Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/06/12

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

Subject: ccMail SMTPLINK Undeliverable Message
From: Postmaster@gatekeeper2.un.org (ccMail SMTPLINK)
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 97 03:55:19 EST

User Surachai V. at UNESCAP4 is not defined

 Original text follows 
 ----------------------------------------------
Received: from gatekeeper5.un.org by mail-in2.un.org (SMTPLINK V2.11.01)
	; Thu, 12 Jun 97 03:54:28 EST
Return-Path: <owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Received: by gatekeeper5.un.org; id AA003041404; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 03:43:24 -0400
Received: from mejac.palo-alto.ca.us(192.147.236.1) by gatekeeper5.un.org via smap (V3.1)
	id xma029860; Thu, 12 Jun 97 03:34:47 -0400
Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA06583; Wed, 11 Jun 97 23:58:35 -0700
Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA06577; Wed, 11 Jun 97 23:58:28 -0700
Received: from staff-exchange.TP.AC.SG by inetgate.tp.ac.sg (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id PAA15848; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 15:02:14 +0800
Received: by staff-exchange.TP.AC.SG with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63)
	id <01BC7741.6F412090@staff-exchange.TP.AC.SG>; Thu, 12 Jun 1997 15:00:58 +0800
Message-Id: <c=SG%a=_%p=TP%l=STAFF-EXCHAN-970612070056Z-80873@staff-exchange.TP.AC.SG>
From: Chan Eng Suan <engsuan@tp.ac.sg>
To: "'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us'" <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Subject: RE: Leica-Users List Digest V1 #503
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 15:00:56 +0800
X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.994.63
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us

Otto wrote:

>>>Unfortunately photo magazines (for multiple reasons?) do not run 
any tests on durability of cameras<<

Ditto for most equipment review magazines. An award winning
car-of-the-year may end up staying in workshop more frequent than on the
road. One of the reasons is the prohibiting cost and complexity in
performing reliability tests. It involves investment in environmental
chambers, shock/vibration machines, sand/dust machines, salt spray
machine etc....only manufacturer can afford them. Sending them to
independent laboratory for testing isn't cheap either. Field testing
takes far to long to clock the required time/rolls for any conclusive
results. 

There are some luggers prefer field tests results, however, it is
usually done for high cost products (OK, OK, Leica ain't cheap...) built
specially for a few customers, such as military products and super
computers. Lab based simulated tests have the advantage of repeatability
and can be taken as reference by many users. 

>>> However at present it seems to be the only 
>way to get rid of pure guesswork and hearsay when it comes to the 
>question: "how long can I expect this camera to function under what 
>conditions"?<<

I agree. From the way you use your gears, don't ever take any data from
a camera that sits in the studio most of the time or you will wonder why
you always get a lousy camera ;-).


Cheers,

Eng-Suan
engsuan@tp.ac.sg
(65)780-5532
>