chris000 said:
The word 'just' in this context means 'no more than' and does not refer to the quality of the instrument.
Dear Chris,
We do not disagree on this; but my dispute is with those who use 'just' dismissively. Some do -- I am sure you have met them too -- and those who use 'just' in this way are normally overprivileged twerps seeking to look clever, tough or 'professional' by abusing their tools (if you will forgive the image thus created). A craftsman looks after his tools and is not dismissive of them.
You will note that I have enough regard for your opinions that I modified my post as soon as I read yours. I fully accept that these are two different readings of the word 'just' and I do not think that either of us would deny the validity of the point made by the other.
As for collecting; well, in about 1969-70 my girlfriend wanted a good, basic camera and (on my advice) bought Leica II conversion no. 23010, for twenty quid. After a few weeks she wanted to use it so I had to buy my own IIIa, no. 229589, for thirty quid. (These are the only two Leicas I have ever used where I remember the serial numbers, I hasten to add).
We then bought various things together to use, such as a fat-barrel coupled 9cm f/4 with a serial number ending with both a (attrape, dummy) and * (re-used serial number) -- the only lens ever to sport this combination, as far as I know. I knew none of this at the time: as far as I was concerned, at eleven pounds ten, it was a cheap lens to use. By the early-to-mid 70s I had quite a collection, all bought to try it out, but realized that it was a lot of money tied up, and sold it. Since then I have bought equipment primarily to use; sometimes to trade (my 90/2 Summicron cost me 90 pounds new, as a swap for a tri-lens turret, and my M4-P, as far as I recall, 120 new, swapped for a good black M3); and sometimes just to write about...
In the process, especially in the early days when Leicas were just old cameras, not investments, I met some major and very knowledgeable collectors. These included Paul-Henry van Hasbroeck and the late Colin Glanfield (who did a lot of Paul-Henry's photography), as well as others who would prefer to remain nameless. I also met an awful lot of people who wasted an awful lot of money on rubbish withoit really understanding what they had or indeed what they were doing. But I haven't collected cameras myself for over 30 years. Like you, I can't see the point.
Cheers,
R.
