Thumbs Up

[haribo]

Originally Posted by tummydoc

Anyone who tells another forum member to "shut up" in attempting to intimidate and attack that individual, feels he is exempt from forum etiquette, disrespects the community at large, and debases the reputation of the forum. That is the meaning of those two simple words.

You really don't get it. You have nothing to add to this conversation. You raised your concerns. Fine. Noted.
Otherwise, nobody here who actually has, in opposite to you, practical experience with the Thumbs Up agrees with your concerns or shares your fears. Period.
So, why can't you just leave it at that?

Stop harassing everybody.

[tummydoc]

Aha, so according to you (or would you prefer "thee"?) if a few people don't have concerns or fears about something there is no grounds for anyone having them, and nobody should be allowed to express them? Now, where oh where have we heard that kind of logic before? Anyway, you've convinced me that it's not worth my time pursuing the matter. Clearly science and logic are unwelcome in any discussion where people are defending the ornaments with which they've chosen to decorate and adorn their camera bling

[haribo]

Originally Posted by tummydoc

Aha, so according to you (or would you prefer "thee"?) if a few people don't have concerns or fears about something there is no grounds for anyone having them, and nobody should be allowed to express them? Now, where oh where have we heard that kind of logic before? Anyway, you've convinced me that it's not worth my time pursuing the matter. Clearly science and logic are unwelcome in any discussion where people are defending the ornaments with which they've chosen to decorate and adorn their camera bling

You seem to be enjoying yourself. Best thing to do with people like you is to ignore them. Congrats. you made it to my ignore list. How's that for an f-u?

[Jay101]

Originally Posted by MJones

...It's a great product...

And despite some of the "advice" above, I was so impressed by user comments in this thread that I have just purchased one. Tim has been a pleasure to deal with and I'm looking forward to receiving it soon.

[fotografr]

Originally Posted by tummydoc

I never did that. I said I suspect it has the potential to damage the camera...

So does clicking the shutter. Have you tried that yet?

[MJones]

Originally Posted by tummydoc

I said I suspect it has the potential to damage the camera, which neither you nor anyone else in their overplayed, self-righteous defence of a silly little trinket have disproved.

I think we can assume there is potential for damage but so far my experience has been it's going to be decause of an accident not something inherent to the design of the TU.

If you want proof, then it's in the pudding. No one can "prove" it either way other than trying it out - that's inherent to the idea of it being "potential" damage, not realized damage. I think you're right in that there is "potential" for damage. That was discussed over and over on the rangefinderforum when Tim first proposed his ideas.

If you want proof, there is none. No one can provide that. An engineer could run some stress tests, gather some data, crunch the numbers and say that under certain stress conditions here's what we might expect within certain tolerances, but that's as far as it goes.

Now if you are arguing that there's something inherent in the design that might cause damage then pony up you argument. Do the math. Run some tests. But at the end of the day the TU on my camera works great with no damage to the camera, day in, day out. If that's not good enough then go right ahead and believe what you want because without some testing and number crunching your reasoning doesn't stand up too well to the actual thing.

And personally, I think you show your true colors on this issue when you appeal to "science" and "reason" and yet call the TU a "silly little trinket," especially when you've never seen nor tried this "silly little trinket." It's your loss. (PS and seeing an image of the TU doesn't count as seeing it; and certainly not using one).

[stunsworth]

Michael, I think Vinay has said in previous posts that he has spent some $500,000 on his Leica collection - it may be more, I forget. I'd like to think that having spent so much he would be in a better position than any of us to be able to potentially sacrifice a few thousand dollars in testing his theory that there is an inherent risk in using this device on an M8.

Of course if he is a collector as opposed to a user he may feel that any use of the cameras in his collection risks spoiling his investment. This is of course pure speculation in my part, but I await to see photographic evidence that he actually uses any of his cameras and lenses for the purpose they were made.

[etrigan63]

All arguments aside, use of the Thumbs Up is a purely personal thing. The TU modifies the ergonomics of the M8 body, just like the grip plate. How well it works depends solely on you. For some the grip is enough, for others the TU. My hands are big enough that I need both and I am happy.

BTW, I got to handle a Zorki today, and I found myself automatically putting my right thumb under the shutter advance lever to firm up my grip.

[Gareth2]

Having read the entire thread as well as the rather self involved thread on RFF, I think I may just try one, despite Vinay's rather eloquent findings surrounding his non use of this "trinket" as he describes it.

