[Leica] re. Jem's future prediction quote

[Simon Pulman-Jones <spulmanjones@lbs.ac.uk>]

Jem Kime quoted:

>>>>>"....People often ask why is the aperture not greater (than their then 
present lenses). This is easily explained by an example. An aperture of 2.8 
for a lens of 400mm focal length would require a diameter of approx. 15cm.
Such a glass block would be too heavy, too big and far too expensive! This
aperture would be rarely used because of depth of field considerations
nearly always demand a minimum aperture of 5.6."<<<<<

I noticed this in a Modern Photography review of the launch of the Nikon 
SP:

"If you took all the suggestions and complaints of 35mm camera owners and 
combined them into one camera, the results would weigh about fifteen 
pounds, be slightly larger than a 4 x 5 view camera and cost somewhere 
between the price of a yacht and three weeks at a roulette table."

... which is not a bad description of a motorised pro 35mm camera and 
assorted fast zooms forty years on.

Simon.







- -----Original Message-----
From:	Jem Kime [SMTP:jem.kime@cwcom.net]
Sent:	16 December 1999 10:27
To:	'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us'
Subject:	RE: [Leica] WAS: Driver R8 now Leica prices!

Ted,
I was flicking through a small book on the Novoflex system yesterday
(Friedrich Vogt, Focal Press, London, 1963) and the 400mm F2.8 lens was
considered in theory in the book and this is what they wrote:

"....People often ask why is the aperture not greater (than their then
present lenses). This is easily explained by an example. An aperture of 2.8 
for a lens of 400mm focal length would require a diameter of approx. 15cm.
Such a glass block would be too heavy, too big and far too expensive! This
aperture would be rarely used becase of depth of field considerations
nearly always demand a minimum aperture of 5.6."

Well I guess that was sound promotional writing for the early Sixties...
Just thought I's share that snippet of yesteryear with you.

Jem

- -----Original Message-----
From:	Ted Grant [SMTP:tedgrant@islandnet.com]

As was explained to me in 1988 after my Winter Olympics "road testing" of
the prototype 400 2.8. I put in my after Games report, "But why make them
at that price...$20,000? What's the point of making them if we can't afford
to buy them?"

Ted Grant