I get it.

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For those few situations where seconds mattered, watches with a hacking function allow stopping of the second hand for short term synchronization...

This makes me remember when, 45 years ago around, I made my first ski races : no electronics, photocells and similar... basically, there was not any wired link between start and arrival (this of course was in the "low level" competitions I started in my modest but satisfactory career)

The principle was simply this :

- Competitor number 47 starts at 10.23.30" (example for a race started at h10 - starts any 30")

- The judge/chronoman at the arrival line stops its watch at arrival of #47 : it stops at 10.24.16,3"

- #47 is credited of a BASE time of 1'46.3" ... but you couldn't be sure that this was your REAL time in the official result list.. because:

 

- Time to time ("stop" of the race) , via radio, chronoman at start re-synchronized his watch (which had the hacking facility quoted in the above post)with the watch(es) at the arrival : this resulted, after a statistical computation, in adjustement in timings of competitors.

- The watch at the arrival were indeed MORE than one (2-3,so as the people operating them) : so the hours of arrival resulted indeed by a mean/normalization of those 2-3 times.

- Your REAL hour of start was also "adjusted"... you could have started before or after the "GO!" said by starter at his "round" hour (the 10.23.30" quoted above) : there was another crono-watch at start (it too subject to periodical synchronization) , operated by a simple mechanical link between a thin bar opened by skier's boots at start... so that the start judge recorded that you started, for instance, at 10.23.29,4".

 

So... after race's end the staff of chronomen (all official Ski Federation credited) did close themselves in a room and manually put together all those data and finally produced the OFFICIAL ranking : all the written data (a small "card" for any racer, with BASE time and the various adjustements) was kept for the eventuality of claims...

For all of us racer, those 1-2 hours of "judges in the closed room" were full of excitement ... all of us knew each one BASE time... (they were communicated to Ski Clubs officials at arrival) but the final results after the "ritual of adjustement" were a mistery... you could have thought to have beaten a "typical opponent of yours" by 3/10th and then discover to have been beaten by him for 2/10th..

(of course... the 1/100th of second couldn't be taken into account with this system)

 

Sorry for the long OOT post... but having read of the "hacking" function made me think of my Youth...

(no much to say about OP post... if one likes to have a M10, no matters the reason, why not to buy it ?)

Edited October 1, 2017 by luigi bertolotti

[jmahto]

How times have changed.

Edited October 1, 2017 by jmahto

[Jennifer]

I had a Rolex but it didn't make bad times good. The morning I bought it I was late to work.

 

 

I've always been amused by the fact that expensive mechanical watches are not particularly accurate.  Quartz controlled humble watches, like Seiko and even Timex, are good for only a few seconds drift in half a year (the time between daylight to regular time changes).  You can set them from the network time signals or the NBS website.

 

I've heard this before. Bizarrely, it seems that there are people out there that actually buy and wear a watch for the purpose of telling the time ............ Personally, I have great difficulty in even reading my watch especially if the ambient light is either a bit too bright or a bit too dark, but given it's both very beautiful and an example of the very finest Swiss mechanical horology it's not only a pleasure to wear, but it's also a pretty safe bet that the time it displays is more or less spot on ............on those rare occasions I'm able to read it.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Jennifer

[pico]

When I retired they gave me a gold watch - solar powered.

My nightlife went to hell.

[Paulus]

I can't recall ever hearing of a three-way conversation that goes like this:

 

Person 1: "What's the time?"

 

Person 2: "It's 10.29 and 17 seconds."

 

Person 3: "No, it's 10.29 and 18 seconds."

 

Person 1: "Oh no, I'm late by one second!"

 

I'm not being cynical here, or having a go at you, Scott, just being practical since I'm an Engineer.  Usually the answer to "What's the time?" is: "It's about half past ten."  Invariably when I get time from other than the watch I'm wearing, for example a station clock or one in a town square or on a cafe wall, I have no idea how correct they are or how well they keep time but they serve their purpose by informing me of roughly what the time is.  A few seconds either way is going to make very little difference to me or to most people I should think.

 

Pete.

 

I really like my watch without minutes or seconds marks.  It never gives the exact time, although I never miss a train due to it. 

[scott kirkpatrick]

I buy a watch for two sorts of timing.  One is showing up for Skype and similar conference calls on time (well, at least to within the minute), and the other is flying, timing instrument approaches in the pre-gps days where you were required to calculate the number of seconds flown past a fix before you had to either see the runway or start climbing rapidly back to a safe altitude ("go missed").  Really the principal requirement for both is a set of hands and especially a second hand that you can see easily and read accurately.  Elegant and expensive watches usually don't offer the best answer to these requirements.

 

Of course time from the phone company, or the network time provided in any operating system, is good around the world to a few seconds.  So I notice none of my students has a watch any more -- just a smartphone with a data plan.

Edited October 1, 2017 by scott kirkpatrick

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I really like my watch without minutes or seconds marks.  It never gives the exact time, although I never miss a train due to it. 

 

I also prefer the fuzzy time rather than exact which is always susceptible to error. (Can you tell I was a Seventies computer programmer?)

[Herr Barnack]

Here we go:   https://www.slow-watches.com/the-store/slow-o-06-swiss-one-hand-watch/ 

 

Problem solved! 