I fail to see how this qualifies as a trinket, it is neither cheap nor showy, $126 for this thing and all it does is give you an extra stop.

The users all reported a thumbs up and it looks functional. Hell, if it doesn't work I could sell it to Vinay................

Now this last question just begs a response and I have little doubt that I'll get one. Vinay, you say you showed this to an orthopaedist with a master's degree in mechanical engineering. I am sure you did. But why? is it really that important to you? BTW, I showed it to my barber and he liked it.

[norm_snyder]

Some of us use this equipment because we like it....It suits our shooting style, we like the mechanical esthetic, the lenses are excellent....Whatever the reason, if we continue to use the cameras, some of us may actually scar them, cause them to become brassy due to strap wear, remove paint with [in my case] the gaffer tape I use to prevent strap rubs [probably a silly idea in the first place] or otherwise compromise the camera body's pristine condition as it comes out of the box.

I like the way the camera balances with the Thumbs Up. It may reduce the total number of exposures that I have available before the frame of the camera deforms. It may have its paint wear off, showing brass. It may have silly looking typeface script. It may not match the finish of the camera.

Does it work for you? If so, use it.
Does it create enough free floating anxiety to precipitate obsessive rituals? If so, use something else, take an SSRI, throw it out, alter its fulcrum point by wedging a small amount of gaffer tape between it and the camera body.

I reiterate: Great design, wonderfully executed. I like it! I like the extra f-stop it gains me. I use these items to make photos.

Thanks Tim!

No thanks to intellectual masturbation, unless that gets others' endorphins going.

NS

[tummydoc]

Originally Posted by haribo

How's that for an f-u?

Come again? I assume from your previous disregard for forum decorum that's some form of low-class, juvenile vulgarity but I'm not going to speculate as to what it stands for.

Originally Posted by fotografr

So does clicking the shutter. Have you tried that yet?

Such cleverness, your mum must be proud.

Originally Posted by stuntsworth

Of course if he is a collector as opposed to a user

I am indeed, and it is the likes of me to whom the small enclave of "actual users" owes an extreme debt of gratitude for having kept their precious icon afloat all these years after the bulk of the professional photographic community left it behind.

Originally Posted by MJones

If you want proof, there is none. No one can provide that. An engineer could run some stress tests, gather some data, crunch the numbers and say that under certain stress conditions here's what we might expect within certain tolerances, but that's as far as it goes.

That would be proof, and it's accepted practise for a manufacturer to have run such tests and supplied such proof ahead of marketing a product to the public. The current case is simply one where the inventor/manufacturer has elected not to do so, and banked on the nature of his market to give him a free pass...which it seems was a shrewd assumption on his part.

Originally Posted by Gareth2

Now this last question just begs a response and I have little doubt that I'll get one. Vinay, you say you showed this to an orthopaedist with a master's degree in mechanical engineering. I am sure you did. But why? is it really that important to you? BTW, I showed it to my barber and he liked it.

I sought an opinion on a question involving mechanics, stress and metallurgy from someone with exquisite knowledge of mechanics, stress and metallurgy. You consulted a barber, and ask me "why?". ROFLMAO!

[stunsworth]

Vinay, Gareth's line was a joke, at your expense, but a joke none the less.

Not quite sure how collectors buying mainly used equipment saved Leica. Unless you think it's all those new limited editions that pulled them back from the brink.

[guy]

Isn't it pretty obvious that the leverage exerted on the hotshoe by a mounted flash unit (in the case of accidental snagging / yanking) would be far greater than that exerted by the Thumbs Up? And in use, I'd say it's also pretty obvious that the fulcrum point created by thumb pressure through the TU to the rear upper plate of the camera exerts what force it can (which would be minimal) rotationally through the hotshoe in the same plane as the upper plate of the camera. That's a different fulcrum to that created were you to press the TU from below or above in the same plane as the rear of the camera: that fulcrum is located at the hotshoe's edge. But again, the force-multiplier at work here – the lever – is far shorter than a Leica or Metz flash unit, and as far as I'm aware Ms don't spring apart like plastic toys every time you bump the flash accidentally. Aren't they actually supposed to be rugged as hell?

In other words, what about a bit of common sense?

That said, this thread is great reading – the wit of Wilde combined with an almost Proustian phraseology – so I'd be sorry to see it die.

