Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Marc James Small wrote: "But the problem does exist, as well documented on the LUG and elsewhere. I have great trouble believing Konica is using sloppy standards far lower than the rest of the Japanese camera industry, as you have suggested. But I don't have an alternate explanation as to why the disparity exists. But, if Erwin says it is there, it is there. He is too careful a researcher, and too cautious a human being, to have posted his findings unless he was certain of them." I don't disagree, but I still think we need a source for the Konica back focus figure and tolerance. On the face of it, this is such a *bizarre* thing for Konica to do, that I'm at a loss to understand it. Normally in these circumstances I favour the cockup theory over the conspiracy theory every time (at least until the evidence proves otherwise). In this case there's always the possibility that someone at Konica has made a mistake in the figure given, and that the real one is closer to that used by Leica. Hence my quest for a quotable source at Konica... - -- David Morton dmorton@journalist.co.uk