Hi all, I'm new to this forum, but have been following it for quite a while.

I recently took advantage of Leica's rebate offer and bought a M6 series body. It was more important to me to have the USA warranty on the body than the lens. I am planning to purchase two lenses.

My experience with photography was built around my brother, a photojournalist with over 30 years experience. We spent literally hundreds of hours together in his homemade darkroom as well field work and on campus in his early days at college. (I was his portrait subject looking down the bellows of a very large camera!) Now that I look back on it, I was his sherpa, side-kick and friend.

Anyway, his experience with his Leica system was very positive and two years ago, not being able to justify the M system, I purchased a Minilux Zoom, Black Titanium. My photos rivaled many of my friends SLR systems and I believe the knowledge transfer of many hours in the dark room, evaluating light conditions and shuffling camera parts between the camera bag and my brother paid off. But that was many year ago.

My experience with the Minilux while positive, was also frustrating. The camera limits the photographer through extensive automation. I was always playing with the exposure value. My minds eye had an effect in mind, but the camera had it's own. Thus the purchase of the M6.

The M6, for me, will be a photographic tool. It will be used, a lot. It will be well cared for, but I plan to run hundreds of rolls of film through it with several purposes in mind: family pictures, candids, some landscape and lots of travel.

(By the way, I sold a very high-end, all tube music system so that I could afford the M system.)

So, I would like your opinions on which lenses to purchase. My initial leanings are towards the 1.4/50mm Summilux-M and APO-Summicron-M 1:2/90 ASPH. Based on my description of use above, are there other options that I should consider?

By the way, I purchased the .85 HM viewfinder body.

--Mark

-- Mark Waideich (mark_waidelich@hotmail.com), January 09, 2002

Answers

Your choice of body and question regarding 50 and 90mm lenses indicates to me that you are more interested in the longer focal lengths and fast glass. What's available are the 50s (f/2, f/ 1.4, f/1), 75/1.4, 90s (f/2 and f/2.8), and 135 from Leica as well as the CV 50, 75, 90 lenses. All are darn good, the Leica are better.

So what are you really looking for as options? My own photographic desires tends to be in the wide to middle range ... when I bought my M6, I had the Heliar 15 and bought the 35/2 and 90/2.8 initially. I've since acquired the 24/2.8 and 50/2, find I love the 35/2, would prefer a 21 and a 75, don't use the 90 very much.

It's all what works for you, and only you can determine that. You can pretty much buy any Leica lens and know that you're not getting anything substandard. I'd buy the 50 first and see how it works, see whether you want wider or longer more, then buy your next lens..

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), January 09, 2002.

With your having access and knowledge of darkroom procedures, you might wish to consider a wide-angle of some sort. The ability to crop a bit in the printing stage can help tighten the framing if the lens and camera position can't be adjusted, but you can't add wider coverage later in the darkroom.

A lot of Leica M user consider the 35mm focal length to be essential, and Leica offers two of the best in this focal length.

Good luck in your pursuit.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 09, 2002.

The focal lengths are right for the camera, Mark. Unless you plan on a lot of low light shooting you might be as happy - or happier - with the 50mm f/2 Summicron. Except for the extra stop and a higher price tag, I'm not confident the Summilux brings you anything for the subjects you list. Similar argument for the 90mm Elmarit verus AA Summicron. I use the Summicron & Elmarit on my .85 and would only need the extra speed for low light.

I also pair the .85 with a .58 camera, plus 21mm Elmarit & 35mm Summicron lenses. All together it's a very portable, flexible, and capable system.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), January 09, 2002.

I second Godfrey; buy one lens and get to know it for a period of time before purchasing other lenses. Most would recommend either the 35mm or 50mm focal lengths to start. If I could only have one lens it would be my 50 Summicron, so I suggest that you start with it. Others would prefer the 35, it depends upon you. Good luck and happy shooting!

-- David (pagedt@chartertn.net), January 09, 2002.

I too recently purchased a USA M6 TTL but for me (since I do a lot of landscapes) I chose the 35mm f1.4 Summilux ASPH. The results are really very good (not my composition or photography skills - the technical side of the issue like focus, sharpness, contrast etc.).

Since I shoot in low-light conditions from time to time, I wanted a fast lens that would enable me - on occasion - to also do hand-held shots. Most of mine are, however, tripod based.

