Leica Article in The Economist

An unusually sensible piece for the mainstream media when it comes to the more technical side of photography. This comment amused me though as the writer sounds as though he's never heard of the M system:

But the rugged IIIf remained the photojournalist’s camera of choice during the turbulent post-war years until it was replaced in 1957 by the ultimate range-finder, the Leica IIIg. No one since has built a more trustworthy companion.
Click to expand...

Matthew
 
I like the piece. I too was curious about the omission of the M series. Maybe the writer wanted to heighten the dramatic contrast between the two camera systems.

The transition from a Barnack to a 5DII or D700 won't be seamless or inexpensive.
 
When I first got my IIIf I couldn't believe I had to cut the film but when I did, it loaded like a dream.

Good name check for the D40 which I find takes spectacualr images with its little plastic lens.
 
I still use a IIIG for special projects and use an ABLON for trimming the film leaders.

ablon.jpg
 
Always nice to see Leicas discussed in the MSM even if the piece forgot to mention our beloved M cameras... not to mention the M8...
 
A few comments:

I have never found it necessary to wind the leader around the takeup spool as the article's author described. I just have to tighten the rewind knob before advancing the first two frames and watch to see that it turns. I figure that I loose about three frames worth of film at the beginning of each roll which is about the same as any of my SLRs.

Another point which drew me to bottom loaders in the first place is the fact that I didn't have to worry about the light seals going bad.
 
An interesting and informative piece, although I wouldn't characterize it as a "Leica" article per se. It reads more like an intelligent take on the current evolution of digital camera design by way of sensor technology than anything else. The use of the Leica as a means of illustration is a bit unfortunate due its glaring omission of the M-system altogether. Although this probably reads more as an historical footnote to the photographic lay person than to your typical RFF'er.
 
Crippled the linear logic of the article. I read it that Leica represented some dead tech from another era with the IIIg representing the pinnacle.. and end. It ignored the M system and, whatever one's opinion, the digital M8. My 2 cents.


Roger Hicks said:
Dear Seamus,

Crippled it more than NOT mentioning them?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
 
Seamus04 said:
Crippled the linear logic of the article. I read it that Leica represented some dead tech from another era with the IIIg representing the pinnacle.. and end. It ignored the M system and, whatever one's opinion, the digital M8.
Click to expand...

Dear Seamus,

Quite. But logic based on false (or deceitful) premises is already crippled.

If you know anything about Leicas, the omission of the M-series is inexplicable.

If you don't know anything about Leicas, the omission of the M-series (and indeed of other digital Leicas) is deceitful.

As you say, my 2 cents.

Cheers,

Roger
 
It's a poorly written ill-informed piece of writing.

The Economist used to be much better.

I would expect to read an article such as this only in an in-flight magazine.
 
I guess he can`t think ahead far enough to trim a few rolls of film.

He would never get along with me and my brass cassettes.
 
Yeah, the guy is whack for not even putting in a footnote or anything, about the M.

It reminds me of when I went to see the Online Photographer, Mike Johnston, give a talk. We sat there and he told us over and over of how he loves, loves, loves b&w film, but digital is where it's at, and you are a nobody dinosaur if you don't use digital, or you are only using b&w film because you are pretending to be an artist. Well, that attitude bores the snot out of me.
 
Well, an interesting article but I'll take issue with the notion that a lot of people ran out and bought the IIIg when it appeared as most of us hang on to Leica's and don't see any merit in changing whenever a new model appears. A couple of models later perhaps which brings us to the M3 and M2.

And I don't like the emphassis on 10 megapixels in a small camera being inadequate. It's over provided to my mind. And then there's the go for a "full frame" camera approach and the idea is being planted that the 21 megapixel Canon whatever will fly off the shelves. So what about ordinary photographers?

It's rather like suggesting I need snow tyres and a roll over cage on the car for when I corner at 180 mph in the snow: as if I'd do that in the weekly shopping run...

Regards, David
 
David Hughes said:
Well, an interesting article but I'll take issue with the notion that a lot of people ran out and bought the IIIg when it appeared as most of us hang on to Leica's and don't see any merit in changing whenever a new model appears. A couple of models later perhaps which brings us to the M3 and M2.
Click to expand...

Dear David,

And given that the IIIg came out AFTER the M3, it's all the more curious.

Imagine if RFF had existed in the 1950s. There'd have been countless posts saying that the M-line would never take off: too big, too heavy, too complicated, why couldn't they put the technology into a proper screw-mount body...

And the reason the IIIg is a collectors' item today is that most people had the sense to see that an M-series was a more useful camera.

Cheers,

R.
 
But that was not the point of the article, it was his personal experience with abandoning his personal camera, not a historical piece.
Click to expand...

Yes, tough crowd here! The author may be a heretic...I don't think he's an idiot. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom