Re: Emotive lenses

[Eric Welch <ewelch@cdsnet.net>]

At 10:41 PM 10/6/96 -0400, you wrote:

>Prewar German optical journals.  It was simply the only way that Leitz, as a
>small company, could compete in the market of the period, and the trick
>produced lenses which produced a unique quality on the final image.

This is based on fact? Or someone's theory? Sounds fishy to me. Leica in
the 50s bought some pretty heavy duty computers, to assist in design. This
is a small company with no money? Besides making the best microscopes
around that cost 5 times as much as Zeiss?  And binoculars that were the
favorites of the Audubon society, and surveying equipment? No money?

>perfectly capable of quite similar products but their corporate policies
>dictate their product line.  Now that Leitz has moved to MTF/OTF standards,
>expect their lenses to begin performing a bit more like Zeiss optics.

Not to mention shifting zoom production from Minolta to the same company
that makes Contax's lenses. At least for their "cheaper" model. :-)

>c)  I doubt if optical scientists spend a lot of time disassembling their
>competitors' products.  The principles involved are too well known -- all of

They don't, I'm sure, but I remember talking to someone who toured the
Leica factory and noticed they had Nikon and Canon 300 2.8s on the optical
bench alongside the 280 2.8 (this was mid 80s). They told him that the
Canon was the closest to performance to the Leica (and most tests I've seen
confirm Canon's was better than Nikon's and that the Canon is really a 280,
not a 300) and that they were studying the performance of the lenses. So
they don't reverse engineer, but they do compare performance.

>Zeiss, at any rate, is probably too arrogant to really concern itself with
>the foibles of others -- they seem to feel that, if they didn't develop it,
>it really didn't need to be developed.

Boy, that's my impression too. I like their lenses sharpness, but not their
look.

And someone criticized Bob Shell in a recent post as loving every camera
that comes along. I think I should clarify this point, even though I
disagree with him. It isn't that he doesn't dislike some cameras, but his
editorial policy is to never to do a review on bad product. I took him to
task on Compuserve once on this very subject, because he refused to review
Domke bags - which I love. He didn't like them, so he didn't want to hurt
Domke's reputation simply because he doesn't like them. Though that is a
bit arrogant sounding, Shutterbug does seem to had a disproportionate
amount of influence on a lot of people. He's trying to be fair, and
forgetting his role in this business. 

I disagree with that policy and think it doesn't serve the public, he's
sticking to it, he owns the magazine, and that's why it looks like he loves
everything. Sort of self-fulfilling.

BTW, I think he's a lousy glamor photographer, (mediocre models in pained
poses) and his recent criticism of the SI swimsuit issue was the height of
blindness, not to mention irony.

===========
Eric Welch
Grants Pass, OR