Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I think quite the contrary. In my field, violins, there are all sorts of learned professors publishing all the time, with lots of fancy devices, meters and gauges to prove some particular point that's dear to them. These people aren't cranks, supposedly--many are physicists, attached to large universities. Their conclusions, however, often make them seem like cranks, and in the violin field they are. Moreover, in discussing this with people in other more mainline fields I've learned that the more knowledgable those people are about their fields the more cynical they are about what passes for "research" therein, and the legitimacy of the results, several doctors going as far as saying they found the standards for some medical research frightening. If there's a real difference in Leica lenses I would expect it to show through some level of unstandardization--otherwise what good is it? Are you all paying for fragile "bokeh" which disappears if the developing time is off by five seconds? If so, why bother? I understand the fuss, but art experts don't prove their expertise by having the scientific advantage of naming painters by sorting by painter five paintings painted under exactly the same circumstances at the same time by five different painters, so why do the say-sayers find that a necessity for this test? Of course it's not a "scientific" test. Personally, I find that to be at least one thing in its favor. Untie your shorts, guys. --Michael Darnton >> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 19:10:32 EST From: FIGLIO4CAP@aol.com Subject: Re: [Leica] And the Gauntlet just lies there... In a message dated 01/17/2000 6:45:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, michaeljohnston@ameritech.net writes: << Erwin, I'll take that as a "No." >> Mike, You are being a bore and, I suspect, you know it. Bob