Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/10

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] RE: RE: Konica fiction
From: "Jon Honeyball" <>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 09:59:06 +0100

Quite so, and well said.

It is sad to see all the petty little prejudices coming out on here --
the "oh its plastic so it doesn't matter" nonsense. 

It emphatically does matter -- the Leica world cannot afford to have FUD
(fear uncertainty and doubt) in its marketplace, or in the eyes of its
customer base, present and future. It matters *a lot* when you have
Leica dealers who are Konica dealers too, and are tempting people into a
Konica now with the intention of moving them up to Leica in the future.
You might say "Why do I care? I have 2 M6s, the 21, the Tri, the 35/1.4,
the 50/1.0, the 75/1.4 and the 90/2.0" and have no intention or need of
a Konica. I care cos it *matters* that if something is Leica compatible,
then it *really is*.

I too have the highest respect for Erwin -- his new book is essential

But it is not unreasonable to ask where the information came from, and
on what basis.

Oh, and thanks to the *two* people who bothered to email me and tell me
they liked the M6 pictures on my website. Over 100Mb of images were
downloaded, and only two could be bothered to say anything. One wonders
how many on the LUG actually use their cameras -- it would be
instructive to have a poll to ask how many put a double-digit number of
rolls of film through their camera per year. Ensuring it had honest
answers would be the hard thing, I fear.


- -----Original Message-----
From: [] 
Posted At: 10 May 2001 09:04
Posted To: leica
Conversation: [Leica] RE: RE: Konica fiction
Subject: RE: [Leica] RE: RE: Konica fiction

Jim Brick wrote:

"Because, unlike most of us, Erwin does not post ad hoc dissertations to
LUG without doing the necessary research.

I do not know anyone who researches photography more carefully than
This IS Erwin."

However without a *source* for the Konica figure, it's merely a claim,
an established fact. It's a very interesting claim, because it comes
someone with a formidable reputation, and I have little doubt that it
well be an *accurate* claim, but it remains uncorroborated.

Over a year ago I also asked a LUG poster for the source of the
he'd published. I was supported in my request by another LUG member who
wrote: "David Morton is correct is insisting that information with a
journalistic content should be treated as such". That LUG member was
Puts, you can see the whole posting at

I am not - emphatically *NOT* - arguing with, or criticising, Mr Puts. I
merely asking that he provide a source for the information he has

- -- 
David Morton

Replies: Reply from "Stanislaw B.A. Stawowy" <> (Re: [Leica] RE: RE: Konica fiction)