david_killick

I quite like the Leitz collapsible lenses, both the Summicron and the

venerable Summar and reckon you should keep both 50s. I also reckon a

new 2/50 Summicron would be a useful addition to the Leica line-up.

Like the previous poster, I quite like the Leitz collapsible lenses,

and reckon a new 2/50 Summicron would be useful than the 2.8 Elmar.

I've heard this rumour before. The other one is another M3-quality

M6TTL or M7, along the lines of the M6J, but we're still waiting for

that one too. Frankly, that would be more appealing. What Leica does

not need to do is produce a cut-price M just to compete with

Voigtlaender.

Danny, the C3 looks interesting: 28 to 80 lens would be ideal for many

situations, even if a tad slow at the long end, and optics should be

first-rate. The 28 is especially useful for landscapes, buildings, and

getting everyone in at family gatherings. Looks like a good compact

take-anywhere camera, though I doubt its long-term reliability will be

up to the (much more expensive) Leica M rangefinder models.

What update from Photokina? Must be something new and concrete soon.

Any exciting tidbits or scoops? I do hear that Leica is setting up its

own forum. Would this be worth contributing to? Will Leica act on the

wishes of its loyal fans? Please tell!

Best historic Leica to convey the original feel of a pioneering

camera: Leica II or III plus Summar, Summitar, or Elmar.

Best user classic: M3 plus 5cm or later 50mm Summicron.

Best modern practical classic: M6 or M7 plus any new lens. But of

course you can use lenses of any vintage with a modern M-series Leica.

Trouble is, you will want more of both. Hope you enjoy Leica. After

all, that's what it is all about!

Danny, The Leica has a fine lens and a P/S is easy to take around

everywhere. I suggest you try various films. Processing quality of

prints varies greatly. I suggest you try some slide film, perhaps

Kodak Ektachrome E100S. Also try getting a custom-made enlargement,

8x10 or larger off print or slide film. You cannot tell the true

potential of any lens with machine-processed postcard-sized prints.

Viel Spass, as the Germans say!

Technology, eh! Dontcha just love it! Actually, I don't mind digital

or computer stuff at all - my beef is just that it should be better

designed, simpler, more ergonomic, more intuitive, more likely to

last. And I would prefer a camera that just takes pictures well rather

than playing music or being a video recorder or a cellphone. Why

should technology be so frustrating to use? It's not just me who finds

this. For example, Philips Design (www.philipsdesign.com) says:

"People are questioning whether new technology actually makes them

happier...after all it is people and cultures who ultimately drive

technology, and not vice versa." Oh, and I still think film has got a

future.

Another esoteric philosophical question I'm afraid:

Why on earth would anyone in their right mind buy a manual Leica when

there are such feature-packed digicameras for sale? Two such cameras

were reviewed in PopPhoto:

1) Pentax�s Optio 430. Comes with a world-time alarm clock with a

database of 62 cities. It also has �free autofocus� for low light.

�You have to fiddle with not one but two menus, then set the focusing

point on the screen, then enter your selection with three button

presses...� Shutter lag is just over a second.

2) The �genuinely impressive� Casio QV-4000: its Best Shot mode lets

you choose from over 100 pre-sets. Need to know how to take a baby

pic? Easy. Just program a baby. Image quality is �professional�.

So just how can cameras like the Leica, whose only virtues are

reliability, quality and simplicity, possibly compete? Perhaps this a

design question: how can any "simple" product compete with something

that does dozens of different functions yet costs a fraction of the

price?

OK, the thing is you want quality glass. If you can, go for Leica all

the way, save up if you have to. Why not start with a modest three:

28, 50, 90. The 50 is brilliant. 90 is great for portraits. 28 is

significantly wider than a 35. Add the 35 later. To save money, look

for a 28 Rokkor (OK that breaks my first point, but never mind), a

pre-asph 35 f/2, and a 90 f/4 Elmar, not the Summicron. You will love

the M6! My first two lenses would be a 50 and 90, but individual

preferences vary.

Richard: been away for a while. An interesting question which seems to

come up from time to time. I wonder, do people ask the same thing

about Japanese cameras or Russian cameras?

My 2 cents worth: a camera is a peaceful tool.

Wouldn't it have been better if Hitler had concentrated on encouraging

camera production, building Autobahns etc instead of launching WW2?

My point: it is what one does that matters, not who does it.

I have a 1935 Leica, yet I too wonder about the time in which it was

built and what happened to the men who built it...

Re "slave labour" and Leica, although many German companies did make

use of slave labour (their technological products were appropriated,

by the way, by the Americans at the end of the war under Operation

Paperclip to secure a postwar economic advantage for the US), the

evidence does not seem to suggest this applied to Leica. According to

Herb Keppler writing in PopPhoto (about Dec 2000 I think but can't be

quite sure), Leica actually helped German Jews by sending them to

posts abroad. Which point I cannot verify, but the point remains: be

very sure of your facts before assigning any blame. I do not really

understand what you are trying to say here.

Except that, why not discuss all topics? Don't just limit it to

lenshoods or posting pictures.

