RE: [Leica] Re: DR not as good?

["Stewart, Alistair" <AStewart@gigaweb.com>]

Doug,

I'm not going to get into the journalist thing with you on the LUG, although
if you want my counter arguments as to why many journalists are lackeys of
their publication's stakeholders, I'd be happy to oblige privately.

I remember someone, I think it was you, (over- imvho)reacting intensely the
last time there was a thread questioning the unfailing integrity of
journalists.

As I believe that this will go way OT, I am prepared to let our differences
on that issue lie.

But I'm right there with you on having Erwin do some investigation for us.

As to the regular 'cron users feeling stiffed if the rumour got out, indeed
so. But then the rumour also creates extra desire for the DR, setting the
expectation the the higher price gets you more than just the goggles and
associated gubbins, it also gets you just a plain old better lens for
regular use. See for example the text on this point, unsupported by facts,
on Mr Gandy's website.

best of optical performance at all distances,

Alistair



- -----Original Message-----
From: Doug Richardson [mailto:doug@meditor.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 8:47 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Leica] Re: DR not as good?


"Stewart, Alistair" <AStewart@gigaweb.com> wrote:

>A juorno with a vested interest in maintaining good relationships
with his source recounted a conversation that
served the interests of the source...  I cast, however, no aspersions
on anyone.

Except the journalist?

Every journalist needs to maintaining good relationships with
sources - otherwise we wouldn't have any sources left. One skill which
forms part of the the journalist's craft  is that of evaluating and if
necessary challenging what the source tells you, and gradually
deciding the degree to which that source's information is reliable and
in what subject areas it is reliable.

I can't see is how the news that Leitz was preselecting of optical
assemblies for the Summicron DR "served the interest of the source".

In 1962 the DR was 26% more expensive than the rigid Summicron, a
price differential which seems reasonable given the extra machining
needed to create the DR mounting, and the cost of the 'spectacles'. I
doubt if anyone expected they'd be getting an optically better lens --
the dealer I bought mine from made no such claim.

If optics for the DR were being specially selected for general
quality, for this news to leak may not have been in the best interests
of Leitz. The majority of 5cm Summicron users (who'd bought the rigid
lens) could have been left with the impression they'd been sold a
lower-grade lens.

Erwin's tests of the rigid and DR two lenses show no difference in
performance. Assuming that this sample reflects the general trend,
then perhaps the the selection was being made on other grounds than
overall quality. If some pre-selection was indeed taking place, could
Leitz have been reserving those optical assemblies which performed
best in the near-focussing range of distances?  Perhaps Erwin can
explore this question next time he's at a gathering of Leitz-era 'old
hands'.

Regards,

Doug Richardson