Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/11/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Tom, I'm sorry if some of what I said seemed contentious. I didn't mean it to be. I am not claiming virtue here for my self. If you want to buy what you think is the very best just because you get a kick out of having it, and you have the money, I say go for it. I've done that more than once. If one's recreation is looking at lens reviews and swapping and trading gear based on these numbers, I say go for it. I've done, that, too, more than once. I'm simply in favor of a little "truth-in-lending" here, meaning I'm going to get it simply because I want to. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, after three or four decades of hard work I think a person has won the right to do exactly that. Barney Tom Christiansen wrote: > > Hi Barney, > > >I agree about the > >numbers thing, and how it leads to dissatisfaction, and sales. Let's say > >one has the lens with a rating or 3.5. The marginal utility, IMHO, of > >getting the 3.7 lens because one "just has to have it" is very, very > >low. I've been down this road and cost myself lots of money I really > >didn't have to spend. > > First things first: > > 1) Sometimes it leads to personal satisfaction to buy a renowned lens. > Those lenses are after all usually quite good. But you're right. Most times > throwing 10x the money at stuff doesn't yield 10x the quality. > > 2) My point about PhotoDoDo is that they combine a lot of rather complex > measurements into one single number. I really don't like that. I would > rather have all the MTF curves, distortion curves, etc. and a really good > explanation of what each curve means and how the stuff shown in the curves > relates to the pictures I'm getting with this lens. Then _I_ could > interpret what I wanted from that data. I could determine which parameters > were important to me. But PhotoDoDo wants to make it "easy" for everybody > by just providing a single number. Just pick the highest number and you've > got the best lens. This is not science (IMHO). It is BS presented in a > scientific form. > > >When you ask him about it he will tell you that he spent a > >modest sum to get himself 90% of the way there. The next step up would > >require spending another $10,000, and his plan is to sit in front of the > >speakers he has and enjoy drinking every drop of that ten grand! I never > >thought about it this way before, but maybe he's the Ted of audio! :-) > > :-) I like that. I'm an EE myself (in case you for some reason weren't able > to conclude that from my first email... :-)) > > Tom > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html