Why I love my Leica by John Naughton

<p>Yet another article on Leica in London's Guardian.<br>

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/aug/24/why-i-love-my-leica-john-naughton-photography-camera-technology-cartier-bresson</p>

<p>But here are some interesting pics they've picked for 100th anniversary of the company.<br>

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2014/aug/24/100-years-of-the-leica-camera-in-pictures?CMP=twt_gu</p>

<p>Nice to know he's happy! It should be noted that he is an amateur and does not know anything like as much about Leica history as he thinks he does. Leica owed its initial popularity to being the first manufacturer to offer a 35mm system camera - Zeiss was a few years behind but made arguably better lenses, but shot itself in the foot with the horribly unreliable Contax I (whose design had to jump through hoops to circumvent Leitz patents). After the war, Leitz did not suffer corporate dismemberment like Zeiss and was able to have the photojournalist market to itself until the advent of the Nikon F. Some people may swear by the bokeh of Leitz glass, there is nothing intrinsically superior about it and much to avoid among post-war examples, namely soft coatings and badly formulated lubricant which causes gassing haze and mould. I still have a number of Leicas, but for the most part they sport Canon or Russian glass. Naughton may think that Barnack was touched by the hand of God - don't believe a word of it!</p>

<p>Seems like a reasonably good summation too me.<br>

From 1925-31 it certainly wasn't a system camera. After that time, it was so widely used in conjunction with scientific instruments, probably because Leitz was already deeply involved with microscopes.</p>

<p>Thanks for setting us straight David and saving us from this uninformed dilettante. Correlation isn't causation and its probably just a coincidence that many of the most iconic images of the 20th century were taken on Leicas. It certainly doesn't follow that if you use a Leica you will make iconic images.</p>

<p>Thanks, Emir. You know something? I´ve read all those details many times over. But I still like hearing them interpreted and communicated by different people now and then. What made that article interesting was that the author added a story of his own. I like that.</p>

<p>Barry, I´m not sure what you mean. The author stated quite clearly that owning a Leica isn´t a Golden Ticket to photographic glory:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>With the same kit as Henri Cartier-Bresson, if I failed in the quest for the perfect picture then I only had myself to blame. Forty years on, that's still the position. Still, tomorrow's another day…</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And as for coincidence, well, ask yourself why so many people chose Leicas. Probably because they loved them. Many people were skeptical of the iPod (many still are - oddly). Why did so many people choose it as opposed to other MP3 players? Was it a coincidence that so many people listened to music on an iPod? Did these things just fall into people´s laps?</p>

<p><em>... this uninformed dilettante ...</em><br>

He's clearly a happy enthusiast, and good luck to him. It's just that I find it funny when people put Leitz lenses on such a high pedestal. If you compare, for example, 35mm lenses (Biogon versus Elmar) , 50mm (Sonnar versus Summar), or 180/200mm (f2.8 "Olympia" Sonnar versus f4.5 Telyt), it's hard to understand this, except as an example of the success of Leitz in marketing and above all being first in the market.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Leica owed its initial popularity to being the first manufacturer to offer a 35mm" <strong><em>David B.</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's true that Leica was "first".</p>

<p>But other qualities were achieved and certainly contributed to their sustained high percentage of <strong>image making</strong> success; what we want from modern cameras today: <strong>Quiet, compact, quality with reliability...</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>was able to have the photojournalist market to itself until the advent of the Nikon F.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Was the Nikon rangefinder not a success too?</p>

<p>David, not many people could afford the Olympic Sonnar 180; a rare bird. The Leitz 200 Telyt itself cost almost as much as a Leica IIIB + Summar. (1939)<br>

The Contax II plus 50 f2 was only a bit more expensive, and definitely more sophisticated.</p>

<p>I find myself agreeing with David (yet I am a huge Leica fan and have been for years)<br>

Though many consider Leica to be the 'father' of 35mm photography, patents had already been awarded to a number of companies experimenting with cameras that used 35mm cine film as early as 1908.<br>

Leica happened on a design that worked very well and they had the manufacturing capability to build what Barnack designed.<br>

But I have no doubt that had Mr. Barnack not come up with his design, we'd still have 35mm cameras.<br>

The Leica Rangefinder does a number of things extremely well...it is my first choice for street shooting and indoor casual portraiture. But if I am off to photograph a sporting event or shoot some landscapes my Nikon's are what I grab.<br>

And I daresay, that though there are definitely many iconic Leica images out there...in the general publics eye they are very likely eclipsed by the number of images taken with Nikon, Canon, or even Minolta (Eugene Smiths Minimata essay for example).<br>

By the way (and this is really picking nits)...I love my wife and children...I really like and appreciate my cameras.</p>

<p>Offhand I can think of two street/documentary photographers who are putting their Leicas to excellent use: semi-retired journalist Peter Turnley (digital M-series now); and New Orleans photographer Dennis Couvillon. I follow both on Facebook. Turnley posts great street photos in the classic style almost every day. Dennis switches between his film Leicas and dSLRs but has been using his Leicas more often this year. He shoots New Orleans better than anyone else I can think of.</p>

<p>During the 50s many journalists sought out the Nikkor optics in preference to what was available from Leitz. The Leica RF lenses in the 60s prevailed probably because most manufacturers were creating lenses compatible with SLRs. In the 70s Leitz made some fine instruments but bad decisions and the RF production nearly vanished, had it not been for the management at Leica Midland. Thereafter some of the best Leica M optics (and R) came not from Germany but from Mandler and his team. The swan song of Leitz Canada (another il-founded decision to sell an advanced facility) was to save the M system and to provide fine optics that the re-established German team were able to further advance. There are some great optics, but it was all evolutionary and depended upon glass technology advances, well programmed computer optimisation and understanding manufacturing tolerances. Not much mystery there and one has just to see the performance from other lens designers and builders to see comparable results in some focal lengths.</p>

This article has made it around the forums. It was hard to take seriously with the Picture taken by Robert Capa on D-Day,

which of course was taken with a Contax, but the author thought Capa used a Leica. <p>

 

During Korea, David Douglas Duncan used a pair of Leica IIIc's. One with a Nikkor 5cm F1.5 and the other with a Nikkor

13.5cm F4. The use of the portrait of Captain Ike Fenton would have been appropriate for the article, taken with a Leica.

