Re: Who's not so bright. The End.

[Jim Brick <jim@brick.org>]

At 10:10 AM 10/9/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>Harding (Canon),... uh... too many to explicitely name here. And you are
>>not interested anyway.
>
>I asked, didn't I? You seem to be the one who isn't interested in exploring
>the possibilities, by making flat statements like they are garbage. They
>don't work. There is zero rangefinder base. 
>
>Go ahead and say you don't think it works for you. That's great. But don't
>take offense when we disagree and give reasons for it. This is a forum to
>explore. Let's explore!
>

That's exactly what I did. I said what I believe. I explored my beliefs.

I did not say that it does not work. It obviously works for some people and
could be useful in low light where GG focussing is difficult. I'll use a
true RF camera in low light.

Zero accuracy is an overstatement by me only because the split image is
not, (with respect to M, G, and Fuji cameras, tanks, gunnery, etc.) a
rangefinder. To me, the definition of rangefinder is an accurate instrument
with a defined separation between the superimposed elements. Some
rangefinders for the military are three or more feet wide. The wider, the
more accurate for all distances. A split prism in the center of a GG screen
picking up an aerial image from opposite sides of a single lens is not, in
my book, a true "rangefinder" and is absolutely not even close to being as
accurate as the true rangefinder in the M camera. Ref: Walter Heun, late
1970's. If I'm (we're) wrong... well it will neither be the first time nor
the last time.

I'm personally not taking offense to you saying what you think. It works
for you. Make a case for it. But asking me to list the people that I know
who think like I think on this subject is not making a case for what you
think. It simply implies frustration and serves no useful purpose. It's
certainly not exploring.

The last line of my original statement said:

"The above is MY PERSONAL OPINION, but of course, if you find the zero base
split image useful for your purposes, that's really all that counts."

and

"Happy shooting,"

If you truly have a desire to know the names of each and every one of my
colleagues that think like I do about "garbage" disrupting the center of
your ground glass screen, I'll compile them this evening and send them by
private e-mail. This obviously is of no use to anybody else on the LUG.

Jim

ps... You all know my opinion on this and how I obtained it. I will not
respond to this again. Eric, I fully respect your knowledge and opinion.
It's all out on the table. If you wish to continue, please do. People have
read my opinion. People have read your opinion. If they didn't already
know, they can figure out what works best for them. I've said my piece. And
I'm happy with it. Over and out.