a dumb question about a digital MP?

250swb said:
Its a great concern that we should all be worried about. I wonder why Leica didn't just take the M3 body and turn it into the M2, M4, M6 and M7. It seems like common sense, so I'll guess they do it just to annoy.

Steve
Click to expand...

"...just to annoy."?

Not exactly, unlike software, hardware upgrading is...ahem...hard ;).

Few cameras in recent memory were designed to be upgradeable. It's simply better business to sell a new one.

That does not stop camera owners to tinker, especially if warranty had long expired; or someone else to offer retrofits, if doable.

In another thread, I had posted business reasons why and how a retrofit business could be viable. We founded such a business first targeting Leica-Heerbrugg photogrammetric instruments 2 decades ago and was profitable...the retained earning became the capital enabling us to compete against Leica 4 years later right at the dawn of the new digital era. [I had never met Stephan Schmidheiny either, and Heinrich Wild had long deceased.]

Elsewhere in these forums, another thread is raging discussing what if Kodak could [or did] go out of business in 2010... I smiled and mused [although I hold George Eastman in the highest regard] that it is the perfect incentive needed for M2/3/4/6/7/MP owners to seriously contemplate retrofit. Why waste a perfectly good but now unarguably dead-ended camera body and RF...unless an affordable version of M9/10/11 is offered, or an M-mount alternative is soon introduced?

Leica pricing and M-mount alternatives also have their own long threads of discussion...where I had participated and first ran into the Thought Police. :rolleyes:
 
I'm approaching the age were one just thinks about things - without doing them, ( used to do them - without thinking! )and no, this was not yet prompted by any observations of my dear, long-suffering wife! so are there any vacancies on the THOUGHT POLICE force? :)
Dave.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
"SO: Thought Police, Voigtlander Prominent Bashing is Okay at RFF."

But only if you can prove you actually own one. :angel:
Click to expand...

I can prove it. I'll post a thread on taking off the top plate, and cleaning and calibrating the RF. What a Pain! The Vitessa was worse.

The lenses are great, and I have an adapter to use with Nikon and Leica RF's.
 
Dave Wilkinson said:
I'm approaching the age were one just thinks about things - without doing them, ( used to do them - without thinking! )and no, this was not yet prompted by any observations of my dear, long-suffering wife! so are there any vacancies on the THOUGHT POLICE force? :)
Dave.
Click to expand...

I am at the age where I claim I have done enough, and perhaps now I can help younger doers think. But, surgery on an M2 is fun. :D

Or, perhaps, I think, therefore I do...

I have long deduced Sweeney is also of the same age group...via hardware/event dating methods. Hi, Brian.

Having used mechanical Nikon's for nearly 40 years, and had dabbled in RF since the Minolta Hi-matic 7s, and now with an M2, ZM, and R-D1 in hand, not "doing" something is difficult.

But, I wouldn't join the Thought Police.
 
Frankie said:
I am at the age where I claim I have done enough, and perhaps now I can help younger doers think. But, surgery on an M2 is fun. :D

Or, perhaps, I think, therefore I do...

I have long deduced Sweeney is also of the same age group...via hardware/event dating methods. Hi, Brian.

Having used mechanical Nikon's for nearly 40 years, and had dabbled in RF since the Minolta Hi-matic 7s, and now with an M2, ZM, and R-D1 in hand, not "doing" something is difficult.

But, I wouldn't join the Thought Police.
Click to expand...
Dear Frankie,

Why are you obsessed with the idea of the Thought Police? And what, exactly, do you mean by this phrase? Assume familiarity with 1984: just let us know how you are using it in this context.

I have aready apologized for the phrasing of an earlier letter, which, upon re-reading, I realized was very easy to misinterpret. But you just go on in your own sweet way, labelling anyone who disagrees with you as 'Thought Police'.

R.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
The biggest change was the shutter, moved from cloth horizontal travel to metal vertical travel. They probably could have retained horizontal travel if they had moved to titanium foil shutter curtains, like the F3FP wihch was used with a digital back. I'm not sure if the cloth would cause an issue with build-up/static on the CCD? I simply do not know the exact reason. BUT: Kodak did come out with a Digital camera with horizontal travel, and it was never done again after 1992.

SO: change the shutter mechanism, can't reuse the basic body design. Everything has to move.
Click to expand...

