Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Quite so, and well said. It is sad to see all the petty little prejudices coming out on here -- the "oh its plastic so it doesn't matter" nonsense. It emphatically does matter -- the Leica world cannot afford to have FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt) in its marketplace, or in the eyes of its customer base, present and future. It matters *a lot* when you have Leica dealers who are Konica dealers too, and are tempting people into a Konica now with the intention of moving them up to Leica in the future. You might say "Why do I care? I have 2 M6s, the 21, the Tri, the 35/1.4, the 50/1.0, the 75/1.4 and the 90/2.0" and have no intention or need of a Konica. I care cos it *matters* that if something is Leica compatible, then it *really is*. I too have the highest respect for Erwin -- his new book is essential reading. But it is not unreasonable to ask where the information came from, and on what basis. Oh, and thanks to the *two* people who bothered to email me and tell me they liked the M6 pictures on my website. Over 100Mb of images were downloaded, and only two could be bothered to say anything. One wonders how many on the LUG actually use their cameras -- it would be instructive to have a poll to ask how many put a double-digit number of rolls of film through their camera per year. Ensuring it had honest answers would be the hard thing, I fear. Jon - -----Original Message----- From: leica@davidmorton.org [mailto:leica@davidmorton.org] Posted At: 10 May 2001 09:04 Posted To: leica Conversation: [Leica] RE: RE: Konica fiction Subject: RE: [Leica] RE: RE: Konica fiction Jim Brick wrote: "Because, unlike most of us, Erwin does not post ad hoc dissertations to the LUG without doing the necessary research. I do not know anyone who researches photography more carefully than Erwin. This IS Erwin." However without a *source* for the Konica figure, it's merely a claim, not an established fact. It's a very interesting claim, because it comes from someone with a formidable reputation, and I have little doubt that it may well be an *accurate* claim, but it remains uncorroborated. Over a year ago I also asked a LUG poster for the source of the information he'd published. I was supported in my request by another LUG member who wrote: "David Morton is correct is insisting that information with a high journalistic content should be treated as such". That LUG member was Erwin Puts, you can see the whole posting at http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v10/msg07638.html I am not - emphatically *NOT* - arguing with, or criticising, Mr Puts. I am merely asking that he provide a source for the information he has published. - -- David Morton dmorton@journalist.co.uk