RE: [Leica] Oh ... It's COMING SOON! :-)

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

Gary,

> > > What you are missing is that the ND is an inferior product.
>
> > When it was introduced, name a product in it's category it was inferior
> to?
> > No one else offered a full frame digital camera, Contax was the first.
>
> So what if it was full frame!  In Kyocera's rush to have the first full
> frame digicam they got it to market BEFORE IT WAS READY.

Before it was ready for what?  Did it not produce images?  Is there a first
generation high end digital SLR that hasn't had at least ONE firmware
update?

> In 10 years it will be in the museum of photogaphic failures, a mere
> footnote in the history of the digital revolution of the photogaphic
> industry.

Where is this museum?  If it's in a museum, it will be for it's technical,
and photographic merits.  You are purely focusing on it's economic merits,
which, no one tends to remember.

> > > Of course you can take good
> > > photos with it, the ND uses Zeiss glass.  But this does not mean
> > > it's a good
> > > product.
> >
> > Sure it does.
>
> I won't even comment on this, it's like saying if you put a fine wine in a
> cracked glass, it make the glass ok.

Er, no, that's not what it's saying.

> What does Contax digital have to do with Ferrari?  The ND may be an
> "exceptional" camera in your eyes but in the market place it's a
> pariah.  I
> suppose that is another form of exceptional.

Again, you are solely focused on the economic issues, which have NO bearing
on it's merit as a photographic tool.  Why can't you understand that?

> > > I took this position BEFORE the ND camera was
> > > introduced.  It's based on a deeply flawed model, which means
> > > it's a deeply
> > > flawed product.
> >
> > Well, to put it bluntly, bullshit.
>
> You cogent and penetrating insight is overwhelming me.

Good, because your obvious bullshit is becoming boring.

> > Obviously, you have no clue about product development.  I do.  I've been
> > developing quite complicated electronic products for, oh, 25
> years.  This
> is
> > Contax's first digital SLR.  It's bound to have problems.  In fact, I'd
> say
> > they did an exceptional job, as it really had few problems for
> how complex
> > it is.  You would not understand that though.  Even autofocus
> went through
> > this problem cycle, which is typical of a FIRST revision product.
>
>
> At last a clue as to your irrational defense of  the ND.

My defense of a fine photographic instrument is hardly irrational.  Your
incessant demeaning of it is.

> Product
> development!  It was your ilk that bungled the ND!

Where's the bungle?  Did it not take fine photographs?  Again, Gary, where
IS the bungle?  Engineers have not a thing to do with the economics of the
product, but, you are looking for someone to blame for something, I'm not
sure what.  You claim my defense of it is irrational, well, my defense of it
is based on fact.  Your dislike for it is not.  Whose irrational, Gary?
Hum.

> "Bound to have
> problems."  NONSENSE.

Your not understanding product introduction is obvious.  Again, Gary, name
ONE first round high end digital SLR that has NOT had a problem, and/or a
firmware upgrade?  You can't, because they ALL do, and even continue to to
this day.

> Canon has had digital product out for how
> many years?

Er, yeah...so what?  Did Canon give the keys to Contax?  I don't seem to
recall that.

> And Canon had enough business sense not to rush its full frame digicam to
> market before it was ready.

How do you know that?  Perhaps it was just mature product development,
having had a number of previous development cycles.

But, back to your utter bullshit, Gary, what, exactly, was NOT ready on the
N Digital?  Not a thing.  It worked, and worked very well.

> I have over 25 years in the business
> world---the real world which you apparently know little about.

Really?  Well, I'd be happy to put my credentials up against yours any day.
I have founded, owned and run a number of engineering firms, as well as run
departments that are larger than most companies.  I have developed many
products, from inception to production.  I DO in fact know a lot about
business, thank you for asking.

> You are
> looking at the ND in abstract, as some kind of wonderous creation...

Er, no.  I am looking at it as a fine camera that takes file pictures.
Nothing more.  You WANT to make it out to be something it's not, I don't.  I
KNOW what it's limitations are.  It is not my, or anyone else's fault YOU
didn't understand what you were buying when you bought it.  You bought
something that was not suited to YOUR needs, and that's of YOUR making, not
Contax.  Accept it and move on, Gary.

> Austin, nothing in the digital arena has evaporated faster than
> the value of
> the ND. NOTHING.

Really?  Well, you simply don't know what you are talking about.  Here are
some real examples for you:

Kodak DCS-460 - $12,000 new, now sells for $800
Canon D-30 - $2800 new, now sells for $600

I can cite a dozen more if you like, but the fact is, you're wrong.  Even
you said that the N Digital sold for, what, $7k, and now is $5k.

> I am not tying to make anyone a villain, just
> point out
> real world facts...

Well, you facts are WRONG.

> not some abstract pie in the sky product
> development thing
> that you are holding on to.

Well, you're now making things up, because I said I respected it for it's
photographic images.  Hardly pie in the sky.  Real facts, unlike your hatred
for it.  You are trying to make Contax out to be the bad guy, and now you
want to make things up about my defense of it so you can somehow salve your
wounds.  You made a mistake, apparently, in buying an N Digital, as it
didn't suit your needs.  But, as I've said, that doesn't mean the camera
makes bad images, it means YOU made a mistake.

> As a business person I will say it again, the marketplace has
> spoken on the
> ND.

Yeah, but that STILL doesn't mean it's a bad camera.

> Right now you look awfully silly defending a
> photographic Edsel.

Does the Contax N Digital not take exceptional images?

Austin

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html