Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Jem,
First of all, I can only guess why there were problems with the
projectors at Rene's party.
1.- They did not know how to operate it. The projector has a very
large instruction book. It does a lot and is very complicated.
2.- It was a demonstrator/prototype model which was going all day and
decided to take a rest then.
3.- The projector revolted at showing Rene's pictures.
4.- The batteries in the infrared remote died.
5.- Zydo, (the now retired head of PR) can break almost everything.
6.- Murphy's Law was at work. (FYI- I have a VERY advanced degree in
Murphy's Law.)
7.- Leica product introduction luck-- It won't work when you need it
to...or it won't be delivered on time.
Hope these are enough reasons.....
As to your second question... Look at a projector lens, is doesn't
require a focusing mount, a diaphragm or any of the real fine machining a
camera or enlarger lens does. This is enough to seriously reduce production
costs. Plus, if you talk to a lens designer, they can give a lot more
reasons why projector lenses are easier to make than camera lenses.
Happy Snapping,
Sal DiMarco, Jr.
> Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 07:31:09 +0100
> From: Jem Kime <jem.kime@cwcom.net>
> Subject: RE: [Leica] Leica Pradovit RT projectors
> Message-ID: <01BFC3C8.8C8587A0.jem.kime@cwcom.net>
> References:
>
> Sal,
> I was at the last Photokina and attended an evening soiree where rene
Burri
> was honoured and talked his way through a tray or two os slides projected
> on one of these.
> Sadly it took the Leica personnel a good 20 mins to rectify a problem they
> were having with it, and these guys were Hd of PR and Gunther Osterloh! I
> guess you can't win them all...
> Here's a broader question to everyone -
> Q. Why doesn't it require a lens as expensive as a taking lens to project
> to the standards set by Leica, are the requirements not the same (in terms
> of quality/definition) but merely in reverse?
>
> Jem