My M6 TTL has the 0.72 viewfinder body

-- Phil Allsopp (pallsopp42@attbi.com), January 09, 2002.

Mark

This sounds like a great system. You clearly want fast glass and can afford it. The 50mm lux and the APO 'cron I am sure you will like and will enjoy using. Actually I rather envy you them. I have the 90mm Elmarit but would enjoy using the APO cron on a .85. I have the Summicron 50mm which is great, but will certainly get a Summilux one day if I find I need it. For the camera you have, you are making a wise choice. Some people do consider the 90mm 'cron a bit on the large side, but in my opinion it is always nicer to have faster lenses if you do not mind the weight. My fast tele portrait lens is the 80mm 'lux for the R and I love it and that might lead me to consider a 35mm/75mm combination for the M in your shoes, but, if you have a 0.85, you might find the 35mm frame difficult.

I have to say that having ignored the 35mm lens for the last 20 years, I am pleased to say I am rediscovering its virtues now I have one for both the M and the Rs I own, so you might need to consider whether you could forego the APO and with the money saved get a s/h 90 Elmarit and 35mm Summicron instead-- just a thought.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), January 09, 2002.

Great choices! You are ultiomately going to end up with a 35/50/90 combo anyway, so you might as well start with the lenses you've chosen!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), January 09, 2002.

Mark:

Welcome to the wonderful world of Leica! The 50 Summilux and 90 APO ASPH lenses are great first choices. Eventually you will want more Leica lenses once you see what they are capable of! I started with a M6 TTL and a 35 Summicron ASPH. Since then I have acquired the following - 21 ASPH, 50 Summicron, 50 Noctilux, 90 Summicron and 135 Tele-Elmar. Leica is an addiction that only becomes stronger with time! :-)............................................

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), January 09, 2002.

Mark

You are starting where I began 3 years ago. I purchased a new M6.85, and quickly bought an older 35 'lux, mid 80s 50 'cron and a recent 90 Elmarit. Wasn't long before my inability see anything without glasses made me seek out an older M6 .72 to get the wide angles I really enjoyed shooting. Since then, I've also tried the Voigt' 25mm Skopar (too much scenery for me!) and a 135 Elmar (too big on an M6 around my neck)

Recently bought the current Tri Elmar and am delighted with its flexibility. It and the 35 'lux for indoor work get the most use. The .85 now has a 90 Tele-Elmarit permanently attached!

All of my Leica toys are a joy to use.

-- David Collingridge (cridge@bigpond.net.au), January 09, 2002.

I very much agree with starting with one lens and shooting with it for a long enough time to see what you can do with it and how happy you are with the images you are getting, the focal length and the speed. The only way to know if you like a lens is to shoot with it for a while. You can add lenses from there. A .85 body and 50 mm lens is a sweet combination. Between the summilux and the summicron, the issue is how much you need the spee of the 'lux. FWIW, I have the summicron and love it. It is small and the quality of the images is wonderful.

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), January 09, 2002.

I just got an M-5 awhile ago and a f/2 50mm Summicron. Sure there are times when I would love a 35 or a 21 or a 90 or a..........but I have fought off the urge and am going to force myself to stick with ONE lens and just use it. So far I have had a couple of close salls but just when I'm about to cave in and get another lens I make an image that gets a hold of me and says....WAIT

-- Michael Pry (vila@busynet.net), January 09, 2002.

Hi Mark,

I got through the same dilemma as you did when I bought my M6 0.72 TTL 8 months ago. My first lense was the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux Asph which I bought with the body. After a while, even if the 35mm is great with a M6, I discovered that I needed to isolate my subjects more so I ordered a 50mm. I chose the Summicron instead of the Summilux because in low light I prefer to bring the 35mm to get more latitude of exposure, just in case... A month later I could not resist to buy the 90mm f/2 Summicron APO Asph for landscape and portraits, even if it is a bit too sharp sometimes for people with less perfect skin. But to bypass this problem I use grainy films like Tri-X. To me, the combo 35/50/90 is perfect for my kind of pictures!

Good luck!

-- Toan Nguyen (toan.nguyen@videotron.ca), January 09, 2002.

Mark, the fact that you bought the 0.85 complicates my suggestion for you a little, but not too much. If you had the 0.72 or 0.58 I'd have no hesitation to suggest you start with a Tri-Elmar. Why? because you list "family pictures, candids, some landscape and lots of travel" and I consider the 3E ideal for all of those subjects. The convenience of having those 3 focal lengths without changing lenses to me outweighs the f/4 aperture. Generally for those types of subjects (possible exception of candid portraits) I think you'll find that an ultra-speed lens is a mixed blessing because of the very shallow depth-of-field. When you do want subject isolation, f/4 at 50mm has pretty shallow DOF especially at near range. With the 0.85 you'll need a separate finder for the 28mm end, but I use one on my 0.72's also, I just like it better. If I were buying today I might get the 21-24-28 finder, assuming someday purchasing one of the other focal lengths too. I hope you don't wear glasses, because the 35mm frame in the 0.85 is impossible to see. I *think* Cosina makes a separate 35 finder. As soon as practical after the 3E, I suggest a 135mm lens. Why not a 90? For one, cost:performance. Used 135mm lenses (excepting the 3.4 APO which is not really noticeably better than the f/4) are dirt cheap in comparison to the 90's. Second, you get a useable amount of additional reach with a 135. 90's are great, I've got a couple, but I would choose the 135 if I had to have only one long lens for the M6 for that "lots of travel" usage.

My other suggestion is the old standby, the 50 Summicron. For the cost you just can't beat it, in terms of performance. And it's right in the middle of the M lens range, meaning if you've got the room and the inclination to move around you can do almost the same with it as with a full set.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 09, 2002.

This all surely raises a question: forget the price, is the 50 Summilux or Summicron better? Does the Summicron perform much better at smaller apertures than the Summilux? Why choose one over the other? My old 35 1.4 Summilux was noticeably weaker wide open, which is why people favoured the 35 f/2 Summicron. I am not sure if this same logic applies to the 50 lenses - none of which are aspherical, BTW. As a general lens, I find the 50 a superb focal length and vastly under-rated, and the 90 is a superlative portrait lens.

-- David Killick (Dalex@inet.net.nz), January 10, 2002.

Mark,

Go wide, it's what Leicas are made for.

Here's my story:

Had the Kodak 126 when I was 10.

"Upgraded" to the top-of-the-line Kodak 110 Model 60 something w/rangefinder when I was 12.

Got my first Nikkormat w/55 1:1.2 when I was 14. Then caught the equipment bug. I got, of course, as many photo newbies do, went tele. with a 200 1:4, and 80-200 zoom.

Got an F2 by the time I was 17. Got a 55 Macro soon there-after.

You can probably guess my current age by now.

Even added the MD-1/MD-2 motor; what a package. With the zoom it must of weighed as much as a bowling ball! I sometimes took it to school w/o film in it so my friends could play with it - 5 FPS! chick-err-chick-err-chick-err-chick-err-chick-err.

Shot a lot of B&W, color prints, and generally liked the composition and quality of the photo's. People said I had an eye for photography.

Then, took some photo/darkroom classes.

Bought a 20 1:4 and never looked back. Sold the motor, got all of the Nikon equipment stolen, bought an M3 w/50 Summilux used.

Didn't learn my lesson: got a 135 1:4.

Leica DEFINATELY has a different pop-out 3-D look. I think all that Bokeh talk is correct. But I think the 3-D look is because of curvature of field: the center is very sharp and the out of focus behind the subject (no I don't center subject, I try to fill most of the frame) goes out of focus abruptly causing the subject to pop out. Think about it: if the focus goes out smoothly the subject wouldn't pop.

Then, in my professional career, which I get paid to travel (refining/petrochemical projects), I went light: sold the 28 (3rd version) because in was an inch longer than the 35. Don't laugh, handling a camera with a "longish" protruding lens is a hassle with the non-camera type cases I use to speed up candid photography. So, I would definately recommend vintage lenses. Sold the 50 1:1.4 (too heavy).

135 stayed home, got a 35, and a 21, and a SWC. I even got a CLE but don't like automation, and the CLE cannot meter manual, so its at home too. I find the full frame 0.72 can approximate the 21's view if one moves one's eye around a bit and pan the camera around, ok a lot (remember light, no acces. viewfinder). The 21/35/SWC are amazing. A bit of 21/SWC overlap, but the 5.6X5.6 slides are UNBELIEVABLE!

