Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/03/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Four thirds is an interesting marketing strategy. It sounds like 33% more. If you change it to portrait rather than landscape does it transform to 25% less? I always thought the concept of half frame was a marketing mistake. They should have compared it to 127 and called it double frame. The Pen F would have been a huge success. Who doesn't want double of something? Who doesn't feel slighted only receiving half? 35mm (where did 135 come from?) should have been named by length of roll. Then we'd all be shooting 48 inch format and digital would be 1/66ths or "less than 1.5 percent format". Try and sell that one, Madison Avenue! OHOH, they'd probably just tell us how it would make our telephotos seem that much longer; how we can turn our economical 400mm lenses into expensive 600mm lenses. Where do I sign? The truth is that in the late 70s, when the SLR market was going into the tank all the camera companies decided they'd come up with an entirely new type of camera system that everyone would have to buy in order to take pictures. They invented the digital camera. Then someone realized that people would need computers in order to process the pictures. So they went out and found someone to invent the personal computer (some went to Apple and some went to IBM, but that's another story). What they didn't realize is that it would take 20 years for the personal computer to evolve into something powerful enough to process a digital image practically. There's been work going on this for years in a secret factory somewhere and camera companies can actually build a sensor the size of an 8 inch refractor telescope. But they know from past experience that it would be a mistake to roll that out today. (For one thing they'd have to increase the size of the modern DSLR by at least 20% to hold that size sensor). The camera companies want everyone to buy a small sensor first. Then they'll come up with a bigger sensor. Then a bigger one still. That way they'll always be able to sell new cameras; not to mention every few years new lens systems that will cover a wider sensor. There was one thorn in the side of this strategy. The existence of the Leica M rangefinder. That pesky Leica rangefinder! They couldn't kill it. So they went after the film companies. They put out a campaign of propaganda telling us how film was really bad. It wasn't easy because most of us knew that film was something that seemed to work pretty well in the past. It actually took a generation for the campaign to finally kick in, which serendipitously coincided with the Pentium processor. But work it did! Today we all feel inadequate shooting film, even though in truth film is still the best medium. If you can't kill film, what to you do. You kill the darkroom! I've researched this carefully and I've concluded that the digital revolution is one big capitalistic conspiracy. Fortunately, they can't kill the LUG. Those of you who are agents for the dark side, we're onto you! DaveR -----Original Message----- From: Didier Ludwig [mailto:rangefinder@screengang.com] Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 7:22 AM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] enough with Olympus DSLR postings PLEASE >Now more then 3/4 of the postings are related to Olympus. Olympus is rather 4/3 than 3/4! >Please, y'all, lets stay on-topic for users of Leica cameras. You want to shrink the LUG down to 1%? :-Didier