the whoop-de-do about Leica

[Dougg]

There is certainly a pleasure in using well-made tools. I'm one of those preferring a few good tools over a wider selection of lesser tools. I'd like my own abilities to be the limiting factor in the quality of results, not the limitations of the tools.

Also a psychological factor, just having a Leica, for instance, frees one to choose to use another camera... Knowing you could have chosen to use the Leica makes it easier to choose "second best", which might indeed be more appropriate in some way. It might be a matter of "getting beyond" the point of Leica acquisition and then getting on with photography.

I've had my M2 for many years, and more often choose to use other gear. But there's sure a tactile pleasure in using it when I do; especially smooth & quiet after its CLA.

 

[flashover]

Frank I have a Mental picture of you as a kid standing under a Hornet's nest with a long stick in your hand.

I love my little 70 year old IIIa and It just has a feel to it when I use it. I have also startd to use a Pentax slr lately, another camera that just feels right. Both were not expensive as cameras go but I wonder what the Pentax will look like at age 70?

 

[John Camp]

Leica is not purely elegant "tool" -- there's always been a cult aspect to ownership and use, to the point that Leica was forced to take the cult into account, rather than just perfect the tool. The M5 was a good camera for the time and an advance in camera-making; it flopped, somewhat, because the cult didn't like it. Didn't feel like a "real" M. I think Leica got back on track with the M7 which was both modern and yet minimal in the tradition of the earlier M's, but by then, film was in trouble. But the M7 led to the M8, which I think may restore Leica's fortunes, to some extent.

For pure function, and the natural elegance that comes with it, I like the Nikon F cameras. If you hold any F (or most cameras derived from an F or the later D) your hands just fall where they need to, and any function seems to be intuitive and easy to get at. The film N90s were great cameras; the D200 has gottten raves. Mostly, I think, because the function was so good. Nikon's biggest current ergonomic problem is simply one of size -- the D2x is literally twice as big as an M8, though notably smaller than a Canon 1Ds2. I hope Nikon begins to squeeze down the size, and brings in a D3x camera/battery of less than 1000 grams. Maybe they'll learn something from the M8 about how to do that.

JC

 

[BrianShaw]

Frank I have a Mental picture of you as a kid standing under a Hornet's nest with a long stick in your hand.

LOL!

I stayed away from this thread based just on the title. I got tempted this morning and have deleted several posts so far.

I find it odd that nobdy seems to discuss the difference between 'objective criteria' and 'threshold criteria' yet use words like 'over-engineered'. What EXACTLY is the definition of "over-engineered" in both lay terms and associated engineering terms?

 

[FrankS]

Hi Brian,
In lay terms, to me, over-engineering means choosing materials, designing, and building something better than is necessary for it to perform its function for a certain length of time. Vintage Leica, Contax, Canon, and Nikon RF cameras exemplify this.

(Thanks for deleting those other posts! 🙂)

 

[FrankS]

"This discussion is more about branding, not engineering criteria. Promoting fuzzy, warm, un-measureable brand components."

No. That is exactly opposit to my view and intention for posting.

 

[back alley]

I find it odd that nobdy seems to discuss the difference between 'objective criteria' and 'threshold criteria' yet use words like 'over-engineered'.

i have no idea what those terms mean.
time for some research i guess.

joe

 

[FrankS]

Roland, I'm simply saying that I appreciate the tactile sensations and head games that using a high quality tool does for me. I listed vintage Leica, Contax, Canon, and Nikon RF's as examples. Anything else is your projection. I never mentioned or commented on the M8, nor am I interested in brand following.

 

[BrianShaw]

There is no term "over-engineered" in engineering. (snip) Bla Bla Bla.

Thanks Roland... that was my point. You speak engineering well! Many of the attributes that Frank speak of have absolutely nothing to do with engineering, but have a lot to do with marketing... or attempts at marketing. One sometimes "engineers" (specifies techncial requirements) for the sake of the marketing people, not simply to accomplish the basic functionality. WRT cameras, if basic functionality is all one is after... we should all be shooting Pentax K-1000's and no other camera should be in production, or ever produced after the K-1000 was launched.

