If a camera could have "Bokeh" the LX would be loaded with it.. Vic
In a message dated 11/10/02 5:05:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Pal, There's no need to get the camera checked as I have sold it now. However, the slight overexposure of the z-1, and the hunting of AF lenses on said Z-1 is not particularly unusual and has been discussed ad nauseum on this list. I single sensor AF system is always going to hunt a little, that is just something Zed users have to live with. It doesn't make it a bad camera - on the contrary, I loved my Z-1 so much I only sold it to upgrade to the z-1p. As I said in my last post, and many other LX users will agree, I just prefer to use my LX for macro work. The results may be identical on a light box, but I just like my LX. It is a beautiful camera to use, and I feel more like I am actually 'making' a photograph than I sometimes did with the z-1. It is purely preference, and purely aesthetic. But, I will defy you to get a sharper photo with a z-1 than an LX when both are pushed to the limits of what they can do. The mirror lock up alone on the LX puts it streets ahead. Now, the z-1p's mirror pre-fire will negate this advantage, so it may produce equally sharp results. I will wait and see, as my nice new z-1p arrives sometime this week hopefully. I note from your last message Pal that you have an MZ-S. I cannot compare this to either the LX or Z-1, as I have not had the opportunity to see one in the flesh, let alone use one. I live out in the sticks, and don't go to the city very often, so it is difficult to get to play with new cameras. I also know you have an FA* 200mm macro, and of this I am truly jealous. If everything we hear is to be believed, then this is a truly special piece of glass... Cheers Shaun Canning Archaeology Department La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, 3086. >>
