Current culture in photography is quite contradictory. On one level we have the dSLR users who mostly have a traditional background and are very focussed on technical matters. This is not a new phenomenon. In the AgX days there were hotly discussed topics like the choice of developer/film combinations, the proper use of the Zone System and of course what camera to buy and what lens to select. This techno-bias was coupled in most instances to a style of picture making that was - to say it politely - rather dull and repetitious. The best photographic quality (content wise) was produced by photographers who hardly were involved in the technicalities of the job.
On a second level we can observe a trend in picture taking that is very refreshing and bold and is being produced by a new generation of digital photographers who have no affiliation with classical photographic culture. Most interesting is the fact that they have no interest in technical matters. leaving the technical quality of the image to the in-camera software and processing. Being freed from the dead weight of technicalities that may hamper the spontaneous flow of creativity, they focus exclusively on emotion and its visual translation.
It seems that we - with exceptions of course - can do only one thing right: think and act technically or think and act creatively.

Technical topics come and go. First we had maximum resolution, then we got bokeh, then we had MTF graphs, then there was focus difference, now we have color fringing and pixel jockeying. I am sure I have missed a few topics that are hotly debated but the point I wish to make is clear: photographers are immersed in topics and discussions that have little practical relevance for the final result and have only a very limited effect on the photographic content or message. Even if we equate photography with detailed reproduction of a slice of reality and assume that in this domain the technical quality of a picture is of overriding importance, we have to admit that esthetic sensitivity is really required to produce interesting images.

A picture has visual and emotional impact only if we can look at the image at one glance without having our eyes to scan the image in broad strokes. This rule can be observed in any museum where paintings are being studied at a proper distance and you see visitors carefully locating themselves before a painting so that the image can be seen within the natural viewing angle of the eye.
The rule holds true for photographic pictures too. An A4 print can just be looked at at arm’s length or being projected on a computer screen with 17 inch diagonal. Bigger sizes (a computer or TV screen with 30 inches diagonal or a A3 print size) require a larger distance between picture and viewer. And when the distance is increased the ability of the eye to detect small detail is reduced. A purple fringe which looks frightening at 300% zoom factor on a computer screen, does completely disappear when the image is printed on A3 or reduced to a scale that the 20 inch screen can capture the whole image.

To redress the imbalance between techno-spasm and creative freedom, one should reflect on those technical topics that support a mood that intertwines the confidence that comes with technical mastery and the playfulness that comes with creative style and taste.

Photography is undeniably a technical/mechanical process. Currently you have two options: shoot at will and let the technical matters be cared about by the camera and software engineers or you can call forth all your technical skills to create the picture you envisage or can capture intuitively.

In the last case you have to think about what technical expertise you need to create the images you want. And here you have a wide range of choices. If you produce black&white pictures, the M8 with its extended IR sensitivity is a great tool. And if your goal is a portfolio of pictures on A4 format or double spreads (with print on demand options) then a pixel number above 20Mp and the occasional occurrence of purple fringing are non-issues.

I still stick to the approach that the best picture is the one with the least amount of post processing. Therefore I upgraded my equipment with a new tripod, the very sturdy and lightweight Gitzo GT3541LS with a Novoflex MagicBall head and a new Sekonic C-500 Prodigi Color for accurate color temperature. The white balance functions in the M8, M9 and S2 (to stay within the Leica range) are mot more than approximations and correct Kelvin degrees need to be measured with specific tools. When I need flash (for fill-in or one-source Hollywood lighting) I have the Metz 45 CL-4 digital, a powerful tool with some automation, but for best results some thinking and scene assessment is required. But brainpower is free!
When using these tools (exposure meter, color meter, tripod and occasionally flash ) I can get excellent performance and do not need to worry about required postprocessing (just use BW tools in Bibble, or Efex in Aperture or Lightroom 3). Of course it is interesting to study the limits when enlarging to 100% or even 200%, but there is a difference between studying technical limits for evaluation of potential performance and looking for meaningful restrictions for visual communication or expression.

Perhaps it is time to put technique where it belongs: as a device for picture taking and not as an end in itself. The designers of the Leica M3 at least assumed that the camera was an attractive instrument for creating fine imagery and not an end in itself as a collector’s item or a discussion topic.