 

[BrianShaw]

I find it odd that nobdy seems to discuss the difference between 'objective criteria' and 'threshold criteria' yet use words like 'over-engineered'.

i have no idea what those terms mean.
time for some research i guess.

joe

Simply put, Joe... when engineering a product, part of the process is to specify technical requirements. One then knows what the product is intended to do and how to design/build the product so it does that function. This is "engineering". Threshold criteria is the absolute minimum requirements that must be met to accomplish the function or mission; objective criteria are the requirements that must be fully met to fully accomplish the funtion or mission. Ideally the objective criteria are the one-and-only requirements to which the engineers design/build the product, but for a number of reasons sometimes lesser levels of requirements (those threshold requirements) are established so the engineering community understand the absolute minimums before the function.mission is impossible to achieve.

As Roland said... there is no such term in engineering called "over-engineering". If a product (camera or otherwise) has more features, accuracy, precision) than someone needs, it can't be called "over-engineered"... it simply doesn't meet your needs (user requirements) and you should get/use another product that better meets your needs.

Generally speaking, marketing folks assess the markeplace and determine features of products based on their knowledge of user-needs or vision they have for a product-line. Sometimes they get it right; other times they don't. It is very hard to get a product that meets everyone's needs all of the time.

 

[BrianShaw]

Roland, I'm simply saying that I appreciate the tactile sensations and head games that using a high quality tool does for me. I listed vintage Leica, Contax, Canon, and Nikon RF's as examples.

Frank... I actually agree with your thesis... just not the words. You are inserting a few terms that are laden with value-judgements (over-engineering; head-games). I shoot MF with a Hasselblad. I like it because it's a very well engineered tool and it is nice to work with a really well-crafted piece of equipment. It makes me feel good. But I haven't yet taken a better picture with it than I took with my $125 Rolleicord... and I might never. Do I need it... no. Do I like having it... yes. Do I feel guilty because some may think it's "too much camera" for a week-end shooter (as I have become)... no. Do I feel guilty because it cost the same amount of money that could have fed a smalll African village for a month... sort of. 🙂

 

[FrankS]

Many of the attributes that Frank speak of have absolutely nothing to do with engineering.

I disagree. A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.

What I am talking about is based soley on design, engineering and build quality. Remember I listed several other brands? You guys are trying to force an argument that simply does not fit the issue here.

Other camera brands do more and a better job at marketing/advertising and I'm not swayed by that. There must be something else, like the over-engineered build quality - built better than necessary. I don't care if this term does not exist (and I can't believe that it doesn't) in engineering circles, it certainly does exist in the common vernacular and its meaning is understood by most folks. All it takes is knowledge of what "engineering" and "over" mean.

Maybe we should discuss this principle using a tool other than cameras because for some reason camera brands is a hot topic. If I had posted that I really like using brand whatever of a Japanese chisel which is painstakenly hand forged using traditional Japanese methods, who would write in and say that I have been duped by barand marketing?

I was talking about vintage Leica, Nikon, Contax, and Canon RF's. I think that this Leica backlash, that folks taken with their Leicas have been duped by marketing, is a response to the jerky Leica snobs that wear a Leica as jewelry. I can't think of any other reason normally rational people dispute the engineering/quality of the vintage RF's that I listed.

 

[FrankS]

So the term over-engineered does not exist, but well-engineered does. (Are engineers vocabulary-limited or what?) How is it that over-engineered is value-laden and well-engineered is not?

This nit-picking over semantics is useless.

Brian, if you agree with my thesis but disagree with my wording, well, I can live with that! 🙂 Peace!

 

[BrianShaw]

It's okay with me, Frank, if you have the last word. 😉

I would be happy to continue with a different example if you'd like... cooking knives and frying pans are more within my experience than are chisels, however. It's the same conversation, though 😱

p.s. According to my Timex it is 1:47 but according to my Breitling it is 1:46... which is correct? 😀

 

[FrankS]

Does anyone really know what time it is?

Thanks for the fun discussion. 🙂

In terms of cooking pans, here's a simple explanation of over-engineering: Premier pans may use more exotic materials and build their pan bottoms 3mm thick, when clearly 1mm would be jsut fine. The choice of material may not be exotic, for example cast iron, but may be less convenient to maufacture, but the Premier brand offers a chef that choice. That choice however is more expensive than the perfectly good Simpsons Sears pans. The chef that chooses the more expensive pans, has he/she been duped by brand marketing?

 

[BrianShaw]

Does anyone really know what time it is?

Thanks for the fun discussion. 🙂

(snip) The chef that chooses the more expensive pans, has he/she been duped by brand marketing?

Goodness gracious... I really know better than this...

Lets talk materials since I don't know the particular brands you mention.

Thin aluminum... great if one is on a budget and is warming beans from a can. But not for serious cooking because they have too many hotspots (opportunity to burn the food rather than cook it). Not good for cooking acidic foods (like tomato sauce). Light in weight. Can bend/dent. Inexpensive

Thick aluminum... costs more and less chance of hot spots. Still not good for acidics. moderately heavy in weight. Industructable. Expensive

Cast iron... slow to heat and not a very efficient heat exchanger (will cost more in energy than aluminum). Rusts if not cleaned/stored correctly. Needs seasoning... a process that can take months. Not good for acidic foods. Can leave "off-taste" in some foods. Very heavy. Industructable. Inexpensive

Cast iron with porcelon... similar to cast iron but no rusting or off-flavors. Very heavy. Can chip, thus negating the benefits of the coating; otherwise basically industructable. Extremely expensive

Clad aluminum/stainless... similar to cast iron with porcelon but much better heat exchange qualities Heavy. Industructable. Very expensive.

Copper... Ungodly expensive.

Which one is "over-engineered? a. to a professional chef. b. to a highly skilled ameteur cook. c. to the common housewife. d. to the college kid on a budget. e. a person with weak wrists????? Different tools for different needs.

Would any of the above be "duped by marketing" if they bought "more than they need" as a way of providing themselves "room to grow" in their tools? Is anyone really duped if they buy the most expensive and glamorous looking pans to heat their canned beans? Is anyone really being a snob if they buy the most expensive and glamorous looking pans to heat their canned beans... or whatever snobs eat 😉 ?

 

[BrianShaw]

... and build their pan bottoms 3mm thick, when clearly 1mm would be jsut fine....

(this is probably the first and last time I'll ever say this, but here goes😱 )...

HELP ME STEPHANIE!!!!

😱

🙂

 

[BrianShaw]

Oh, and to keep on topic (this is for you, Joe)...

If I had copper cookware I'd definitely buy a Leica RF to take pictures of them!

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

I have the good fortune to be able to use most of the cameras listed by FrankS at the beginning of this thread. In thinking about the reasons why I like using them I have decided to show my ignorance and my apathy about my reasons by stating the following:

I don't know why and more importantly I don't care why.

It is kind of like trying to explain why humans like sex, I guess it just feels good, regardless of whether you are "over-engineered" or not.

Wayne

 

[back alley]

brian, thanks for the explanations, very helpful for me.
and more helpful is this line...'You are inserting a few terms that are laden with value-judgements...'

i think this is really the heart of the matter.
what frank has to say is not the issue as much as how it is being said. this would explain my initial reaction, which was about how some folks feel pushed away from rff and not about the cameras in question.

i like most cameras and most brands. i like what i shoot now and what i have shot in the past. i even like leicas 😉, used to own a couple. i don't like it when i feel 'less than' others because i think differently or use a different camera than you.

frank, i am in no way saying this was deliberate on your part but i was affected in this manner when i read the first post.

i don't think anyone would argue that it's nice to have nice stuff but that stuff may be very different for many of us.

joe