I travel with a 90 1:2.8 thin Tele-Elmarit, but its never with me when I need it (in a church tower overlooking the aqueduct in Segovia, Spain).

So, 35 1:2.0 or 1:1.4 Pre-ASPH, 50 1:2.0, 21 1:3.4, 90 as above in that order, bought one year apart; learn, learn, learn each lens. 35 = 50% of my photos; 21 = 25%, SWC = 20%, 90 = 5%. Still learning the SWC; what a challenging camera. It's kind of heavy, but compact.

I have a mint 135 (ONE photo in the 12 years I've had it) 1:4 Tele- Elmar for your 0.85 plus 1.25 eyepeice magnifier).

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 10, 2002.

Also something to consider is size of the camera, one of the reasons why I bought my M6 because was its very compact size and I think it defeats the object by sticking a huge lens on the front. Leica's quest for optical perfection has resulted in lenses that are growing larger and larger. For me, my favourite lens (in terms of size and performance) is the 35MM Summi (with the oval aperture ring). My largest lens is the current 50mm Summi. If I want to use anything above 50mm I use my contax SLR instead which I believe is better from this length upwards.

A good 3 lens choice for the M system I think is the 24mm Elm, 50mm Summi and 90mm Elm.

But in the end, its a very personal decision that only you can make!

Cheers

-- Karl (Karl.yik@dk.com), January 10, 2002.

Mark,

I forgot to ask: What was your "source" in your hi-fi system?; mine is a Linn. Where did you get a tube turntable?

I don't like automation: guns, no scopes; car, manual tranny; Rolex and Hassleblad, no batteries, which brings up a funny story:

I work in the refining/petrochemical industry. I was taking photos in a refinery in Thailand when a Safety Supervisor biked up to me and told me to stop. He said: "Your camera is not intrinsically safe, you can't use it here" (not explosion proof). I said: "It's a Leica M4. It doesn't have a battery in it" (no chance to generate sparks). He replied: "What if you drop it?" To which I said: "It's made of Brass. (non-sparking metal; we use copper hammers for this reason)...What if youn fall off your bike?" (steel - sparking metal). He then rode off; I continued to take pictures.

Back to the point. If I, or anyone else, haven't convinced you to go wide (to get involved with your subject/into the action), get the 50; it's more "normal". It looks like you tend to go long from your previous experience. I guess your shy.

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 10, 2002.

Mark:

As you can judge from the number of responses your question has generated, this is a topic on which Leica users typically express a wide range of personal opinions -- and that's because the answer ultimately depends on each person's personal preferences based upon usage.

I have an M6TTL (.72)and use it for purposes much like those you described. I started with the 50/2.0 and the 90/2.8 and couldn't be more pleased with both lenses. For me, the 50mm is the perfect normal lens for the M. Many have said that the 50mm Summicron is arguably is one of the best Leica lenses ever -- and it is without question that best value in the Leica-M line-up. The 90mm Elmarit is also a wonderfully sharp lens and I find it fast enough for the portrait-type work I typically use it for. Simply put, the question you need to ask yourself is whether the additional f-stop is worth the added expense, given the usage you anticipate.

In time, you'll probably want to consider a shorter lens. Just before the rebates expired, I picked up a 28/2.0 and am getting to know it now. It is well suited to the .72 M6 and has an angle-of- view that's very pleasing for the work I do, but others will tell you to look at a 21mm or 24mm as well.

If you're like most, you'll probably end up with a wide angle/50/90 kit, which is a great set up for the Leica-M. The speed vs. expense trade-off is a personal choice. Whatever you decide, it's pretty hard to go wrong here . . . they're all great lenses. Enjoy.

-- Jim Reed (jimreedpc@aol.com), January 10, 2002.

All,

Thank you all for your responses! What a great group!

Gleaning from your responses I noted the following:

1. Acclimate to a single lense

I like this suggestion from Godfrey and David Enzel. They touch on a point that maturity often comes through experience. (And I find myself sometimes more creative when pushed by 'perceived' limitations.) The reason for a fast lens has much to do with the fact that many of our family get togethers, are indoors where light is a bit more of a challenge. (We live in the Pacific Northwest and recently experienced 34-straight days of rain!) And it sounds like I should consider the 50mm f/2 Summicron as an alternative. I could apply the savings to a 35mm (Ken Shipman).

2. 50-90mm lenses combinations are popular

This sounds like a popular combination. However, the 90mm sounds like it might get stuck on my 0.85 body(!) and I will eventually need a 0.58 or the 0.72 body. (David Collingridge) And that is something that I was thinking might happen!

3. Lots of wide angle considerations

As Chris Chen points out, going wide, ". . . get(s) involved with your subject/into the action . . ." and I find I actually do that quite often, especially at family gatherings. But it's also sometimes intrusive and my presence can change the dynamics. I find a more natural, relaxed composition just outside the main area of interation--where I am no longer in sensory contact with the group.

At this point, I am inclinded toward a single lens--either the 1.4/50mm Summilux-M or the 2.0/50mm Summicron. I want to understand how a normal focal length fits my personal approach.

So, here's a follow-up question--What real-world differences between the 1.4 and the 2.0 would I encounter?

Thanks again to everyone who contributed!

--Mark

P.S. Re Chris Chen's comment re the "tube turntable," it took forever for the power supply tubes to warm up! Ha! Ha! :) My front end gear was all Quicksilver.

-- Mark A. Waidelich (mark_waidelich@hotmail.com), January 10, 2002.

The difference between a 50 mm Summicron and Summilux (one stop) can be bridged with your choice of film. My wife and I shoot slides exclusively, and our "normal" film is Fuji Provia. We carry two M bodies (M4 and M6), with the M4 loaded with ASA 200 or 400, and our classic M6 with ASA 100. Except within the dark recesses of French Cathedrals - - such as surreptiously shooting the Black Madonna at Chartres - - we've found that an ASA 100 film satisfies over 90% of our architectural, street, and landscape photography. We *did* break down and use Velvia in the Keukenhof Gardens in Holland < grin> to catch the brilliant colors of the tulips, hyacinths, jonquils and other assorted flora. On a more mundane side, the 50 'chron takes the 39mm filters - - - and it's lighter and more unobtrusive.

George

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), January 10, 2002.

Sorry George, not true. You cannot duplicate the lovely DOF of the 1.4 lens be changing film.

-- Jeff Stuart (jstuart1@tampabay.rr.com), January 10, 2002.

Jeff,

I think I understand your response, but would you elucidate just a bit? If I understand it, the variable (film speed) would not change the fixed DOF of the lens, only the speed with which you could shoot your subject. Is this assumption correct?

Also, I appreciate the effects of DOF when emphasizing a subject, since the background subject add too to the atmosphere without taking away the focus of the subject.

Thanks,

--Mark

-- Mark Waideich (mark_waidelich@hotmail.com), January 10, 2002.

if you leave cost aside, and if we concentrate on the M line, my advice is get the f1.4 lenses. 35/75 is my idea of best possible M combo, but since you like 50, go for the f1.4. Choose the latest model as it focuses down to 0.7m instead of 1m: this is a major feature for that focal length.

Size/weight are essentially comparable to the summicron: that lens is no burden, even in Mland.

Again, leaving cost aside, this choice will help you compete to your advantage against the f2 alternative, without entering in the cumbersome Noctilux world.

Whatever film you have in your camera, f1.4 will double your shutter speed when light gets scarce. That will always make it a winner: you will still be able to take that ultimate T-max 3200 picture while your f2 buddy will be condemned at packing his gear and go for the bar. Or you will be shooting grainless Provia 100 while your f2 buddy will have to deal with golfball grain or switch to negs...

In Leicaland, the current f1.4 lenses have no trade offs compared to their f2 siblings. The 50mm f1.4 is reputed to be marginally less perfect that the summicron on the border and angles of the field, but this a has no real life implication.

BTW, I do not own that lens, but really would like it. Too expensive for its features.

For the longer lens, I can only strongly recommend the 75 f1.4: it is a marvel, and the extra stop, in real life, is more than useful, and the short tele effect is unobtainable with the 50 ! My life has changed since I purchased it. A wonderful indoors tool, way more flexible than the 90 mm alternatives.

Have fun!

