Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/06/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 09:39 AM 06-06-97 -0400, Marc wrote: [snip] > >Both families are exceedingly well built. The difference -- and one >pointed out in the Pop article, though they catastrophically failed to >understand the significance of the fact -- is that the earlier cameras have >almost infinite adjustments at many points of there construction, allowing >them to be fine-tuned like a set of Weber carburetters. The later cameras >have replaced a lot of these adjustments with 'go/no-go' parts: that is, >the part is either in spec or out of spec, and no adjustment is possible. >If it is out of spec, then it is replaced. I can think of another example in the world of photography. At the school where I have taken a few photo courses, the enlargers they use are Beselers. People love them because (among possibly many reasons) their alignment can be adjusted to produce a sharp image in all four corners. The problem is that the enlargers at the school were invariably out of alignment, and were a pain in the ass to re-align. My enlarger at home is a Saunders 670DXL. This enlarger cannot be aligned. At first glance this seems like a weakness, but in reality the enlarger doesn't need aligning, ever. When I use a glass negative carrier to keep the negative flat, the enlargement is sharp in the corners to a degree I never see with the Beselers. Dan C.