frank theriault wrote: > > C1's are nice looking cameras - but IIRC, w-a-y slow lenses (like f11 at the > longest focal length?).
Oh, heck no! f/10.5 at 105mm. Clear down to f/4.0 at the widest, which is 38mm. > I've heard some say that QC is a real problem with them. Lots of reports of > inability to properly focus at longer focal lengths, IIRC - almost sounds > like alignment problems with the glass or something. I personally think it's the IR sensor. I know darned well it won't focus thru glass, but one expects that, right? Stay away from aquariums! I finally put it back in my pocket and acted the grump the rest of the day, mumbling to myself. . . > But, if you have a good sample, they're supposed to be nice cams. They are. Out in the open. Nice, sharp, clear photos, nice color, good contrast, etc. Zoom, self-wind, auto-load, and so on. Nice specs. A decent P&S. keith whaley > regards, > frank > > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist > fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer > > >From: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: OT - Leica Digilux 2 - must see this > >Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:06:22 -0800 > > > >I have an almost brand new Leica C1. I understand the body was made by > >Matsushita/Panasonic. > > > >It is very nicely made, but I have a problem with the rather odd controls. > >Someone else might not think they're odd at all. It's probably just me. > > > >keith whaley > > > >graywolf wrote: > > > > > > Panasonic, Panasonic, Panasonic... > > > > > > Do you suppose Leica does extra quality control before or after they put > >their > > > name on it? Nah, probably not. If you have an older digital Leica you > >can say > > > Fuji, Fuji, Fuji... But then if you have a Leica CL you can say Minolta, > > > Minolta, Minolta... > > > > > > Tell me again how much better a Leica is than a Panasonic, Fuji, or > >Minolta. > > > > > > --- > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >>On 2/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>I imagine many wont like the electronic viewfinder, but other than > >that > > > >>>it must surely be the answer to many people's dreams. > > > >>> > > > >>>Seems odd though. Not that I am dissin' the electronic vf, but the > > > >>>target market for a camera of this sort would be exactly the type of > > > >>>person I would expect to be put off by that. I suspect they would > >have > > > >>>preferred a rangefinder? > > > >> > > > >>Egad. I spotted it just before I had to dash out to work, and missed > >the > > > >>electronic VF part. YUK. Cancel my order please Santa. Optical all the > >way! > > > >[. . .] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
