Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/03/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Is it anything like the "great rebates" given us by magnanimous corporations? David Rodgers wrote: >Four thirds is an interesting marketing strategy. It sounds like 33% >more. > >If you change it to portrait rather than landscape does it transform to >25% less? > >I always thought the concept of half frame was a marketing mistake. They >should have compared it to 127 and called it double frame. The Pen F >would have been a huge success. > >Who doesn't want double of something? Who doesn't feel slighted only >receiving half? > >35mm (where did 135 come from?) should have been named by length of >roll. Then we'd all be shooting 48 inch format and digital would be >1/66ths or "less than 1.5 percent format". > >Try and sell that one, Madison Avenue! > >OHOH, they'd probably just tell us how it would make our telephotos seem >that much longer; how we can turn our economical 400mm lenses into >expensive 600mm lenses. Where do I sign? > >The truth is that in the late 70s, when the SLR market was going into >the tank all the camera companies decided they'd come up with an >entirely new type of camera system that everyone would have to buy in >order to take pictures. They invented the digital camera. Then someone >realized that people would need computers in order to process the >pictures. So they went out and found someone to invent the personal >computer (some went to Apple and some went to IBM, but that's another >story). > >What they didn't realize is that it would take 20 years for the personal >computer to evolve into something powerful enough to process a digital >image practically. > >There's been work going on this for years in a secret factory somewhere >and camera companies can actually build a sensor the size of an 8 inch >refractor telescope. But they know from past experience that it would be >a mistake to roll that out today. (For one thing they'd have to increase >the size of the modern DSLR by at least 20% to hold that size sensor). > >The camera companies want everyone to buy a small sensor first. Then >they'll come up with a bigger sensor. Then a bigger one still. That way >they'll always be able to sell new cameras; not to mention every few >years new lens systems that will cover a wider sensor. > >There was one thorn in the side of this strategy. The existence of the >Leica M rangefinder. That pesky Leica rangefinder! They couldn't kill >it. So they went after the film companies. They put out a campaign of >propaganda telling us how film was really bad. It wasn't easy because >most of us knew that film was something that seemed to work pretty well >in the past. It actually took a generation for the campaign to finally >kick in, which serendipitously coincided with the Pentium processor. But >work it did! > >Today we all feel inadequate shooting film, even though in truth film is >still the best medium. If you can't kill film, what to you do. You kill >the darkroom! > >I've researched this carefully and I've concluded that the digital >revolution is one big capitalistic conspiracy. Fortunately, they can't >kill the LUG. Those of you who are agents for the dark side, we're onto >you! > >DaveR > >-----Original Message----- >From: Didier Ludwig [mailto:rangefinder@screengang.com] >Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 7:22 AM >To: Leica Users Group >Subject: Re: [Leica] enough with Olympus DSLR postings PLEASE > > > > >>Now more then 3/4 of the postings are related to Olympus. >> >> > >Olympus is rather 4/3 than 3/4! > > > >>Please, y'all, lets stay on-topic for users of Leica cameras. >> >> > >You want to shrink the LUG down to 1%? > >:-Didier > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > >