Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mike's gauntlet states as rules among others: "All films and developers identified, all made with the same paper, paper developer, enlarger, and enlarging lens. Camera lens apertures used will be identified. " Well I admire Mike's stamina in trying to prove that there are at least a thousand angles that can stand on the head of a pin (see also Leica built quality), but his gauntlet test is so flawed as to be useless. First of all hie entry criteria: "All good negatives, all sharp, all big enlargements, all showing fine technique", are all beyond objective validation and comparison., so whatever negative passes his test will be a personal judgement, which might be acceptable, but without any measurable and identifiable criteria we are left with a very shaky base, on which to draw any conclusion would be unreliable if not outright wrong. More importantly as nor the lighting conditions, nor the subject matter nor the distance at which to take photographs, nor the film and development variables are fixed or at the least comparable, we are left drawing conclusions from evidence that is so diverse in all of its important parameters that any conclusion may be drawn and we may be certain that any conclusion is irrelevant. (as seven of Nine would note correctly). The flash or not to flash discussion is the same as to use a tripod or not when discussing "proper" Leica technique. The fact that many important Leica pictures have been taken without flash does not imply that ALL Leica pictures will have to be made without flash and that a good Leica picture must always be flash-less. Let us be a bit less prescriptive here: Leica pictures in my view are just pictures taken with a Leica camera whatever the flash or tripod. In another category we have good pictures. Simple algebra will tell you that we have two sets (one of pictures taken with a Leica camera and one of good pictures). The intersection of both sets gives you the subset of good Leica pictures. That is all there is to say about it. Why are some people so stubborn in declaring that the subset of good Leica pictures has to be intersected with some other set of pictures taken without flash or tripod. Now Leica prides itself on the performance of its lenses wide open. So I will declare a new definition of good or correct Leica pictures: those pictures taken with a Leica camera and a Leica lens (of course!) at apertures wider than f/2.8. See how ridiculous this all is. Is the M4 better built than the M6. Again without any statistical and reliable evidence we cannot answer this question which is anyhow rhetorical without a definition of "better built". Citing anonymous sources who all agree that the M4 is "better built", and not giving any hard evidence to support this claim is a technique as old as the classical Romans used to topple a senator from the senate: spread a rumor, give it some credentials by referring to important and reliable sources and then let the human imagination run its obvious and inevitable course. The topic of spare parts for the non TTL electronic circuits. As long as we do not know exactly what is the actual difference between the two sets of electronics, we do not know for sure if a replacement or repair is possible. I do know that German law stipulates that for every product that is discontinued the manufacturer needs to hold spares to repair the product for a period of 10 years after discontinuing it. So I do assume that Leica has assured enough parts or at least repair strategies to support older camera models. Erwin