Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Duane, Erwin promotes himself as an accurate and scientific lens tester, an optical expert. If this is true, he should have no trouble backing up his own statements with scientific accuracy. He stated categorically my carefully researched information was incorrect. Fine, it may be. I want to know his sources for this claim, preferably factory data which can be considered accurate due to its origin. Please keep in mind, had Erwin originally given the source of his information with his claims, this interchange may not have taken place. It's not being unreasonable to ask Erwin his sources. He asked the the exact same question of me, and I gave my sources. I can think of no reason why he should not be held to his own standard. Stephen Gandy "Birkey, Duane" wrote: > I should probably stay out of the middle of this.... But.... > > No offense Stephen..... but the lack of a Leica publication that states it > is multicoated doesn't mean it isn't.... > And the lack of Minolta publication saying the two are the same design is > neither a basis to assume they are > different.... It seems you are asking Erwin to prove the impossible (using > only publications that don't exist) > > Sort of like asking the White house for documents concerning "ahem".... > > It seems your arguments are based on publications and not on physical > evidence.... Documents (or lack of them) are not proof of anything.... > Haven't you ever gotten the instructions for assembling stuff where the > pieces didn't match the drawings... there are extra holes in a brackets and > more bolts than nuts... or pieces left over.... > > I'm not sure how one can resolve that.... But the logical thing would be to > compare side by side examples of each.... take them apart.... measure > stuff.... but even so.... if there is different glass used.... extremely > subtle differences may not constitute a different design... But it would be > a more profitible and objective way of dealing with this. > > I'm tempted to think that Erwin would have more access to official and > unnofficial Leica data than anyone else considering his recent projects and > writings for Leica...... and that info would be more useful than magazine > reviews and brochures.... > > But Stephen isn't stupid either... > > You both have knowledge to contribute... > > So... At least be civil and be nice to each other..... this is not an issue > that is worth self-infliciting damage on either of your reputations.... > > Duane > > ************************************************************************** > Stephen Gandy asked Erwin... > > I ask you again, refer me to the Leica publication which states these > lenses > were multicoated. Likewise, refer me to the Minolta publication which > states > the 40/2 CLE lens was identical to the earlier 40/2 CL lens. If you can't, > it > seems your statements on these subjects are without merit. > > I welcome your opinions, but when you claim something is factual, you should > be > able to back up that claim.