Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/11/29

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] D100 photos
From: "Stuart Phillips" <stuart.phillips@rcn.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 11:53:29 -0500
References: <DAEOKOEHIBMMGOJNOFECGEDAECAA.phong@doan-ltd.com>

I think wieght and shape/holdability go hand in hand. I can hold my Blads
with waist level down to 1/4 sec or lower in the right position (and I don't
mean putting it on the floor!) with prerelease. But other smaller cameras
are difficult to hold sharp past 1/30. And isn't the weight of a lens
primarily governed by the weight of glass and therefore number of elements?
Fast lens =  heavy ?
There must be a flaw here:)

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Phong" <phong@doan-ltd.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 11:28 AM
Subject: RE: [Leica] D100 photos


> > For a Leica, heavier IS better, as it dampens the
> > camera for use with the very fast lenses that Leica offers.
>
> I beg to differ.  I would love it if Leica can find a way or a
> material to make the M equipment (bodies and lenses) lighter.
> I think the current equipment is a bit too heavy; not as bad
> as a SLR with a 80-200 f2.8 zoom of course, but it would be
> nice to carry a couple of M bodies with 4 or 5 of the fast lenses
> all day and not feel the weight. Too light of course is also bad.
>
> How much does the dampening help anyway ?
>
> - Phong
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Austin
> > Franklin
> > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 9:02 AM
> > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > Subject: RE: [Leica] D100 photos
> >
> >
> > Patrick,
> >
> > > There are similarities to the pure Leica question.
> > > Traditional materials and craftsmanship vs. new high
> > > tech materials and manufacturing techniques.
> >
> > I don't associate "vintage steel bikes" with "traditional materials and
> > craftsmanship".  Material and craftsmanship are two entirely different
> > things.  A Leica is hardly "vintage steel".  I don't know how anyone can
say
> > that new bikes aren't made with the same craftsmanship old ones
are...I'd
> > even say new bikes are made with MORE craftsmanship than old bikes are,
and
> > you certainly can not say that about new cameras vs old cameras.
> >
> > Leicas ARE made with higher craftsmanship, in my opinion, than most
other
> > cameras, and so are NEW bikes.  Old "vintage steel bikes" aren't really
made
> > with much "craftsmanship", at least the ones I've seen...they are made
> > heavier duty, but that isn't craftsmanship.
> >
> > As far as materials go, it's the proper material for the job.  For
bikes,
> > LIGHT weight is an issue.  For a Leica, heavier IS better, as it dampens
the
> > camera for use with the very fast lenses that Leica offers.  Is there
> > anything wrong with the material used in the Leicas?  Not that I am
aware
> > of.  Is there anything wrong with the material in a "vintage steel
bike"?
> > Yes.  Steel isn't conducive to light weight.
> >
> > Again, I still don't understand the comparison.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Austin
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > To give another example of Leica vs digital is a
> > > > > cyclist who only rides vintage steel bikes, and
> > > > would
> > > > > never straddle a bike made of titanium, carbon
> > > > fibre,
> > > > > or any of the other exotic materials.
> > > >
> > > > Henry,
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand one bit how that is a comparable
> > > > comparison.
> > > >
> > > > Austin
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from "Phong" <phong@doan-ltd.com> (RE: [Leica] D100 photos)