You cannot do that and get a decent shutter speed. The cloth shutter was slow.The best way ro get decent shutter speeds is to get the blades to travel the shortest distance i.e. vertically. So if you have to change the shutter (and they had to, the cloth horizontal one was HUGE) it is wise to go for the best design.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Frankie,

Why are you obsessed with the idea of the Thought Police? And what, exactly, do you mean by this phrase? Assume familiarity with 1984: just let us know how you are using it in this context.

I have aready apologized for the phrasing of an earlier letter, which, upon re-reading, I realized was very easy to misinterpret. But you just go on in your own sweet way, labelling anyone who disagrees with you as 'Thought Police'.

R.
Click to expand...

I have never, in these forums or elsewhere, ever label anyone as anything or critize their stance directly...until now. I write very carefully to ensure I do not offend. After all, this is the Internet, words last forever.

If you reread our long "motorized abacus" dialogues, you will see.

What I wrote is what I mean, no more and no less. Thought Police are those who wants to prevents crimes by removing unapproved thinking, even if thinking privately.

I don't know how you establish what I think or know, or can do or have done. Certainly not from my writing here...unless you are the Though Police.

And now, others begin to make Thought Police jokes.
 
Frankie said:
I have never, in these forums or elsewhere, ever label anyone as anything or critize their stance directly...until now. I write very carefully to ensure I do not offend. After all, this is the Internet, words last forever.

If you reread our long "motorized abacus" dialogues, you will see.

What I wrote is what I mean, no more and no less. Thought Police are those who wants to prevents crimes by removing unapproved thinking, even if thinking privately.

I don't know how you establish what I think or know, or can do or have done. Certainly not from my writing here...unless you are the Though Police.

And now, others begin to make Thought Police jokes.
Click to expand...
Dear Frankie,

If you are accusing me of being a member of the Thought Police -- and you say that you write very carefully, and you have expressly accused me of this, so I assume you mean what you say -- then this is about as offensive as I can readily imagine, short of (for example) unsavoury insinuations about one's sex life.

Do I want to remove 'unapproved thinking'? Not for a moment. But if an idea is totally unsupported by anything except what appears to be a mixture of wishful thinking and sloppy argument, then I reserve the right to say so -- just as you do.

Yes, there are now Thought Police jokes on the forum. Possibly because you introduced the concept, and it's a joke.

EDIT: Exactly how have I tried to stop you thinking 'unapproved' thoughts? I have no power to stop you believing or thinking anything you wish, no matter how nonsensical I may believe it to be. Nor to stop you promulgating it wherever you wish. How does this qualify me as 'Thought Police'?

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I'll chip in on this, because I think it has gone far enough. I suspect Frankie feels that I am also a member of the "thought police" as a result of my comments on some of the "Hey kids! Let's build a digital back for an M right here!!" threads and I have had the temerity to poke fun at the concept because, as Roger says, it is a joke.

Frankie, you clearly have an issue with those who dare to disagree with you. Instead of handling that in an open manner you choose to chip in on a thread - which asked a reasonable question - with a swipe that sets the tone for subsequent postings and set the course firmly in line with your agenda. Do I think you have the technical skill to create something that very few people want? Possibly. Do I think you have the emotional maturity to forge consensus and make it a reality? No. If this is how you handle differences of opinion in a sandbox like a photo forum.

Roger is right - "...if an idea is totally unsupported by anything except what appears to be a mixture of wishful thinking and sloppy argument than I reserve the right to say so". Or, in other words, if the Emperor has no clothes, I am going to point it out, and I do not need a "thought police" uniform to do so.

Regards,

Bill
 
Roger Hicks said:
Do I want to remove 'unapproved thinking'? Not for a moment. But if an idea is totally unsupported by anything except what appears to be a mixture of wishful thinking and sloppy argument, then I reserve the right to say so -- just as you do.

Yes, there are now Thought Police jokes on the forum. Possibly because you introduced the concept, and it's a joke.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

What something "appears" to you is your perspective, which is dependant on where you stand and how you aim your gaze.

[In my industry, it is definable as Xo, Yo, Zo; kappa, phi, omega...the exposure station coordinates in the air, and platform yaw, pitch and roll.]

Arguing an idea is very civilized, attacking the person is not.

Introducing new concepts now and then is not a bad thing. And, I do "read the whole thread" [to get the context] if I am interested enough to post.

As I have posted elsewhere: "If JFK was an engineer, man would never have landed on the moon."
 
Frankie said:
What something "appears" to you is your perspective, which is dependant on where you stand and how you aim your gaze.

[In my industry, it is definable as Xo, Yo, Zo; kappa, phi, omega...the exposure station coordinates in the air, and platform yaw, pitch and roll.]

