Sunday Paper - Minolta and Leica

My Sunday Reading list is back.

The Sunday paper is a compilation of interesting articles I have read during the previous week. Topics can be anything I found via my RSS feeds across various topics but mostly photography, technology, and philosophy. It used to be a regular feature of this blog, but I lost the habit in early 2020.

Josh Solomon gives a nuanced history of Minolta and Leica.

The legacy of Leitz Minolta is a complicated one to parse. On one hand, nearly every camera and lens made under the agreement still carries the undeserved stigma of being “not quite a Leica.” Mention the R-Series and the CL or CLE rangefinders in casual conversation with an older photo geek and you can expect the words “basically a Minolta” to be said with a hint of scorn. It doesn’t help that Leitz’s attempts at modernization, particularly the usage of more automation and plastic, were then and are still now looked down upon by the Leica faithful. It’s this catch-22 that seems to define Leica’s transitional past – modernize and risk upsetting the fan base (as happened with the Leica M5), or cling to tradition and be left in the dust (Leicaflex SL2, Leica R6). Leitz couldn’t win, and the only answer was to quit playing the SLR game entirely.

The Sweetest Taboo – The Unlikely Story of Leitz Minolta by Josh Solomon

My impression from reading blogs posts written by and for Leica owners is that many Leica owners are pretentious camera snobs. James Tocchio agrees that much of the Leica snobbery is hyperbole and now, even though I eschew rangefinder cameras, I am developing GAS for a Minolta CLE.

The party line is always the same. The best photographers and the legendary shooters who shaped the very foundation of photography, all use and used Leicas. The timeless Bauhaus aesthetic, the auditory discretion, the compact and perfect form factor, the brass, the hand-built precision; the M is an instrument of Zen, an extension of the eye, an artist’s brush. The mystique is so dense it’s palpable.

But what if I told you that a lot of what you’ve read about the M series is overwrought hyperbole? What if I said there’s a camera that takes everything that everyone loves about the M and improves on it? What if I told you that Leica doesn’t make the best 35mm rangefinder in the world?

Why I Choose the Minolta CLE Over Any Leica M by James Tocchio

James Tocchio finds a polite way to ask "is mastering the craft more important than owning the tool?"

But the fact that these photographers used these cameras is secondary to the sheer quality of their entire bodies of work. The incredible consistency across many decades of the medium is a testament to the talent behind the gear. These master artists accomplished exactly what they strived to accomplish; they made us focus on the message rather than the medium.

And really, that’s the moral of the story here. Of course it’s important to choose the right tool for the job, and indeed all of the photographers on our list did this beautifully. But even if you don’t have your dream camera, use whichever one you have to its absolute fullest and focus on your craft. Who knows, maybe someday you and your camera will carry each other to the dizzying artistic heights we’ve touched upon here. Hey, we can all dream, can’t we?

Five Famous Photographers and the Cameras They Used - Casual Photophile by James Tocchio

Fujifilm X100F or Leica Q? Which provides more value?

mpb.com (mpb.com)

Leica’s recently-released Q2 has been making waves. It looks like a pretty nifty full-frame compact camera. But, retailing at over £4,000, is it too expensive? We thought we’d take another look at the original 2015 Leica Q. It’s available used for around half the price of the Q2, so it could be a wise purchase.

Back in the old days of photography, when film technology advanced as quickly as a snail crossing a road, I think Leica camera would have been a good value for those who could afford the upfront cost.

Let me define my terms.

value: a fair return or equivalent in goods, services, or money for something exchanged

The film Leicas had a cost and quality of experience that was excellent. The buyer could be assured that the camera would last “their” lifetime and with care in maintenance, produce the same quality of result on each snap. A digital Leica, in my opinion, is far removed from the word value. Is the image quality superior to what can be found on similar featured digital fixed lens cameras? At the rate of development of digital technology, whatever image capture experience the digital Leica may offer, the technology itself is quickly (18 months?) surpassed by some newer (and often less expensive) digital camera.

I think someone paying US$4,000 for a camera that will be technologically obsolete within months of purchase is paying for the brand and what they think that brand says about them.

I've read a few articles stating that the Fuji X100 series offer better value. The latest model, the Fujifilm X100F, is US$2700 cheaper than a new Leica Q and almost $2000 more affordable new than a used Leica Q. I rented a Fujifilm X100F for a weekend and fell in love with the camera. Even though I have a Fujifilm X-T2, the experience with the X100F was, please forgive me, "magical". It's among the things I would always carry when leaving the house; wallet, smartphone, sunglasses, X100F.

Here's what Ken Rockwell had to say about what he calls "Leica man":

Don't fret price when discussing photography issues with a Leica man. He doesn't know or care price; the only thing that concerns him is being the best. The Leica man rarely takes his own pictures. He has others to bother with that for him if he is on holiday. If the Leica man requires art, he has it purchased for him. This is why Leica men don't care about a Leica's picture-taking ability, and get so oddly freaked out if you mention cameras that are better for a fraction of the price. "Better for what?" asks the Leica man. Taking pictures? Who uses cameras to take pictures? Rarely the Leica man. You are personally insulting him and his vastly superior taste should you broach this topic.Ken Rockwell

So while I understand that, for some people, the Leica Q is that magical camera, I don’t think the magic is worth that price. Perhaps I’ll have to rent a Leica Q to experience it for myself.

Photo by D A V I D S O N L U N A on Unsplash

Centrism, Leica

Every Saturday, I share a list of inspiring or interesting articles that I read during the week. Here’s what I read this week.

Centrism’s flaw isn’t that it’s apolitical. It’s deeply political and polarizing. Some popular pundits seem to believe centrism offers a morally superior position. And yet it can be incredibly blind to the way it so easily tips the scales away from truth under a false neutrality.

Under such watchful eyes, the only ones whose speech is protected are those willing to take speech from others. The only free are those whose freedom is ensured. And the only ones alive in the end are the revolutionaries. For the gallows don’t care how tired of politics you are.Pastor Drew Downs


Here's what Ken Rockwell had to say about what he calls "Leica man":

Don't fret price when discussing photography issues with a Leica man. He doesn't know or care price; the only thing that concerns him is being the best. The Leica man rarely takes his own pictures. He has others to bother with that for him if he is on holiday. If the Leica man requires art, he has it purchased for him. This is why Leica men don't care about a Leica's picture-taking ability, and get so oddly freaked out if you mention cameras that are better for a fraction of the price. "Better for what?" asks the Leica man. Taking pictures? Who uses cameras to take pictures? Rarely the Leica man. You are personally insulting him and his vastly superior taste should you broach this topic.Ken Rockwell

Every Saturday, I share a list of inspiring or interesting articles that I read during the week. Here’s what I read this week.