payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
It's pointless to argue with religion, aperture64 and Johan.
It's pointless to argue with religion, aperture64 and Johan.
The spool will never pull the film through the camera, it's not even designed to do that. It is only there to "take up" the loose film driven through the frame by the sprockets.
The only answer is to ensure that the sprockets are engaged correctly, if that means losing an extra shot, I think that's a small sacrifice.
However, I do not think you have proof that a slight nudge of the film with a finger has ever ruined even one pressure plate or its springs.
"Can't say anything logical, payasam?"
I will not be judged by your kind, Mister Javier. While I respect knowledge, I have only contempt for the closed mind that often comes with knowledge. Religions are the best example of the unquestionable absolute: they leave no space either for reason or for reality.
AND NEITHER WILL I BE BY YOUR ILK.
Putting religion, or comparing it in the course of the discussion, is non-sequitur. You say "no space for either reason or for reality".
Let's go again to my previous posts. Was anything there unreasonable or unreal? Did what I say sound as if it had been brought down from the mountains by a bearded old man who claimed he was talking to some burning bush?
I presented a point by point discussion on why the 'correct' method with its fewer steps is more efficient than the alternative method. I answered with facts, not theories or dogma, the questions posted by both aperture 64 and cle-rf. Timing, speed of loading, proof of etched pressure plates did not start from me; these were first asked.
I referred to Canon, not the canonical.
The Leica's mechanism was designed to take in film in a certain way. That's reality. There is also good reason to heed the instructions given by the various Leitz, Canon, FED, Zorki, Leotax, Reid, Kardon, Zenit,
Nicca, etc. They knew better, and what's good for the machines they made. What better reason could there be?
In contrast, I question the various alternatives presented to the published methods. If there is anything in the argument that comes closer to religion or dogma, it would be this. Why? Because it is based on belief. On belief that it is better. Or that it will do no harm. Or that it is better than what has been already established or proven.
That is not, as you say, 'leaving no space' for anything else. I have seen the consequences of doing the alternative methods. I had been there, having resorted to that in the past before I knew better. I had seen too many damaged parts in Barnack type cameras which may or may not have been caused by this method. I have no absolute proof for that, but seeing the wrecked parts, I can fairly speculate on what could have caused them.
Can you even see the difference between knowing and believing?
I have seen one pressure plate that had a finger print etched into it so I do have to agree with him there. Will the springs be damaged? I doubt it.