Edited October 1, 2017 by Herr Barnack

[Ecar]

So here I find myself pondering a Leica M10… is it like a Rolex or Lexus, you can find articles proclaiming either, overpriced anachronism, or pinnacle of contemporary perfection? I have two Takahashi telescopes… optics are superb, I have always been rewarded when spending really large amounts on optics. So, a couple of weeks ago, I ordered a M10 and Summicron 35. I have had it for 2 days: I get it, wow, it is there, it is not subtle, incredible output, beautiful, a sense of quality throughout the device. Something I can be proud of owning and use to reach new levels in photography. Huge sense of relief, and excitement anticipating all the wonderful things we will achieve together. New York, Shanghai, Tokyo, Pacific Northwest forests here we come! The Leica M legend, I get it.

 

The journey has only started... what about lenses?

For starters, may I entice you with the legendary Noctilux?

[pop]

Here we go:   https://www.slow-watches.com/the-store/slow-o-06-swiss-one-hand-watch/ 

 

Problem solved! 

Or this: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-27/chromochron-watches-don-t-tell-the-exact-time-and-that-s-the-point

[scott kirkpatrick]

This is getting a little embarrassing.  Should we split the forum into two sections, an engineering-oriented one and a Veblen-oriented section, in which possession-passion is fully encouraged?  Maybe a third could support the interests of Art.

Edited October 2, 2017 by scott kirkpatrick

[Dr. G]

I had a Rolex but it didn't make bad times good. The morning I bought it I was late to work.

 

 

Hysterical.  

[Keith_W]

Well JDFlood looks as if you and I are kindred spirits. I too love high end audio, fountain pens, mechanical watches, nice cars, and photography. I don't see myself as a consumerist - in everything I buy, I look for good value. Ask some of my friends who have been trying to persuade me to buy into Leica for years. I stubbornly resisted, insisting that my Canon was technically a better camera. In fact, the new 5D and new Sony are technically still much better cameras than the M10. I ended up buying the M10 only because I believe in Leica lenses, and not Leica bodies. I bought the M10 NOT because I buy into the rangefinder mystique (in fact I find it a hindrance and would prefer autofocus ... but I put up with it), NOT because of Leica mystique, and certainly NOT because of its build quality (I would prefer if they made it cheaper and lighter). I bought it because it was the best body for Leica lenses. 

 

From what I know of my Leica shooting friends, quite a few of them are into the exact same hobbies as you. Ignore the naysayers. In most photo forums, you are judged by the photos you are able to produce, not by the size of your camera bag. 

[tobey bilek]

I've always been amused by the fact that expensive mechanical watches are not particularly accurate.  Quartz controlled humble watches, like Seiko and even Timex, are good for only a few seconds drift in half a year (the time between daylight to regular time changes).  You can set them from the network time signals or the NBS website.

 

 

Few sec twice a year for me. No maintenance.  Rollex CLA cost hundreds and I can buy 10 battery watches new for that but do not.

 

I did invest in back openers and lever press closers so I can easily change my own battery.  Micro Tools

 

Purpose of watch is to keep time, not show off your money.   Car get you A to B so as long as it is reliable.  If you do not park carefully,  there is damage from parking lots.  

 

I love Ferrari,  but being older I realize maintenance is freeky expensive and I would spend too much time worrying about it,  so it really does not satisfy A to B requirement.  Half a million to drive around on Sunday morning?  No way.

 

But Leica, stupid expensive compared to others,  but they don`t break the bank and there is no substitute.   I don`t drink or smoke or chase women,  so all I buy is Leica and add to my brokerage account.  Also buy a watch battery every few years.

Edited November 13, 2017 by tobey bilek

[Guest]

It really doesn't matter a damn how much treasure you do or you do not throw at a camera, a Leica, a Nikon, Canon, Hassie or whatever, any camera at all.

We all know, or should anyway, that has nothing to do with whether you're going to make good images or not. That resides in experience to some degree but more so in the "eye" and the timing of whoever is making the photograph and little or less to do with how much you paid. Camera marque, film or digital, megapixels, myriad of lens choices, chrome or black paint and, God help us, choices of straps and bags too, all really quite irrelevant.

I've made images I am happy with with everything from throw-away cameras to yes a Leica or two. What matters to me is a comfort level with whatever piece of gear I may be using at the time and the fact I have it with me when I see something that I want to photograph helps a lot too.

Just to show what I am getting at, here's one of my favourite images, shot some 35 years back on an old beat-up clapped out Nikkomat. I missed with the exposure, focus and shutter speed just grabbing the shot of my dog Bill running on a Welsh beach, but it's worked for me for all these years………..

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[M9reno]

Wonderful.  I have a similar one that describes young Fritz. 

 

Shot with a Leica II (D), Summar.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited November 13, 2017 by M9reno

[Guest]

yes well, you do know don't you that you have a lot of camera shake going on there plus you've only just got the dog in the photo albeit out of focus…….What were you thinking? All this image has got going for it is the pure joy of a dog in mud, emotion and evocative memories, huh?

What good it that?……

You seriously need auto focus and IS.

What camera bag where you using?

[Jeff S]

yes well, you do know don't you that you have a lot of camera shake going on there plus you've only just got the dog in the photo albeit out of focus…….What were you thinking? All this image has got going for it is the pure joy of a dog in mud, emotion and evocative memories, huh?

What good it that?……

You seriously need auto focus and IS.

What camera bag where you using?

Reminiscent of a priceless old TOP post...

 

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html?m=1

 

Jeff

[Jeff S]

And Part 2....

 

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/11/great-photographers-on-the-internet-part-ii.html

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mdemeyer]

Love the dog shot. It’s how I’d love to remember some of the pups of my younger days. :-)