[Leica] Doug Coopers remarks

[imx <imxputs@knoware.nl>]

Doug Cooper wrote in part:
> The M3 is quieter. Feel free to measure this in the lab.
Actually I did: as others commented the noise level is equal to the M6, but
the distribution of the high and low frequencies is different. Based on
decibels there is no difference. Even if your comment were true, what does
it prove?
> The M3 is more beautiful, and of superior craftsmanship. No, you cannotmeasure
> this in the lab, but it's as close to a fact as any aestheticjudgment will
> ever be.
In my extremely humble opinion, aesthetic judgments are 'factual', because
one does utter the sentence. To propose that this type of judgment refers to
the physical world, is a lapse of imagination beyond any philosophers dream.
The weight of an M3 at 800grams is a fact, that can be proven by doing a
weight test. The 'fact' that the M3 is beautiful cannot be proven by
whatever test. Is your comment about "superior craftmanship" a fact or a
judgment. If a 'fact" (in the weight category), please state uour criteria
of "craftmanship" that can be used as a test that is objective and
impartial, like a measurement of length or weight.
> Although, come to think of it, you denigrated the entire Konica line based on
> your singled example of the 50,which happened to have *precisely the same
> defects as my Elmarit-M.*
I am most intrigued. Please quote my text to support your inferences. If you
seriously wish to engage in a rational discourse. it would be nice to have
the facts in front of everybdy! What exactly did I say?
> You never test anything that might truly give Leica a run for its money.Let's
> see what your quantitative measurements say about the Konica 28mm,relative to
> the Leica. 
Again a statement that demands an explanation from you. In fact I was the
first to publicly note the excellent performance of the Nokton versus the
Summilux. (Thanks to Tom A, who provided me with an early production sample)
Many people habitually quote this verdict, but in case you missed it: I MADE
THAT TEST! And did not bury it in case leica products would be considered
not up to te competition.
I am also eager to note the results of my tests of the Konica lenses!
Speculating is fine, but no basis for a factual discussion.
> This lens is considered a marvelof engineering by virtually everyone who has
> ever worked with it or testedit (although I don't much like the bokeh -- no
> concern to you); why do yousimply dismiss it?
Now this is a vague statement of the highest order. Virtually everyone who
tested it? This is demagogy of the best quality. To give body to this
statement: 
Please give me the names of 10 individuals and their quoted remarks.
Now for a different view (as you obviuosly fdo not believe me).
Here the test results of the famous Geoffrey Crawley of the British Journal
of Photography about the Zeiss 1.4/50: I quote (and I really do hope you can
substantiate your remarks with the same exactitude!)"
"On test the lens gave better than average but not outstanding results. The
full aperture image was quite sharp in the centre but there was less detail
definition than might have been expected". He then discusses every aperture
and concludes: "The 50mm f/1.4 standard lens for the Contax RTS can be rated
a good modern design which will satisfy most general requirements of the
focal length".
These results mirror mine  and can be verified by looking at the MTF graphs
provided by Zeiss. 
> The notion of locking a Leica M -- or any rangefinder 35mm -- to atripod, in
> everyday use, is just silly. My argument? Not a singleimportant photographer
> has ever done so. Not one. Perhaps for theoccasional shot, but the Leica, for
> *almost every important image it hasever produced*, has been handheld.
Another sweeping and on first sight seductive statement. It has nothing to
do with my testing or views about M cameras. It is your personal opinion
which cannot be argued with. As a statement of fact it is completely wrong.
Many photographers use the M on tripod, but you may not know them.
As examples: the very famous Emil Schulthess and Sieff come to mind, but
obviously you wish not a discussion but a cheap success.
> Current standards of industrial design at Solms are abysmal.
No quarrel as it is a personal judgmnet. What this has to do with my testing
of Leica equipment escapes me. Please enlighten me.

You also asked:
> My M6s are useless> for low light photography as rf flare makes focussing
> really hard. That was another point I intended to bring up. Erwin, where on
> your site doyou address this very real concern?
My answer: in the M6 section: I quote my self:
"The M6 can be improved: its viewfinder is flare prone and will sometimes
black out the rangefinder patch."
This statement may not be strong enough to your liking. Your inference that
I do shelf and refuse to address topics that put leica in a less lofty
position by rhetoric questions that you can easily answer by actually
looking at my site, bodes ill for your good intentions.

To close: I am willing to discuss with you any topic pertaining to the
leica. Hopefully you bring some facts into the discussion and substantiate
your claims, which up to now are hollow or in the safe domain of personal
views.

Erwin