With a Nikkor lens. <p>

 

My favorite setup- a Leica with a Sonnar on it, new or old. <p>

 

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/13678694053" title="Two Leicas, Three Sonnars by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7264/13678694053_bcc99f7202_o.jpg" width="1024" height="689" alt="Two Leicas, Three Sonnars"></a>

<p>Karim I was being a little tongue in cheek, I do have a murky broad idea about Leica's history and I happen to own 4 of them. Obviously I like them. There is however no doubt in my mind that a concerted marketing campaign by Leica, to foster and promote the "Leica Mystique" in order to sell cameras. As good as the cameras and lenses are, there are other quality cameras and lenses.</p>

<p>I agree they are indeed cultivating their mystique - particularly over the last 15 years but, to be honest, this is a great selling point and something they would be foolish to not to harp on about. It's a great story.</p>

<p>Personally, I would love to get back into owning a Leica as I miss its combination of unobtrusiveness and its excellent optics: not that my Canon kit is lacking in optics, but it is not inconspicuous. I just wish I could have kept a few of my Leica lenses...</p>

If you need an inconspicuous Canon, consider the Canon III and Mini-Me. <p>

 

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/14827829949" title="Canon III and Mini-Me by fiftyonepointsix, on

Flickr"><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3921/14827829949_22d1054830_o.jpg" width="1024" height="768"

alt="Canon III and Mini-Me"></a>

<blockquote>

<p>the author thought Capa used a Leica</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I used to think so at one stage. Oh, no, the author made a mistake! Run for the hills! But Contaxes are cool, too. Actually most of the 35mm RFs are great.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>There is however no doubt in my mind that a concerted marketing campaign by Leica, to foster and promote the "Leica Mystique" in order to sell cameras</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree for the most part. A manufacturer cannot just create a mystique. Apple can´t, Ferrari can´t. Branding - as far as it goes - is simple if you truly understand how to manage a brand. But mystique is not. Why was the iPod so successful (yes, I´m bringing it up again because everyone knows it)? Because of marketing? Branding? No, because it was an awesome product to begin with and people loved it (oops, that word again).</p>

<p>Leica´s mystique is a result of many things. But not because some people in a dark room with shoulders hunched, eyes narrowed and hands wringing, are forcing it.</p>

<p>A couple of Leica lenses are not up to par - I can only think of the Noctilux ATM but there might be another. The Zeiss Sonnar ZM f/1.5 is quite a gem, that´s for sure, Brian. Significantly less distortion than the Planar, surprisingly, but not quite as sharp. Oh, here I go again about lenses... I should stop... nn... nnnnnnn.... now.</p>

<p>BTW awesome camera porn, guys!</p>

The author could have done a minute of research to find out what Capa used. Instead, he fell into the stereotype that Leica users believe that only Leicas can be used for great photographs, and that all great photographers must have used Leica. That is why a lot of people dislike Leica and the people that use them.

<p>The trouble with not knowing something is that you don't know you don't know. Once you do know, you won't make the same mistake again. Presumably, he thought he knew that Capa had a Leica at D-Day. I sound like Donald Rumsfeld.</p>

A thread with a link to this article was posted on "planetnikon.com" and "leicaplace.com" when it first came out. I share

much of the author's sentiment, but was surprised to see Capa's picture taken on D-Day in the article. I have a collection

of Leica glass going back to the early 1930s.

 

I did a comparison of the Summar and my 1934 5cm F2 Sonnar, which I converted to Leica mount:

 

http://www.planetnikon.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=23970

 

Several photographers had Zeiss Sonnars converted for use on the Leica in the 1930s. I've read that Capa was very good at replacing shutter ribbons on the Contax. I'm not.

<p>Not authorized to see your pics unfortunately, unless I sign up to planetnikon.</p>

<p>Same for me Brian and I dont want another login account somewhere.<br>

I like Leica cameras and lenses, but I prefer my Zeiss Ikon ZM to my M7 as the finder is clearer, frame lines more visible, shutter speed goes to 1/2000 and it has a "modern" design for the door. I do not find the Leica removable base plate cute but a huge pain, especially for digital cameras. But I love my refurbished M3 and its viewfinder.<br>

What I like most about Leica lenses, is that I know even wide open they are still sharper than most other brands. They are assembled and checked for quality - look at the range of results when Roger Cicala tests lenses. When I buy a Leica lens, I just buy the one in the box. When I buy anything else, I take my camera, tripod and laptop and test a few lenses outside to see which one is sharper. And yes I can see on the screen that there is a variance between them.<br>

<br />Saying that - I picked up a broken Contax II and Sonnar 50 f1,5 lens, which may be my favourite 50mm for the next few months. Handling the Contax was so pleasurable that I have sent it off for repairs.<br>

So Leica were not the only company to produce high quality products, but they still do produce high quality well machined products. </p>