The last few weeks I took pictures with a fifty-year-old Leica M3 that recently has been serviced with minor adjustments. This was the first overhaul in half a century and given the small amount of repairs it should now be fit for another half century. I am sure my M9 will not last that long: the life expectancy of the sensor is not yet known, but some reliable estimates indicate that the sensor might be dead in twenty years. As long as film exists the M3 will operate without problems, but the life of the M9 is limited. One might argue that this is the price of progress, but that would be too easy. With the introduction of the M8, Leica made the statement that they would protect the investment in the camera, but never fulfilled this promise. It is evident that the sensor in the M9 can be replaced and one may hope that the design of the camera and its successor models will counter the idea of planned obsolescence. In the M3 I used the new Schain microfilms with the improved chemistry, a sign that a vintage camera can be used with the most recent chemistry. and the newest Leica lenses. The film was exposed at EI 16 to simulate the experience of the original Leica users and to see what is possible with such a combination. Switching from the M9 to the M3 was not difficult, but I did catch myself (1) to forget to transport the film after exposure and (2) to want to look at the back of the camera after every exposure to check the picture that had been taken. It is this reflex that defines for me the core of the digital experience. When you are using film, the first moment you see the result is after the development of the negatives and then it is too late to change anything. This implies that you must be very confident at the moment of the exposure that you have everything right The confidence is derived from that difficult concept: craftsmanship, which is not the same as professionalism. Craftsmanship is based on knowledge and experience and the pleasure that can be derived from using these qualities to construct a fine piece of work. Professionalism is a different discipline and refers to the competent but soulless application of formal rules. Modern (digital) photography is more concerned with learning the tricks of the Photoshop tools (how-to-professionalism) than with the basic ideas of photography (poetic writing with light). The modern urge to check immediately after the picture if the image is successful is partly based on insecurity (did I do it right?) and partly on a drive to perfection (can the picture be improved?). Basically however the impulse to the instantaneous control of the image reflects the insufficient grasp of the internal processing of the camera. In AgX days, one knew how the film responded and one had a clear idea of exposure (the exposure meter was adjusted to the working conditions), so technically nothing could go wrong. Insight in lighting conditions would help to adjust the exposure (plus/minus one stop mostly). Composition and timing were the additional elements of photographic craftsmanship and in this domain a confident eye was a core requirement. These faculties are in danger of being washed away by powerful programs in- and out-of-the-camera. I agree that very creative persons can produce images of great power and I am sure that many new-generation-photographers will develop a new visual language. But the reliance on professionalism in current photography is a liability that will degrade the status of the art. I had recently a discussion with Lothar Kölsch who is extremely impressed with the accomplishments of the older generation of lens designers who without computers and software were able to design the double gauss lens system by analyzing the core problems (what causes the aberrations) and find a solution by understanding the role of every lens element and its shape. Understanding is knowledge and experience. Most lens designers however are only trained in using a program like Code V to apply the instructions to optimize a design. With such an approach one would never have been able to design a lens like the original Summilux 35mm with two aspherical surfaces, a true landmark design that could have never been found by applying the instructions of a computer program. A firm grasp of the real problem is needed and a long experience in finding real solutions. But the help of the computer is required to find the optimum solution. The program however would not find the best solution without the guidance of the designer. The Leica user is fortunate that the Leica optical design department operates on the basis of the Kölsch directive. The same dichotomy between craftsmanship (understanding) and professionalism (application of rules) can be seen in the world of testing cameras and lenses. A recent article in the German magazine ColorFoto compared fifty high-end cameras, based on a test procedure that evaluated more than 450.000 single measurements. The assumption of course is the erroneous fallacy that more measurements give better insights. But all these numbers are combined to produce a single merit figure with a maximum score of 100. The best camera in this test is the Nikon D3s with a merit figure of 59, the worst performer is the Ricoh GRX P10 with a figure of 22.5. The Leica M9 scores 39 points and that is the same number as the Panasonic DMC-GF2 gets and even less than the Canon EOS500D. This test is undoubtedly executed with a professional ethos and with expertise in using programs and test charts (Image Engineering software and test equipment in this case). The conclusions however show a profound lack of understanding the real issues of photographic equipment. One might compare this test and these conclusions with a test done by Geoffrey Crawley and then one would see the truth of the claim that understanding is not the same as number crunching. The same bias (numbers illuminate and understanding is not required) can be seen in the DPReview reports. The amount of statistics and figures is overwhelming, but most of the results are irrelevant for practical photography. Here one sees the defects of a purely professional approach. Mr. Crawley on the other hand had a vast knowledge of laboratory analysis and an equally extensive experience with the true challenges of the photographic craft and he knew what to select of his lab results to give the reader a good idea of what the camera or lens would accomplish under demanding conditions. Mr Crawley was not a photographer, but there is still a widespread notion that only real photographers have the ability to do meaningful testing. As a corollary it is assumed that a single experienced tester would produce more meaningful results. That this assumption is not true can be inferred from the recent example of a report by Digilloyd about the new Zeiss Distagon 1.4/35mm lens: this report has several significant errors and is an indication that testing a lens is more than a routine operation (professionalism) and demands a basic understanding of the design and (quite important!) an understanding of the conditions of testing a lens and the conclusions that can be drawn from the information that the test might reveal. Common-sense conclusions are not always the reliable source one assumes it to be. The MTF graphs can be produced with a handful of measurements: a time frame of thirty minutes to one hour is sufficient for an experienced operator to generate the diagram. But that is the not the easy part! The interpretation of the results requires extensive knowledge of the lab conditions and the variations and parameters of the testing equipment. But, most importantly, without a thorough insight into the quality of the lens (quality as interpreted by Pirsig in 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance') a good interpretation is difficult. The main problem to be answered is the match between the really significant parameters of the profile of the lens (as objectively measured as possible) and the relation to the demanding photographic practice. This question I will explore soon. For the moment I would say that more craftsmanship is needed and less professionalism. The Summilux 35mm aspherical was designed by an individual who really understands what a high-speed wide angle lens should accomplish and a hundred thousand measurements will not automatically produce insight into the true capabilities of this lens because its merit figure, based on these measurements would be only average.