Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/08/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 07:47 PM 8/5/96 +0200, you wrote: >That's interesting. Five years behind Nikon on SLR matters? May I remind >you of a number of sketches and ideas in the patent literature in Barnack's >times, suggesting that Barnack seriously considered the idea of building a >SLR. >Ten years behind in AF? Leitz were first with the Correfot, but lacked the >technology of miniatuirsation the Japanese so artfully mastered. Leca at I know all that, I'm talking about executoin in the market. Technology means nothing in the design department if it doesn't see the light of day. Correfot was being analysed in the 70s. But they couldn't overcome the problem of moving the lenses as tight as they are without wearing out the batteries too soon, or with enough speed. Contax has solved that problem with the AX. Now let's see if Leica licenses (or if they had something to do with the techology in the AX as has been reported by someone on Compuserve) or uses it. I might just go back to Leica if they do it. If it's only a bit bigger than an RTSIII like the AX is, I'd buy one. (Price considerations applying here. I'd need at least two). >from a Japanese factory (or German one) is about 100.000. Consequently you >buy for at least 5 years production, losing your flexibility and investing >your money in possibly obsolete equipment or you throw it away with again a That sounds all right except some people already consider Leica's technology obsolete. I don't but then I dont want the latest and greatest necessarily, I just want it to reallly work. ================== Eric Welch Grants Pass Daily Courier NPPA Region 11 JIB Chair