R: [Leica] True parallelism

["linda" <lindaboz@tin.it>]

bravo!
- -----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Christian Payot <christian.payot@span.ch>
A: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Data: sabato 12 giugno 1999 22.21
Oggetto: Re: [Leica] True parallelism


Marc James Small a écrit :

> 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.  A
> $5 camera will not be CAPABLE of recording as detailed an image as will a
> decent camera.

Is a detailed picture necessary a good picture ? Is a good picture necessary
detailed ?
If definition is the only quality you value in a picture, why not use a
large
format : the results will be incredibly more detailed. The differences will
be
much more visible than between Leica and Canon (or Nikon, or ...).

A Leica camera is not only CAPABLE of recording a better picture, it IS
actually a better photographic tool. The difference is not only "virtual",
it
is "material" : better construction, more resistant, more convenient for the
kind of photography you do, etc. But the quality of the tool is not at all a
guarantee for the quality of the result.

From a purely practical point of view, the best camera may well be the
camera
you have taken with at the important moment. Nothing to do with
micro-contrast, or FTM curves. Even a stenope could be good enough.

A $5 watch is just a timekeeper, but a $65,000 "Tourbillon" or "Répétition
Minutes" is quite different, it does not "merely tell time". It is not more
accurate as a cheap quartz watch, it is "just" much better built and
finished,
often with new original mechanical solutions to classical problems of
horology. The differences are perhaps not as visible as in a camera, but
they
are "kolossal" too. The price reflects the construction costs, not the
precision. Idem for a Leica.

Regards

Christian Payot