Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]From: Bob Keene/Karen Shehade <kabob@tiac.net> Sent: Monday, September 20, 1999 15:21 Subject: Re:Re: [Leica] Consistent underexposure problem > Don't be an idiot- EVERYTHING in life has an occasional > defect or miscalibration! That doesn't mean that one should expect and accept defects. And it's not strictly true that defects are unavoidable. It's easy enough to implement a zero-defect policy at the factor: any widget that fails to meet all the standards is rejected--no exceptions. > Do you mean if you bought a car and it didn't start one > morning, you'd throw it away and never buy the same > manufacturer!? If it were a Rolls-Royce, I might. If it's a Yugo, I'd just get it repaired. > And you don't have to go out and buy a meter, borrow > one from another photographer... I needed a meter anyway. You never know when it'll come in handy. > In certain lighting conditions the M's meter will be fooled- > *you* have to learn when that happens and how to correct for it. Yes, I know. > M6's don't "often" have meter problems, but yours might > have one. As I've said quite a few times now, there is no evidence of a meter problem in my camera. My M6, my spot meter, and my F5 all agree with each other to within 1/10 of a stop. > Once you've gotten used to the M, you'll probably love it! I already like it. The camera doesn't frustrate me at all; only my own incompetence at setting the exposure correctly irritates me. > Rangefinder camera systems aren't for everyone..... I think every camera has its place. I'm primarily an SLR person, but there are situations in which a rangefinder is simply the right camera to use. -- Anthony