[MJones]

Originally Posted by tummydoc

That would be proof, and it's accepted practise for a manufacturer to have run such tests and supplied such proof ahead of marketing a product to the public. The current case is simply one where the inventor/manufacturer has elected not to do so, and banked on the nature of his market to give him a free pass...which it seems was a shrewd assumption on his part.

Then if that's how you want to define "proof" that's great. It's not "proof" in the strict sense of the word; it's really companies covering themselves and defining what's normal use so their warranties have boundaries. The TU has made it clear it's not offering a warranty - that's not what it's about. It's one Leica user helping many others.

The TU isn't coming from Mattel or Sony or something huge company - or any company. It's coming from someone like us on a forum that had a great idea, presented some great 3-d models, received feedback, built a few prototpyes, received more feedback, went through the same issues (you raise here) plus many, many more, finalized a product and started selling. I've been following it since day one on RFforum. You should do your homework before you make such claims about the product both in it's inception and the product itself. Your arguments and claims might have more teeth to them otherwise; other's might listen and respect your ideas better; and in the end you'd probably not even make these claims after using one like everyone else who's bought and used a TU. Here's a start http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...ad.php?t=41649


And I'm surprised you wouldn't pick up a TU for your collection. I can't imagine missing 1st edition especially for the low cost of the item. I purchased 2 myslef - one of each model.

[tummydoc]

Originally Posted by stunsworth

Vinay, Gareth's line was a joke

Gareth's entire post was a joke.

Not quite sure how collectors buying mainly used equipment saved Leica. Unless you think it's all those new limited editions that pulled them back from the brink.

You obviously know nothing about truly serious Leica collectors or their impact on the company. A large number of serious collectors, in addition to mint rarities tend to purchase one of almost every new item Leica has produced. Whilst the practise of squirreling away brand-new Leica products un-touched may be debatable on philosophical grounds, those purchases nonetheless represent money in Leica's coffers. Furthermore it was Leica collectors who rallyed in the mid-70s to have first the M4 resurrected short-term, and then inspired Dr. Mandler to champion the renaissance of the M4-2 on his adopted home-turf of Midland.

[tummydoc]

Originally Posted by MJones

Then if that's how you want to define "proof" that's great.

Yes I prefer to use the accepted definition.

The TU has made it clear it's not offering a warranty...It's one Leica user helping many others.

What you've just described is one Leica user helping himself

other's might listen and respect your ideas better

ROFL! The only time others listen and respect someone else's ideas on this or any internet forum are when those ideas agree with their own

And I'm surprised you wouldn't pick up a TU for your collection. I can't imagine missing 1st edition especially for the low cost of the item. I purchased 2 myslef - one of each model.

My collection doesn't include supporting blokes in their cellar workshops who think their tinkerings can improve upon Leica's own design. Note that I have nothing but praise for John Millich and his contribution of adaptors and milling of lens flanges. There is a case where someone is filling a need that Leica has willfully ignored, not to mention that his products haven't the potential to damage the camera.

[MJones]

Originally Posted by tummydoc

My collection doesn't include supporting blokes in their cellar workshops who think their tinkerings can improve upon Leica's own design.

I think you haven't been so honest with your claims on this thread. You've backed yourself in a corner about a product you obviously (and by admission) know very little about, have never seen nor used (let alone did your homework to make such claims).

I don't think you really care about the testing and proof and such.

You'd still end with a closed-minded view that the TU (and I presume any non-Leica designed trinket) can not "improve upon Leica's own design." And that's where you should be honest from the start. If you don't like the design then say it. But don't pretend to hide behind science, testing, stress points and data and beat around the bush. As much fun as this has been it makes me sad to see someone so passionate about a company and their product to think it might not be improved upon.

[stephengilbert]

MJ,

"As much fun as this has been?" My bad: I thought this whole thing was excessive and wondered why people kept arguing. Reasonable minds may differ, but unreasonable ones must do so. If someone presented an engineering study concluding that the TU would not damage the M8, Tummydoc would find something else to say about it, perhaps that the study wasn't conducted by an orthpaedist. I won't say anything here about doctors.

SG

[MJones]

Originally Posted by stephengilbert

MJ,

My bad: I thought this whole thing was excessive and wondered why people kept arguing.

SG

My wife tells me this all the time. I know I shouldn't get so worked up over something like this but...
I should learn from it I guess.

[stunsworth]

Michael, the old advice about not feeding the trolls is so true, but so difficult to put into practice <grin>