Re[5]: [Leica] deception -- None

[Peterson_Art@hq.navsea.navy.mil]

     I would suggest, again, that if the time difference were significant, 
     photographically speaking (regardless of whatever the tested number of 
     milliseconds is), the historical photojournalistic record would not be 
     so preponderantly full of photographs taken with Nikon SLR cameras.
     
     Art Peterson
     

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re[4]: [Leica] deception -- None
Author:  leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us at internet
Date:    1/20/98 10:43 PM


At 03:34 PM 1/20/98 -0500, you wrote:
     
>     You mention that an SLR "goes thru a complex series of time-consuming 
>     coordinated mechanical functions before the shutter fires," but surely 
>     that difference from an M camera is merely a matter of milliseconds; 
>     otherwise Nikon photographers would have a reputation for missing the 
>     precise moment of action (which, as far as I know, they do not).
     
Actually the difference is quite significant. The Leica M6 is much faster 
than any camera on the market, and belive it or not, Pop Photo did a test 
on just such a subject, and the Leica was more predictable and faster in 
response and took the picture closer to the right moment. By a matter of 
100 MS or more. That's 1/10 of a second, not thousandths.
==========
     
Eric Welch
St. Joseph, MO
http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch
     
What is the probability that something will happen according to the odds?