[Leica] Oh, yeah?

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

>>>I love the self proclaimed expert.<<<

Please don't be rude. I wasn't rude to you.


>>>It does not take very many synapses to cogitate the reason for this
pheromone<<<

...phenomenon, I presume you meant. (I'll refrain from treating your
typo as a "straight line." Lurkers may insert their own jokes.)

Do you want to argue theoretically, or practically? Virtually everything
I say argues from a practical standpoint--i.e., what does, or does not,
have any detectable effect on actual photographs.

The fact that different materials have different resonant frequencies is
obviously well known, and for cine cameras this may have an effect on
photography; maybe for astro-photography or specialized uses of one sort
or another, including the use of long telephotos. Maybe.

For the conditions I clearly described--general pictorial photography
with lenses within common focal-length ranges--most decently designed
tripods, if deployed soundly and used intelligently, with serve just
fine--they'll result in sharper pictures than most people can usually
handhold. Is there something about that you disagree with?

Most vibration comes from within the camera body, anyway.

The damping characteristics of the material used for the legs isn't
going to make any visible difference in pictures. If you think you can
prove that it does, knock yourself out. I think it's ridicuolus--it's
theoretical fastidiousness, like arguing about how many angels can dance
on the head of a pin.

- --Mike