Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]My "savaging" on Leica digitals has nothing to do with my receiving equipment from Olympus, Adam, it has to do with the fact that thus far Leica's digital efforts have been more than a little half-assed, and have been limited to rebadging cameras manufactured by others - or, as you note, making a back for a film camera at a price that will buy you a Canon D1s which is clearly THE 35 digital at this point. As to the new Digilux II - based on its description - and obviously we have nothing more at this point, it is nothing more than a 5 mgp p&s posing as an M. It is really, really cool looking - as I've said several times, but cool looking isn't what I look for in a camera. And at the price at which is it being offered, you can buy a Canon Digital Rebel with a good Canon lens, or you can buy a Nikon D100 body, an Oly E1 body, or a Canon D60 body. And that strikes me as Leica's once again missing the digital boat. BUT - and if you'd check the archives before pouncing for once - I have also said on several occassions that I think the digiII looks like a VERY smart marketing move on Leica's part, because they know full well that many, many of their buyers are buying marque, their buying Red Dots, and if they can buy a digital that looks like an M, they will. And I have NEVER savaged Tina for liking her digilux - I did point out, as you are quick to do re me and Olympus, that Tina has a relationship with Leica, which I found as relevant as you find my relationship with Olympus. I don't consider that 'savaging.' And I am quite sure Tina doesn't feel I ever 'savaged' her. Tina, have you felt savaged? ;-) - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Adam Bridge Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 5:41 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: RE: [Leica] Miserable Failure On 2003-12-16 <bdcolen@earthlink.net (B. D. Colen)> thoughtfully wrote: >Oh, and btw - Yes, my posted images have been shot with the E-1. You'll >notice I haven't made a bunch of BS claims - I've simply posted what >I've been shooting; just as I've posted my Leica images. Either the >images speak for themselves, or they don't. Same thing goes for the >digilux you're drooling all over - except that the only images are >those OF the digilux, not those taken in the field, under real-world >conditions. ;-) Excuse me, B.D. but I'm not drooling over the Digilux. My sole digital is a D30 and it works just fine for family purposes right now so no Digilux need apply. I'd love to have a digital back for my R8 but at the price point Leica has set I can darn near buy the full-frame Canon that's superior to any "35mm" digital out there. But... Every single time a Leica digital is mentioned on this list you find a way to savage it. Now you're on the Olympus payroll. There's a seemingly obvious connection. I pointed that out. Remember, you savaged Tina for actually liking her Digilux I, couldn't wait to point out that as a result of her liking the product she'd be asked by Leica to make a presentation about it. You don't get it both ways. Adam - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html