More wisdom: MJ on Leica

[ChrisN]

You've gotta love Mike Johnston's take on the Secrets of Leica:

" ...
4. Lenses are expensive, so chances are better you'll only own one or two.Three at most. If you are lucky enough to acquire a Leica but you also acquire too many lenses for it—too bad! You lose. Lenses are like women: one main one and maybe one on the side are enough for any real man, as long as they're the right ones for you. Too many and you're either just playing around or busy making yourself and everyone around you unhappy*."


* Hyperbole is a rhetorical device in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

😀

 

[Vickko]

...hmmmm. Perhaps so. Like poly vs monogamous. Plenty of love to go around, but the time demands are a killer.

 

[lic4]

I thought it would be a thread on Michael Jackson or Michael Jordan.

 

[pkreyenhop]

Spot on observation! That's exactly why I am down to one lens. I had more of these beauties and they were constantly fighting for my attention. So all but one had to leave the house!

 

[fixbones]

I like the analogy =D

 

[FrankS]

I'm faithful to one woman, but play around with lots of different lenses.

So there.

 

[thomasw_]

Hmm...As a bit of a gear minimalist, I don't like to knock the case. But this analogous argument between devotion to a woman or a few (to keep the polygamists included) and devotion to a few lenses clearly dissolves upon a logical analysis. As such let us consider that the devotion to a woman is based on a combination of social, moral, spiritual or even legal notions, whereas the devotion to a lens or set of lenses is based for most part on aesthetic grounds. There is no parallel other than "the devotion" itself; but as I have tried here to show, the devotion is based on differing foundations, and the analogy is thus false.

This is not to say a rational case can't be made for gear minimalism, but this one does not hold up to reason.

Respectfully, Thomas

My 2 cents

 

[Leigh Youdale]

I think Thomas has become far too philosophical. Keep it simple, like - "If it's got tits or wheels you're going to have trouble with it".

 

[maddoc]

I had none of my lenses ever complain about other lenses around ... 🙂

 

[Spleenrippa]

This is where 3d/stereo cameras can really strut their stuff... After all, isn't it every normal cameras dream to play around with two lenses at the same time? 🙂

 

[sc_rufctr]

Read the article... Whatever. 🙄

Buy some film and take some photos. That's about as complicated as it gets.

 

[Richard G]

I thought it was a thread on the Leica MJ...... I did read Mike's post on the M5, and agree that his lens theory is hyperbole.

 

[norgas_co]

I had none of my lenses ever complain about other lenses around ... 🙂

Yikes. I wonder what they plot behind our backs 😀

 

[David Hughes]

Getting back to the main point; I think he's right. The two lens outfit makes a lot of sense for most people. A wide angle for landscapes, townscapes etc and a 85/90 for portraits covers people and places, which is what most of us want, most of the time.

The analogy with wives and girlfriends is surely a little humour to underline a serious point?

Regards, David

PS Having typed that I remembered the 30mm Lydith that you could get for Exaktas and sighed as something between 35 and 28mm would be nice...

 

[Debusti Paolo]

I think that leica is born for "low light photos" and I'm building my kit with:
1 leica m6 titanium (I think that leica sould be mechanical and analog)
1 21/2,8 asph (I like wides..I can't afford 21 or 24 summi)
1 75/1,4
and when I could buy it:
1 35/1,4

 

[leicashot]

I thought it would be a thread on Michael Jackson or Michael Jordan.

haha, me too, but a great quote, agreed 100%