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: Re: [Leica] Re: existential pleasures of engineering (2)
From: Walter S Delesandri <walt@jove.acs.unt.edu>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 14:36:55 -0600 (CST)

Oh, well, Ken, 
It's us "neurotics" that keep the damn old system viable anyway!!

That said, now I have to go get my (free) Cinelli framset that 
was given to me, and start finding some Nuovo-Record shit to 
install one it.....(HONEST!!!- HOW IRONIC)...then I'll lose 
50lbs and be 18 again.....on my 1975 racing machine! (I'm not 
making any of this up!!!)

Best to U and URS, 
Walt

(BTW, the guy "thinks' he has Campy tools with it, he's looking 
for me)

On Sat,
13 Mar 1999, Ken Wilcox wrote:

> 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>
>