I must say that I was very surprised to get an email from a stats server telling me that the page discussed here was getting 700 hits a day for the last three days. I figured something must have been up, and I found my way back here. I didn't even know this forum existed.

I would like to address a couple of things:

First, you can think what you want about the site's treatment of equipment. When you see the bottom of the technical index page, you will see exactly what I think about equipment reviews.

Second, are the articles judgmental? Of course. That's my prerogative and part of what I get out of forking over for a domain name and a web server and spending some spare time working on the site. I don't sell photo equipment for a living, and I don't have to be diplomatic to everything on the off chance I may have to sell some such item some day. I have the luxury of telling it like I see it. The bigger sites I have seen have been loaded with diplomacy and hearsay. You can believe what's on my site or not believe it, but I think you will find that there is little user-oriented coverage available anywhere on those subjects. That's how they are chosen.

Finally, my discussions of equipment never say that you will become better at making pictures. Don't read a negative corrollary where none exists. If my photographs don't live up to your expectations, you can make your own and start your own website. You can use your Leica, a box camera, a cardboard Holga, or a K1000.

If you disagree with specific things on the site, I will leave you to your own investigations. The site is the result of mine.

-- Dante Stella (dante@dantestella.com), April 18, 2002.