RE: [Leica] Re: Those Who Disagree

["Austin Franklin" <austin@darkroom.com>]

> 2)  The M3 is more beautiful, and of superior craftsmanship.  No,
> you cannot
> measure this in the lab, but it's as close to a fact as any aesthetic
> judgment will ever be.

I believe the craftsmanship part isn't subjective, and can be determined to
some degree.

> 4a)  (Scientistic types love this kind of 4a, 4b thing...)  Let's see your
> test of the Zeiss 50/1.4 for the Contax SLR, which -- probably because it
> bests the Leica equivalent -- you dismiss in a single sentence, with no
> argument, much less quantitative analysis.  This lens is
> considered a marvel
> of engineering by virtually everyone who has ever worked with it or tested
> it (although I don't much like the bokeh -- no concern to you); why do you
> simply dismiss it?

It is a sharp, but somewhat lousy, lense...as you said, I don't like its
bokeh.

> 6)  Current standards of industrial design at Solms are abysmal.  Dull,
> uninspired, generic, often downright ugly.

I think the R8 is actually pretty slick looking.  I don't like that it's
big, and doesn't contain a motor drive in and of its current package...but
it looks really nice.

> My new Elmarit-M
> (which I shall
> be returning, as it is sub-standard in construction), is *a
> tube*.  I'd love
> to hear your reasoned defense of the unadorned cylinder as a
> masterpiece of
> contemporary design.

I'd have to say that designing a lense for looks is kind of silly, I'd
prefer it to perform than look good not performing...  Just how much
esthetic design do you really think one can do on a lense?

> Your response is entirely
> tangential to
> the discussion at hand, and accomplishes nothing.

I've heard that somewhere before....

> solipsistic

Thanks, I actually had to go look that up!