Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/01/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]B.D. Colen said: > There is no AF system camera - particularly when it comes to lenses - > with the build quality of a Leica M. That is not a chauvenistic > statement, simply a statment of fact. So, I said best suiting because I also know there is no system as good as Leica. > I know each system has its own advantage > > over others, but it is a really a difficult decision. > > But only you can make it. Yes, it is only my point of view as I stated. > > Canon = Wonderful AF speed, large range of lenses, wonderful IS technology, > > but poor built quality. > > That poor build quality must explain why, what, 75 percent?, of daily > shooters use this equipment and bang the hell out of it on a dailybasis. This comment is based on my and my friends' experience. Reported problem included dials fails, system hanged, broken mounts, peeling off of shock resistance materials, flash system out of control, sudden fall out of the front lens element in cold weather, etc... > And you didn't say you needed a digital body. You can't just promise you wiil need digital body and using your current lenses in the future. It must be a plus. > > Pentax = Large film advantage, but I don't know that is it convenient to > > use? > > What are you doing comparing a medium format camera to a bunch of 35 > SLRs. And on the 35s you were commenting on such things as build quality > of lenses, color cast of lenses, AF speed, digital body, and here all > you ask is 'is it convenient to use?'" If it is really convenient to use and carry, I will buy it. Terry Sham