Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/06/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Marc James Small wrote: ><snip> > Cameras distinguish themselves by the quality of photographs they are > CAPABLE of recording, while a watch merely tells time. A cheap $5 watch, > ultimately, will keep as good a time as will a $65,000 GP pocket-watch.><snip> > Marc The way I see it: It's an apples to oranges passive to active proposition. A watch keeps good time and if you happen to glance at it, you will too. It does what it does and it doesn't need you to help. If you want to look at it, fine. A camera on the other hand doesn't keep good pictures. You have to take it and point it at something and click the shutter. Glancing at the camera doesn't do any good. You have to actively make it do it's thing. By the way my wife has a clock on the back of her databack camera and my cel phone reads the time in the display at the top. Everything is a watch now. My coffee maker is a major source for me knowing what time it is as is my microwave. Everywhere I look there is a little LED telling me the time like it or not. I'd say watches are in an existential dilemma worse than cameras! Mark :-) Rabiner