Comment in a mag review of Leica lens

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:1enmi15sdsap1532lbnj78dpc9l79e7v7m@4ax.com...
> First paragraph; 75mm f2 Summicron review:
> "This lens is all brass, aluminum and glass,
> no plastic." Obviously, Leica hasn't seen
> the utility in using plastic in a $2600 lens.
> How deluded can they be?
> -Rich

Obviously they are not as enlightened as Olympus et al :-)

Dick

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:23:08 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Rich wrote:
>
>> First paragraph; 75mm f2 Summicron review:
>> "This lens is all brass, aluminum and glass,
>> no plastic." Obviously, Leica hasn't seen
>> the utility in using plastic in a $2600 lens.
>
>
>How much does that thing weigh? I have no problem with plastic camera parts.
>If you do, go buy a Leica M6 and leave us alone!

I do. But then I don't have to buy a Leica to avoid them, do I?
All that a lightweigh camera ever achieves is the ability to transmit
more body shake, so you'll ruin more photos.
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 23:39:36 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Rich wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:23:08 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich wrote:
>>>
>>>> First paragraph; 75mm f2 Summicron review:
>>>> "This lens is all brass, aluminum and glass,
>>>> no plastic." Obviously, Leica hasn't seen
>>>> the utility in using plastic in a $2600 lens.
>>>
>>>
>>>How much does that thing weigh? I have no problem with plastic camera
>>>parts. If you do, go buy a Leica M6 and leave us alone!
>>
>> I do. But then I don't have to buy a Leica to avoid them, do I?
>
>You tell me. I look at the images a camera produces, not what it's made
>from. If the 50-200 zuiko has plastic in it, I really don't care all I know
>is it works great for me

Except that more than one person has seen this lens break at the
plastic part. Not too good for $1200.00. You could put great optics
in a cardboard tube, but why do it?
>
>BTW if you notice the leica lens is manual focus so it doesn't have to be
>concerned with the weight of the moving parts of the focus mechanism.

Heavens, how did we ever cope, 15 years ago?
>
>> All that a lightweigh camera ever achieves is the ability to transmit
>> more body shake, so you'll ruin more photos.
>>
>
>Actually lighter lenses mean I don't have to haul as much weight around and
>anyone concerned with image quality should be using a tripod anyway. I shot
>this at 1/30 handheld so I don't think the plastic in the zuiko 50mm F2
>caused this shot to be ruined do you?
>
>http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/wasp.jpg

It's a great shot, no doubt. But an E-300 and the 50mm lens have some
weight, I'm sure, about 800gms. Plus, the E-300 is in large part
metal, especially the internals. The SP-500UZ is mostly plastic and
weighs only 385g. Guess which one will take the better shot at a
slower shutter speed? Damping, the act of nulling out vibration is
often achieve by adding weight to something. The higher frequency
body or hand tremors will be better supressed by the E-300/50mm combo
than the SP-500UZ.


>
>And while we're on the subject, where are some of your shots? You seem to be
>so obcessed with "Quality", you must have taken some KILLER images to need
>a solid metal camera with A+ optics..

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/46913065

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rich wrote:
[]
> All that a lightweigh camera ever achieves is the ability to transmit
> more body shake, so you'll ruin more photos.
> -Rich

No, a lightweight camera may mean that you actually get the photograph
because you didn't leave the camera at home. In fact, a person may
actually shake more when holding a heavy object for an extended period of
time.

David

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Using the SP-500UZ was merely an example as I don't know how light the
E-500 is yet.
But there is no point in debating what is universally true; Light
weight DSLRs can result
in shots ruined more often by tremor motion blurring or mirror slap
than heavier cameras. It all depends on various factors such as
weight, severity of "mirror slap" and the propensity of the shooter for
hand tremors.
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rich <none@none.com> writes:

> First paragraph; 75mm f2 Summicron review:
> "This lens is all brass, aluminum and glass,
> no plastic." Obviously, Leica hasn't seen
> the utility in using plastic in a $2600 lens.
> How deluded can they be?
> -Rich

Perhaps just realistic about the tooling cost, which might well
increase the price of a low-volume item even further.

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:10:15 -0400, westin@graphics.cornell.nospam.edu
wrote:

>Rich <none@none.com> writes:
>
>> First paragraph; 75mm f2 Summicron review:
>> "This lens is all brass, aluminum and glass,
>> no plastic." Obviously, Leica hasn't seen
>> the utility in using plastic in a $2600 lens.
>> How deluded can they be?
>> -Rich
>
>Perhaps just realistic about the tooling cost, which might well
>increase the price of a low-volume item even further.

Trust me, I know people who buy high end optics (not cameras) and
they will not put up with plastic. Part of the reason goes to
aesthetics, but part is functional.
-Rich