Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Would oil or unpolluted water be a candidate for being selected as the world's scarcest resource? Maybe. Following the LUG discussion in the previous week I would feel inclined to select the capacity for a civilized and rational discourse to be on the eve of destruction. As a journalist for several photographic magazines, I am constantly exposed to the tricks of the trade. When Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Kodak or Tokina or Cosina or (fill in any name) announce a major new product, they assemble the press at luxurious locations. They often pay the airtickets, hotel expenses and you get lots of equipment to use , often to keep. The car industry does the same: why is every new car available for a test drive only in Cannes, south of France? Air charters are ready for take off and hundreds if not thousands of journalists are invited (and they all accept!!). Does this state of affairs make them suspicious of being bribed and thus churning out only favourable reports from their laptops. How naive can you be? What is more valuable: a badly executed individual 'test' of a car, lens, camera (...) by a person who has no relationship with the manufacturer of the product other than buying it or an expertly done test (with figures, stopwatches, benches or whatever) by a journalist who happens to get a dinner from the manufacturer? Of course there are professional journalists who take the easy way and rephrase the press reports issued by the manufacturer as their own experience. But there also individuals who are so frustrated by a product that they will lose any modicum of relativity. Which is worse? Is a journalist who writes a glowing review of the BMW M3 an idiot if after three years the company has to acknowledge that there are problems with the gears in the steering wheel unit? Any individual who gets a lemon ( a faulty car, a non functioning camera, a lens with defects) will be angry and rightly so: but the very essence of mass production will guarantee that some products will fail. But we can not glorify the past of fine craftmanship: the old laws indicate that a builder of houses would be killed if his edifice would collapse within five years. Would such a law be necessary if all was fine in those days of individual craftmanship? If I report that current Leica lenses deliver the best image quality they ever have attained, does this make me suspect? Why could it not be possible that such a state of affairs would occur. Why should we stubbornly and without facts assume that this cannot be the case? If I note that the statistical failure rate of M6 bodies is equal to that of the M3's, why am I suspect by saying so. Because one do not want to hear it as it wil shatter one's beliefs? Because it does not fit into one own's perceptions or expectations? If Tom A is raving about the qualities of Cosina products he must be paid by them for this? Why? Because he is raving? Maybe he is right and one's preconceptions are wrong! The point I wish to make is that getting a free lunch from a manufacturer does not imply that one cannot be able to give a realistic assessment of the product. Bottom line is the issue of integrity: you can be fully qualified to do a balanced assessment while being in an hotel paid for by the manufacturer and you may be far beyond the credibility issue when claiming that the product you have is so far below your expectations that the company must be sued. The Greeks had this insight already: they deplored the fact that the messenger was killed because the King did not like the message. If you as an individual do not like the message, why try to kill the messenger by noting he is being paid by the manufacturer, he is not qualified, he once made a mistake or whatever. Why not engage in a rational discourse? Ask questions and be prepared to shift your view if necessary, when facts and arguments force you to do so. A rational discourse also implies to stay on topic, that is within the original assumptions and premisses. The recent Lug discussion does indicate that civilization, openness and willingness to ponder viewpoints that are alien to one's own position, and rational discourse are scarce. This is a bad state of affairs for the spirit that is enclosed in every Leica product: the Barnack idea of free spirit and the willingness to explore new ideas and solutions. Erwin