RE: [Leica] Latest shot from a digital with a Leica lens

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

Javier,

No, with what you call an "attitude", which is really an understanding, well
conceived and well designed products make it to market, and make money for
companies that make them, so that they are able to have the resources and
garner such a reputation that allows them to continue in business such that
they can further develop more advanced well conceived and well designed
products.

Austin


> Well Austin
> With that attitude we would still be flying propeller
> airplanes.
> Javier
> --- Austin Franklin <darkroom@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Javier,
> >
> > > Actually
> > > I have been looking into it for quite some time so
> > > understanding isn't really an issue,
> >
> > Well, with all due respect, "looking into this for
> > quite some time" is FAR
> > FAR FAR from knowing what the issues are with
> > actually designing a digital
> > camera, and the costs of the development effort,
> > much less the production of
> > such as well as the business issues involved.  If
> > you've never designed one
> > (or even done electronic product design), you would
> > not understand the
> > actual issues, and the significance of them.  I
> > have, and have been for 25
> > years, and I know exactly what the issues are with
> > the electronics.  I'm not
> > an optical expert, but those issues are easily
> > established.
> >
> > > It's unfortunate
> > > that you have decided to take the discussion in
> > that
> > > direction.
> >
> > In what direction?  I just call it like it is.  You
> > made claims that just
> > don't hold any water, and you don't like my
> > rebuttal.  Pipe dreaming is one
> > thing, but you did not label your comments as such,
> > if you did, that would
> > be a different story.
> >
> > Your initial comment was that digital backs exist,
> > and therefore a digital M
> > should, and they are two different problems.  You
> > then said "what's to
> > accomplish...There's absolutely no reason not to
> > have a db available for an
> > M.", which shows lack of understanding of the entire
> > process.  There ARE
> > good reasons not to have a "digital back available
> > for an M".
> >
> > > It's more than doable.
> >
> > No one ever argued it being doable.  Read what I
> > wrote, and I quote:
> >
> > "No one has said it couldn't be done, but as I've
> > said, the development
> > effort is significant, the functionality diminished,
> > and the audience is
> > small."
> >
> > Those are ALL indisputably true.
> >
> > > The shorter than 28 lenses can use the ccd for
> > focus
> > > confirm with the shutter on b. Yes, you would need
> > to
> > > wind up open the shutter and then wind up again
> > and
> > > shoot.
> >
> > That's real practical (said sarcastically).  And,
> > where would this focus
> > confirmation be displayed?  In the viewfinder, or on
> > the little LCD on the
> > back?
> >
> > > If you wish to use an lcd at focus time you can
> > > you can. A focus only lcd can provide a much
> > magnified
> > > image of the central focusing zone.
> >
> > Of course, but it is impractical and difficult to
> > use.  I've been there and
> > done that.
> >
> > Time and money are best spent elsewhere than a
> > digital M.  Now, if you
> > wanted to design a body from scratch that TOOK M
> > lenses, that's a different
> > story, and, IMO, a FAR better idea.
> >
> > I am not pooh-poohing you for your ideas, in fact, I
> > appreciate and
> > encourage them...but don't present the problem like
> > it's "easy", because it
> > isn't.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Austin

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