Only a theory but could be plausable

The behavior on this thread by RFF members is an embarassment. It's the best and worst of Internet forums.

Someone has gone out of their way to document a piece of trivia, and a bunch of cranky old men ridicule him for it.

On behalf of the RFF community, I apologize to The OP and can only hope that he does not write RFF off of his list of forums to visit.
 
The behavior on this thread by some RFF members is an embarassment. It's the best and worst of Internet forums.

Someone has gone out of their way to document a piece of trivia, and a bunch of cranky old men ridicule him for it.

On behalf of the RFF community, I apologize to Peter (CanonRFinder), and can only hope that he does not write RFF off of his list of forums to visit.
 
I find this sort of thing very interesting as it puts information together about people. For the folks who find it boring I recommend the back button.

B2 (;->
 
I agree with the above couple of posts and remind some of you (who know of this history) we have, in the past, lost valued members to the RF forum who possess valuable, specific knowledge about photo gear due to some unharnessed insults and snide remarks. So if your intent is to deride and mock opinions while supplying nothing of any worth, perhaps another forum might be more to your liking. I hear MySpace and Facebook enjoy such banter.

So I will also add my thanks to Peter and wish ONLY that he would discover the ENTER key, to break his many sentences into paragraphs! ;) I hope that won't drive him away....

Let's all lighten up. Remember, we already lost Brian once and had to badger him to return. I think Raid, also. To paraphrase your Moms, -- If you don't have anything nice to say --- Shut-Up!

Have a nice day.
 
I, for one, find this Canon rangefinder minutiae fascinating. I love Peter's Canon rangefinder lens book and look forward to his upcoming book on Canon rangefinder accessories. The more he posts about this kind of stuff, the better.

Jim B.
 
History must be taken seriously, and for that reason I would not glorify with that name the allotting of distinctive serial numbers to lenses made to replace lost ones. Paul Rudolph is history and Oskar Barnack is history: a stock-keeping and accounting procedure is not history as I understand it.

I may have been labelled a cranky old man because the labeller did not have the patience to read this part of what I said: "There were and are those who go into 'royal' dynasties in great detail, so there is no reason why a business house should not receive the same attention."

A friend who lives in Toronto has been sending me photos he took of a recent event there called the Zombie Walk: people wearing make-up, mainly red paint, and clothes to look like television ghouls. Had there been such a walk in my city, I should probably have recorded it, even though we have more pressing things to deal with, things like poverty and hunger. Apart from being colourful, a record of this sort of "fringe" activity should be useful to sociologists and psychologists and may well be useful to social historians.

Toy monkeys and serial numbers are best ignored, or else they may be laughed at indulgently. They should not serve as grounds for wanton labelling and digs about not immaculate conception.
 
Leica trivia could fill entire hard drives! Tom, when did Leica (or was it still Leitz at that point) switch to grey spools in IXMOO cassettes? Does anybody know the year by year production figures? Were any cassettes marketed in brass finish or is it just a matter of the black wearing off? Why in hell didn't Leitz engrave serial numers on the things?
 
This is pathetic. The cranky old men have hijacked this thread to question what is worthy of posting and what can be discussed without ridicule.

Now they've made me very cranky. And I'm already old. Otherwise I would not have hijacked this thread to comment on other CRANKY OLD MEN.

And Payasam and AL: You just proved my point that you are cranky old men.

I'm so cranky right now, I feel like hurling insults.
 
You and at least one other have hurled enough insults already. You have done that without reading, or without understanding, what I said. Unlike Al, I am not unwilling to grant that this "research" may have some value. I do not think it has any, but I do not pretend to be omniscient. Even if it is devoid of value, it harms no one. My objection is to your gratuitous name calling. That is what should embarrass you.
 
Trivia: You can reblacken brassed old Leica cassettes with gun bluing.

Question on trivia: Do any Leica cassette users bother to replace the missing or disintegrated felt rings that were once in them? They seem to work as well without them.
 
Thank you Fred. The derailed discussion was getting nowhere.

Peter, I've always enjoyed knowing as much as I can about the vintage optics and the information on these serial numbers. I am looking forward to your next book with great excitement!

Cheers,

p.s. Hope your legs get better soon.
 
Peter, now that Fred has resolved this rather unfortunate situation, any more Canon rangefinder tidbits you want to tell us about?

Jim B.
 
CanonRFinder said:
Ah, a lively discussion, which is what, I like to see. I check the RFF site quite often and skip most of the subjects unless they interest me in some way. I also know I should get of my butt and use some of my many Canon Rangefinder lenses I own so as I can enter into some of the discussions on why this lens is better than others in regards to Bokeh, vignette, contrasts etc and now the book is out of the way I will. I also knew that Nikon placed a colon after the serial # but Rotoloni (I have his books and NHS journals) is still unsure why and can only theorize. Another small thing that intrigued me was when Nikon collectors were mentioning a certain “tick” mark on F series lenses and by Googling, I found out what it was and why these lenses sell sometimes for high prices. All these small additions add to the knowledge of Nikon and likewise to other makes. My main aim and still is, is to broaden the knowledge on Canon RF gear, as there was nothing out there in the English language other than Peter Dechert’s book. Maybe now people who have purchased my book will realise that certain Canon RF Lenses are unique. I suppose I got a bit uptight about the “bored” remark but life is anything but that. Anyway, I will keep adding dribble to this forum, as there is really nowhere else to have a discussion or put a point across where people who are interested in other makes can access a variety of information besides variety is the spice of life. Peter
Click to expand...

Peter,
Thank you for your observations regarding the Canon RF cameras and lenses. I bought your book a while ago, and I frequently read parts of it for enjoyment. Your contributions here are welcomed.
 
I'm glad that the smoke has been cleared, and those interested in "trivia" or research, whichever you call it, can compile lists and gather arcane data without fear of ridicule or sarcasm.
Seriously, their is too little available on many facets of Canon history. We haven't had the benefits that Nikon and Leica have had until recently. The publishing of the Lenses book has increased awareness, and brought new people, and old people out of the closet. Most of us are hoping the next book will have a shorter gestation time, but we'll wait, nevertheless.
One observation, Peter, on the pics in the first post. I know you must have noticed that the last digit appears to be not quite in correct spacing and placement with those preceding. That might be a clue as to timing, if not reasons. Any thoughts?

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