Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>The filter myth. >degradation by a filter: good quality--> 2%, not good quality-->10%. >degradation by handholding below 1/125: 50% >degradation by (slight) defocus: 30 - 80% I think what Erwin means is 'filter facts', and is listing the potential degradation of all three factors - or am I misunderstanding something? I'd be tempted to add: degradation as a result of errors due to inexperience or lack of practice: 1 - 100% (I'm certainly guilty of the latter.) >The dates that are given in ALL lists of batches of serial numbers per year are dates that numbers are allocated! Actual production may be off by three years, not as an exception but quite often. Interesting - I wonder if the same is true with other lens-making companies? >the correlation between allocation dates and production dates is not a tightly coupled one. And in fact it is not an important topic. For a user, yes, but for a historian it is both interesting and important. >May we all follow Ted's prime directive: >To take a split second picture with a Leica camera is worth a hundred hours of talking about Leicas I shall pass this philosophy to my nearest friendly historian of bayonets, my nearest friendly historian of mediaeval surgical instruments, and my nearest friendly historian of nuclear weapons. I trust that neither puts it into practice in their respective fields <grin>. But I've got a perverted viewpoint - I'm interested in history, and am married to a former historian who specialised in one of the above fields... I'm glad she was a collector and not a user. Regards, Doug Richardson Occasional collector Occasional user Occasional Noctilux-wielding spook