RE: [Leica] Re: Request for Advice

["Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk@lucent.com>]

Well, its certainly no Leica.  But as a backup equipped with slide film it
honestly surprised me as to the quality it produced when I was traveling. I
simply did nopt expect it to be that sharp.  I would not say Leica like but
I would say Zeiss like (sorry I don't mean to blaspheme).

Also it is a very indiscrete camera since its palm size makes it hardly
noticeable should you want to take candid shots in citified areas where you
normally would not venture, let alone with camera in hand.

Peter K 

- -----Original Message-----
From: Bud Cook [mailto:budcook@ibm.net]
Sent: Friday, December 04, 1998 12:44 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Request for Advice


Peter,
I don't want to belabor the point but if your XA produces superb results,
what
kind of results do you get from your Leica?

In any event, my wife is now quite pleased with the Minilux except that it
won't
produce close-ups (which to her means no telephoto):-)

Regards,
Bud

"Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" wrote:

> Bud,
>
> Well I own an XA and have taken it around the world as a backup.  My
> pictures on slide film were superb.  Yes, they were not Leica quality, but
> projected to a very large wall size image they held up.  I have had my XA
> repaired 3 times since I first bought it in 1982  (clumsy me, I dropped it
> on occasion.) It is not built like a tank, but smaller than most and very
> useful as a backup.  It is certainly smaller than comparable P/S including
> the Leicas.  For shaprest photos the lens is best at F8 and F11.  I try no
> to use it wide open, where (like most other lenses including some Leica
> lenses) it is not good! :-(
> May I suggest you get your wife's XA checked at a reputable repair place,
> perhaps even at Olympus if they still repair them. Perhaps the camera is
out
> of sorts.
>
> Peter K
>