Another interesting website about rangefinders.

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.

<p>

Go <a href="http://www.dantestella.com/technical/rangefinder.html">Here</a>

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.

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)

<p>

i agree with most of his points

<p>

cheers,

Dear Jim and Evreryone,

<p>

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.

<p>

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.

<p>

Best,

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?

<p>

Olivier

With that "clumsy loading" I consistently get two, sometimes three

extra frames per roll.

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.

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?

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 !

<p>

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.

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.

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.

Ditto above!

<p>

Best regards,

He has interesting thoughts on retro-focus design:

<p>

<i>

<li>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.

</li>

<li>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.</li>

</i>

<p>

Comments?

<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4">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. </font></p>

<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4">I would like

to address

a couple of things:</font></p>

<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4">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. </font></p>

<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4">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.</font></p>

<p><font size="4" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">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.</font></p>

<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4">If you

disagree with specific

things on the site, I will leave you to your own investigations.

The site is

the result of mine.</font></p>

<p></p>