I't's heartening so many people still like B+W and I'm definitely

going to do more of it - when I have time. Though colour is fine, the

darkroom is kind of relaxing. Some interesting films here. I haven't

even heard of Efke but must try it if I can get hold of it. Of course

we haven't even got into the huge difference paper makes as well.

Thanks to Mike Dixon, Doug, and Co for posting your pix: they add

style!

With the demise of Agfapan 25 what is your favourite slow B+W film? I

don't mind Agfapan 100 in Rodinal but it's a bit grainy (not always a

bad thing of course). More dilution? How about Ilford Pan F in

Perceptol?

This is the pic that helped convince me to try this lens. It's quite

different from modern lens with an individual look. This is me. Hope

it works.<div>[ATTACH=full]710[/ATTACH]</div>

Now that's an intriguing looking wee camera Andrew, where on earth did

you find it? Has distinct elements of a CL but with a longer base

rangefinder, angled rewind crank, and what looks like a motordrive.

Pray tell us more.

Tony, I wondered the same thing. My Summar is in very good nick and I

like it. But $125 for the Summitar is a great price. I picked up a

good value collapsible Summicron in M mount a while ago. My advice: go

for it while you can. I reckon some of these oldies can still hold up

well and they'e fun. Plus, you could always get the lens cleaned.

Well, glad I posted this, seems to have stirred up some thoughts,

which is what it is all about. I like the references to horses, vinyl,

ELVIS (he lives!), the Palestinians...amusing, sure, but they also all

have some truth to them.

Tony and Marc: the report is authentic, from The Press, Christchurch,

New Zealand. Check out: www.stuff.co.nz and do a search. Yes, paper,

newspaper. Strange, isn't it? Bill Gates said they would have all

disappeared about two years ago.

Dr Wilhelm? Try www.wilhelm-research.com. Seems to be a pretty

clued-up bloke, though prone to boundless, perhaps naive enthusiasm as

is the wont of some scientists. Do the facts stack up? I don't know

enough about it, but would not oppose a better colour printer. Easier,

more convenient, possibly. But better? Not sure.

Other musings: I agree you can get to like grain (but you can get fed

up with it first thing in the morning). And yes, you can use Photoshop

to recreate grain, do duotones, make photos look like paintings. But

are they quite the same thing?

To Jaime, who says "beloved Leica lenses will never be outdated" -

that's great, but how about the rest of the camera? Here in NZ,

Leica's Digilux is marketed, also, as a "Panasonic Lumix with Leica

optics". Only a lens manufacturer? That's a worry.

Trouble is, most of us love Leicas. They are perfect, or just about -

which is not to say they do everything perfectly, but do the job for

which they were designed, brilliantly. So why, then, MAKE them

obsolete?

A book called Futurewise has four categories: embracers of technology,

those who couldn't care less, those who use it but have reservations,

and the dyed in the wool traditionalists. Which one are you?

No, just HP. The report says: "After running a seven-month battery of

image tests on HP and other digital printing systems, Dr Wilhelm's

laboratory has vouched for the ability of HP prints to last more than

70 years without loss of quality. "That's better than any traditional

photographic process," Dr Wilhelm told journalists at the HP Print

technology Tour in Singapore. "It's a historic event."

Hmm. So it was an HP event. Epson is probably right up there in terms

of technology. Certainly I like my older Epson. But as for archival

quality, I'm not convinced....

This newspaper report may be of interest: "A new generation of digital

image printing technologies producing "perfect pictures" that will

last for more than 70 years seems likely to seal the fate of

traditional photography.

"The writing is on the wall for analogue photography," according to

US image permanence expert Henry Wilhelm. "If it's not dead already,

it soon will be."

Dr Wilhelm, president of Iowa-based independent laboratory Wilhelm

Imaging Research, hailed breakthrough printing systems from HP...as "a

change every bit as profound as the invention of photography itself."

...Data specialist IDC predicts that by 2005, more than 15 billion

digital images will be printed in the US and more than one third of US

households will own digital cameras...

Dr Wilhelm said they can expect prints produced using the new (HP)

ink and paper technologies to be higher quality than photos from

traditional film processes. "Film has grain, while digital photos are

essentially grainless."

Always a highlight of this site to see an "any comments?" posting from

Ivan...though the time w.a.i.t.i.n.g. for the image to download gets

tedious. Poor old automobile! Someone should save it and restore it. I

love classic cars! Do you know something about it? I wonder, is it the

same age as your M3? Early 50s? If so, what does this say about the

transcience of technology?

I agree, not really a fair test. To produce anything like meaningful

results you would have to ensure your old Summicron is cleaned and in

good condition. Even professional reviewers have come unstuck on this.

A pinch of salt is required when reading any lens comparisons I

believe. The acid test is: do you like the result?

My extendable clip-on hood for the Summar (FIKUS I think it is)

measures about 35mm. I too enjoy the results, especially in colour. A

very under-rated lens. I read when it came out, it cost a lot more

than the Elmar because of its large aperture.

Leica mini 3 has an excellent lens - though also a little wide for me

- and is ultra-compact and economical, if you can still find one. I

wouldn't spend a fortune on a luxo P/S any more and second Albert

Knapp's opinion on the M. But I also find, like Steve Hoffman, my IIIa

is a compact and fun camera to use.