-- Jacques (jacques.balthazar@hotmail.com), January 11, 2002.

Mark,

Jeff is right, faster film does give you the opportunity to take the same pictures, but with the summilux and slower film you'll shoot your lenses more open resulting in less DOF and more emphasis on bokeh. Though for family gatherings and candids a f2 is minimum if you want to have your subject all in focus. Just think about wether you like to shoot wide open or if your style doesn't mind a bit more DOF.
I really like the 35/75 option of lenses, otherwise a 35/90 would be ok and leave space for a 50 or the other way round, but starting with a 50 would make the next lens a hard decision ;-)
BTW Chris, another Linn listener ? It is somehow like Leica (or Contax because they use modern technic ?), get the best out of the older technology but takes it's time.

Kai

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), January 11, 2002.

Kai,

Full Linn down to the cables; all bought pre-1987; sounded good then, sounds good now; no "upgrades". Love those Saras.

Being a gear head (engineer) with a fanatical attention to detail since I was young, I like precision mechanical things. You think a Leica M4 cocks smootly, try a Colt Python - silk.

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 12, 2002.

Mark,

All lenses exhibit a decreasing DOF at wider apertures. For portraits and some stills, especially when the subject is close, the thin DOF at f1.4 can be used to emphasize the subject.

Comparing shots taken by the Summilux at f2.0 vs. f1.4 the difference in focus is subtle but discernible. I wouldn’t give it up, I like the effect. The only fault I see in the ‘lux is it gets a little soft when opened that last stop. That used to bother me. It doesn’t bother me so much now.

I have the lenses you are considering along with the 35 Summicron ASPH. The newer (90 & 35) designs are amazingly sharp. But in the end I have more good shots taken with the 50 than either of the others. I like the perspective, the close (for Leica anyway) focus, and the thin DOF when I want it. And the extra speed doesn’t hurt.

BTW I also have the .85 body – it works great with these lenses.

Good luck, whatever you choose I think you’ll do well,

-- Jeff Stuart (jstuart1@tampabay.rr.com), January 12, 2002.

Lens speed?

Film Speed?

Try 1200 FPS slug speed from the Python 8^0.

Similar hobbies: requires one to hold still and relax. Both are compelling, and each shoots to paper material.

-- Chris Chen (chrischen@msn.com), January 14, 2002.

"Similar hobbies: requires one to hold still and relax. Both are compelling, and each shoots to paper material," writes Chris.

I would rephrase by "Similar hobbies: requires one to hold still and relax. Both are compelling, and each shoots through people".

Only, photography does so spiritually, while guns are designed to cause irreversible physical harm. I would never equate both activities, and actively support outlawing the second.

-- Jacques (jacques.balthazar@hotmail.com), January 15, 2002.

If we consider shooting as a hobby, Jaques, then it's unfair to talk about the harm that guns can do. I don't see why you want to spoil others' sport. In responsible hands, a gun is as harmless as a motor car, a chainsaw, an electric drill or any other powerful machine. In irresponsible hands, however ...

The point is, you'll do better with both a camera and a gun if you can learn to hold them steady. The difference is, with a gun you'll know pretty soon if you missed whereas, with a camera, you only find out when it's too late!

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), January 15, 2002.

I know this is off topic, so my apologies.

I am certainly not as acquainted with the firearms market as I am with the photography one, but, correct me if I'm wrong, the vast majority of firearms are *DESIGNED* to cause grave physical harm to living beings. Only a small minority of firearms are *DESIGNED* for harmless sports purposes.

While I have no problem with a hobby that consists of using a firearm to shoot through a cardboard target or collecting firearms for their fascinating historical or mechanical intricacies, and while I have no real grievance against people who use firearms to hunt common animals for game (though I fail to share their pleasure), I do have a major problem with the free existence of a firearms industry, and, even more, with the ease of circulation of firearms.

Guns, handguns in particular, are not *DESIGNED* for fun, they are designed to kill you, me and my kids. Nobody hunts deer with a Python handgun.

This industry strives on death, murder, power abuses and violence in general.

Chainsaws, cars, drills or a Leicaflex are not *DESIGNED* to inflict violence, though they are obviously useable as weapons. For me, that is a crucial ethical difference.

-- Jacques (jacques.balthazar@hotmail.com), January 15, 2002.