Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/10/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Thank you for the clarification regarding the relationship, but it really does not eliminate my quandary. The CL from my understanding had no Minolta parts, being a new design, but is thought of as a Minolta but some of the posters. The R series seems to be more closely tied to Minolta parts bins (per your statement) than the CL, but I haven't seen the same comments. I am not disputing the quality of either Minolta (except that you can keep their AF line) or the R series. For me, the issue is academic only. I probably would not go 35mm slr unless Leica produced an AF using a similar system as the AX where the current lenses could be retained and used. Though I don't use AF now, I am looking at the day where it *may* be of some benefit. At 12:08 11/10/96 -0700, you wrote: > >They are not "derived" from Minolta. They use some parts from Minolta to >build their own cameras. They are very different inside, except for some >parts. The Shutter in the XD-11 and R4 are the same, but the mirror boxes, >prisms and electronics (selective metering stuff etc.) are completely >Leica. And Minolta is no slouch. They pioneered autofocus, and they make >quite fine cameras for the market they cater to. > >As for magazines that cater to photographers that avoid advertising, there >are a few. A writer or Outdoor photograher George Lepp has his own >newsletter. Moose Peterson does too. But he's very biased for Nikon. >There's a very expensive Photo Magazine in Germany that runs BAS tests that >seems to be good, but they take advertising I belive. I could never justify >springing for the subscription price. I have seen Mr. Lepp's newsletter, and it is a good start for the concept. Mr. Peterson, I agree is rather biased. >=========== >Eric Welch >Grants Pass, OR > > > Brian Levy, J.D. Toronto, Ont. dlevy@worldy.com