Arguing an idea is very civilized, attacking the person is not.

Introducing new concepts now and then is not a bad thing. And, I do "read the whole thread" [to get the context] if I am interested enough to post.

As I have posted elsewhere: "If JFK was an engineer, man would never have landed on the moon."
Click to expand...

Dear Frankie,

And the same for you: we all have our own perceptions. Many would regard 'Xo, Yo, Zo; kappa, phi, omega...the exposure station coordinates in the air, and platform yaw, pitch and roll' as a somewhat limited world picture, because it doesn't involve people, emotions, finance, probability, feasibility, pride, honour...

Introducing new concepts is an excellent idea. Of course, it's often better if you listen to other people, but then again, maybe if you don't, you can do it your way, so it's not always a good idea to ignore them. Even so, for every genius who has proved the whole world wrong, there are quite a few idiots whom the whole world has proved wrong.

I have already apologized for a clumsy construction which could easily have been read as saying that you are invariably ignorant and ill-informed. If it has been possible to construe my comments on other threads as unreasonable personal insults -- for example you seem exceptionally proud of your 'mechanized abacus' idea, which I regard as the construction of a feeble and worthless straw man (I refer to the argument, not to you personally) -- then I unreservedly apologize for them too.

But you appear to have stopped arguing rationally. You just invoke the mantra THOUGHT POLICE when certain people disagree with you, or you refer back to old threads. Yes, words on the internet last a very long time. That doesn't mean they're always true; it doesn't mean they were always well thought out; it doesn't mean that the person who wrote them is incapable of changing his mind. Present well-thought-out arguments, relevant to the subject in hand, and you will be taken seriously.

Otherwise you won't.

R.
 
In a sense, anyone with "Moderator Privilege" meets a general definition as "Thought Police", at least when the thoughts are made on the relevant Forum. Whether the action to delete or modify the statements is actually taken is irrelevant, the fact that you have the authority to do so allows one the ability to police the expressed thought.

I'm a "thought police", but on a different forum. Roger only has limited moderator privilege in his Sub-Forum, and does not meet my definition as a "thought Police" on this forum.

And I have the photo's of the Prominent.
 
Last edited:
David Charlwood said:
I used to think that Leica owners were thoughtful, intelligent, tolerant and respectful of other peoples thoughts - now I am not so sure.
Click to expand...
Well - it's all getting a bit too much for me, so I'm putting a movie on....maybe - 'One flew over the cuckoo's nest', just remembered that I have not seen it for a while! :D
 
MikeL said:
Frankie, I think folks don't like the thought police tag, just because they are skeptical. I understand how tiring the wet blankets ('experts' who post again and again restating the same thing) can get, but it is not like 'wet blanket' personalities get anything done anyway. On the forum you can create an ignore list and you won't see those with too much time on their hands.

Skepticism, as you know, is important for addressing all the possibilities/outcomes in science-engineering projects. Maybe just call most of the folks who have given their opinion 'skeptics'? I think it is healthy until it delves into the wet blanket syndrome. It sounds like you have accomplished stuff, so you probably know to just do and to ignore what others think already.

I like your optimism and I think it is clear that it can be done. Even if it is not marketable blah blah blah, the pursuit is still enjoyable. Let us know how it goes!
Click to expand...

Dear Mike,

There's also a difference between general wet-blanketing and specifics. Look inside a film-M (early 50s design, horizontal-run cloth shutter, to be built by relatively cheap skilled labour) and a Cosina Voigtländer Bessa 35mm (?1980s design, vertical-run metal shutter, designed for mass production). Then put a sensor in: 18x24mm (Bessa) or 18x27mm and 24x36mm (Leica). Which is going to require more modfication?

On a more general level, it has always seemed likely to me that professional camera designers are probably going to know more about camera design than amateurs, and that they rarely do things out of sheer spite.

So your point about "Do it!" is exact. If it's doable, do it. Prove everyone wrong. Otherwise, stop pretending to more expertise than you have. Speak to any camera company who will listen. And if they won't listen, consider the possibility that there may be good reasons for this. (I use 'you' of course in the general sense, not as 'Mike'.)

I've only ever designed one camera in my life, and as it was large-format (up to 11x14 inch -- about a dozen were built) its relevance to the present thread is slender. But I do know a few camera designers, and I've watched cameras being built, and despite a fairly hgh opinion of my own intelligence, I suspect that maybe there are some people who know more about some things than I do.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom