E. Puts: "Reflections on the future of the Manual focus coupled Rangefinder camera"

<p><a href="http://www.imx.nl/photo/Analysis/page149/page149.html">Here's the link</a></p>

<p>Good grief. Puts has slipped over the edge. Is this ad copy for Leica?</p>

<p>I envision signing up for a photo cruise with Erwin, Roger Hicks and Ken Rockwell as the resident mentors.</p>

<p>He certainly chose challenging typography.</p>

<p>I think Mr. Puts is, as most of the time, right on in his historical review, and in his last paragraph comments on the future. I am dedicated to Leica, and now in digital form, as a camera for all purposes, and if they would add live view, then truly a universal instrument for the thoughtful serious photographer.</p>

<p>Its just pure marketing hooey. His historical review is now a cliche, and really a smoke screent to hide the fact that more and more, the M, as much as we love them, are basically irrelevant to the present and future of photography.</p>

<p>Wrong.</p>

<p>But thanks for dissing my camera. ;)</p>

<p>I don't have time to read the article, I'm too busy scanning my photos that are irrelevant because they were shot with an M7...</p>

<p>Of course they'd be much more relevant if I had shot them with a D700, or maybe a Canon Rebel. Ha.</p>

<p>Are your M8 photos any better than your 5D photos? They both look good to me. But go ahead, you should take the time to scan the artical, then you will see why I gag...:0</p>

<p>If the M's were to disappear, I would still be taking the same lousy photos with or without. If I were to disappear, M users would still be taking the same lousy photos. It sounds even to me..basically to be clear, I see lots of people that take awful photos using the best M's or the best SLR's of every stripe, and I see people using modest camera's take good photos. So where does the quality start to make a difference. Its hard to discern differences here. I could see it in the dark room, but not with digital files.</p>

<p>All I could do was skim it. That font is absolutely horrible.</p>

<p>Yes, font bad!</p>

<p>"EVIL"...he made that up, right? Seems like something that Ken Rockwell would make up.</p>

<p>You mean the difference with other cameras is irrelevant? Why would it be irrelevant? Why would you own like half a dozen basically different types of cameras then? I thought you meant irrelevant in general, but any camera that takes photos is potentially relevant in a profound sense. </p>

<p>Puts irrelevant? I have no idea. I never read his stuff.</p>

<p>My hat is off to the writer. Grizzled and cynical veterans of Leica rangefinder photography may find it "historically cliche" and ungraciously question Mr. Puts motives, but I think there is some value here.</p>

<p>IMO, it is nice that there is some positive continuity as a resource for those entering into, or curious about, this type of photographic experience. Maybe it's aimed at the younger, emerging photographer ... thus the small font ... LOL!</p>

<p>Not all that long ago, I introduced the M to a photographer of considerable talent who was well aware of the Leica M but had never used one. He took to it immediately and sold off his Contax G kit, as well as shelving a good deal of his 35mm SLR gear. All I can say is that it fit him. It doesn't matter if people believe that he would be a good photographer with anything in his hands ... what matters is "what he believes." He intensely believes in the optics, and specifically likes the simplicity of the classic rangefinder method. His M work was recently selected for exhibition at the National Gallery in St. Petersburg Russia, and one of his delightful shots was selected for LFI Editor's Choice. His name is Irakly Shanidze.</p>

<p>I see the M in my future, as I saw it in my past. A part of the over-all experience ... not to the exclusion of other more diverse tools, but as a specialist tool that does something specific, and does it very well. Just my personal opinion... but in the end, personal opinion is all we really have isn't it?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>At least he's a fan.</p>

<p>Marc, its not so much the facts he sites, but the fact that he goes through the same litany on every review I've ever seen. Just a footnote to the "history"would do. I have to spend 15 min. just to find out where the actual review is. Then he usually uses the history for justifying a mystical attachment to a lens or body etc., a "way of seeing" it's b.s. I use range finders, DSLR's, seeing is seeing, either you do or don't. I know that many really believe it makes a difference to the way they work, and that is fine, but I don't think it's as big a deal as the hype wants to make. And I have and use Leicas, slr's, medium format, film and digital, so I'm not just blowing smoke. It would be nice if he (and I)could be succinct once or twice. I will say for IQ Leica glass makes a difference in the darkroom, I'm not so sure it does in the digital world. All prefaced with IMO.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<h3>Rangefinder view is independent from focal length of the lens used</h3>

</blockquote>

<p>Talk about making a virtue out of a necessity! Let's face it, these are quirky cameras, but no more annnoying than most digitals.</p>

<p>I think Leica's 1980s advertising hype had it right: concentration on the essentials. That's what sold it to me. I finally succumbed 7 years ago, and I have no regrets whatsoever.</p>

 

<p>It might not be discernible to an onlooker whether you feel completely comfortable in your coat or slightly uncomfortable, but you know it yourself. I've had that old coat for 30 years, feels as good as the day I got it. I like walking in it better than the one that's slightly tight or the one that's a little too big, or the one that's not quite warm enough or the one that's too warm. Means I don't have to think about it, it just does its job and I walk free as a bird. </p>

<p>Puts, eat your heart out!</p>

<p>Well, yes, the font's too small and there are typographical errors (even wrong words used that sound like the correct words). I've seen this guy referred to in various posts on this forum, and wondered who he is, and never ever been able to read through an entire article written by him.</p>

<p>Well, who is he?</p>

<p>I agree, most of the article is blather. Must have hit a dry spell for new things to write about, while trying to make it to a certain word count.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>He certainly chose challenging typography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That sums up the article nicely. :)</p>

<p>I vote with Barry Fisher -- but I love my lousy photos taken with my M2 more than my lousy photos taken with a digital camera!</p>

There you go again Barry, making sense and all.... Stop it!

 

Funny read...

<p>It is not so much the font, its the fact that there are no additional spaces between the paragraphs that makes it difficult to read.</p>

<p>Not one of best statements. Rambling and actually rather boring this time. I think Puts says sensible things a lot of the time, but this one is rather long-winded and dull to me. My view is the same as Barry's, really.</p>