Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/03/13

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

Subject: [Leica] Re: existential pleasures of engineering (2)
From: Ken Wilcox <wilcox@tir.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 14:24:09 -0500

Walt, I have to agree with you one the lens issue. My nieces senior
pictures which I took with a 90 Elmar from 1949 were a great hit. There are
differences in lens but for mosst of my purposes at least, it is not
significant. I own a mix of lenes from the above mentioned to the 75
Summilux and Noctilux as well as some for the R system, most, but not, all
purchased used. (As a publoic school teacher I am definately NOT inthe
economic stratosphere) I always base my lens choice for a job on speed and
focal length without much thought as to how "sharp" the lens is. They are
all sharp enough.

I do think Leica has no choice about continuing to improve lenses. The
reputation of Leica glass sells cameras and lenses. If R&D lag, eventually
it will be said that the lenses are no longer competitive. True or untrue,
it will hurt the company and I won't be able to get my favorite tools.

Ken Wilcox

At 09:37 AM 3/13/99 -0600, Walt wrote:
>Has the "law of diminishing returns" no applicability to this 
>group?  Is the economic status of this group (as I've noted 
>before) so far into the stratosphere that economic issues are 
>not a factor?.....(for those of you familiar with the allusion, 
>are we all Harry Pearsons of "the Absolute Sound"?)
>
>Certainly, if one buys a new lens, and the difference between 
>the immediately previous model and the current "APO" or whatever 
>is 10-20%, one should opt for the new one....but in a real-world 
>example, should I sell my 1970 EXC 50 Summicron for $300 and 
>buy a new one for $1000?  or sell my 35 Summicron for $500 and 
>buy the "APO" for three times that?  I think a dose of reality 
>is in order.
>
>The top 1-2% performance gain IN ANY MANUFACTURED object costs 
>an additional 100% or more (sometimes MUCH more)....and will 
>make NO better pictures, better sound, better transportation, etc.
>
>Even though a person has the MONEY to do this kind of illogical 
>purchasing, it is truly quest for the "holy grail"...a goosechase, 
>etc....and is not prudent thinking....especially since most people 
>have trouble with the bodies, and are in no way approaching the 
>limits of thirty year old optics in their photography.  Lets 
>request reliable, well adjusted RFDR bodies that stay that way, 
>leave the lenses where they are until the rest of the system 
>catches up.
>
>Cheers, 
>Walt

- ------------------
Ken Wilcox					Carolyn's Personal Touch Portraits
LAW LHSA MEA						          <wilcox@tir.com>