Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]B. D. Colen writes, and writes, and writes...and writes: > Lighten up, Greg. He said it was a "good little camera." I'm sure > it is. I've also seen the posted jpgs and raw files, and this is not a > camera > for anyone who really needs to do serious photography at above 200 > iso - if that fast - and in anything but slow motion. In spite of what you think, like most of us on the Lug I can read a review and come to a informed conclusion for myself. Sean Reid's review of the Digilux II was thorough and he seemed to discuss not only all the good points and bad points of this camera in a fair and balanced manner. In other words, a good objective review. I don't want to buy one, he does. > > The difference between us, I suspect from reading your posts on this > subject, complete with your communications with Van Ripper, is > that I have absolutely no emotional investment in the success OR failure > of the Digilux2. Maybe you would be better off on the Lug (and in life in general I suspect) not ascribing motives, assuming hidden agenda's, and just generally assuming things at all. People who do this only end up appearing rather foolish. To continually behave in this manner on a public list is not only foolish but it also appears to be "Troll Like". >Frankly, I'd love it if someone could produce a Leica or > Leica-like digital camera for $1800. But I don't consider a camera > witha top, very noisy, iso of 400, with no raw buffer and > therefore 6 seconds between shots, a leica=like camera, even if its > controls are > appearance are faux-Leica. Because Leica, to me, as always been > synonymous with the best, the highest quality - whether or not > high-priced. And with those drawbacks, that camera is, to my way of > thinking, neither. Maybe the illusive digital M will be; one can only > hope. Rather than spending your time continually ranting and raving about this on the LUG (see above), why don't you either wait (quietly) for someone else to build it or build it yourself? Until then, you may want to consider spending your time more productively. Perhaps you could write a review of your Olympus digital camera and post it "OT" to the Lug? > > B. D. > > P.S. - Why don't YOU Email Sean or Greg and ask them, as you did Van > Ripper? Of course the answer still won't eliminate the glaring > problemswith the camera, will it? I know whom Sean Reid is, and I do have his email address, I don't see any need for him to confirm that I can both read and retain what I've read. I can email him if you'd like if it help YOU to understand what he wrote? But just exactly who is the "Greg" you refer to in you're P.S. above? Regards, as always, Greg > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > [owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of GREG > LORENZO > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 3:18 PM > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: Re: RE: RE: [Leica] Digilux 2 review pt posted - many samples > > > Sorry B.D., unless Sean has a hidden agenda. He means what he says. > Apparently he has purchased a number of digital cameras that he has > previously tested. Of course, rather than you suggesting a different > interpretation to his words, then what those words actually mean (and > post it to the Lug), I suggest that you may want to email him and ask > him if he really intended to convey a different message. I suspect he > also knows what the MSRP is in US$ for the Digilux 2 as well, Holga's > notwithstanding. > > Regards, > > Greg > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> > Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 12:06 pm > Subject: RE: RE: [Leica] Digilux 2 review pt posted - many samples > > > I'm referring to Part II, Greg.:-) And "excellent little camera > > and one > > that I am likely to buy" is praising with - meaningless praise. The > > Holga is an excellent little camera and one that lots of people are > > likely to buy - for, what, $15? You are far too smart and > > sophisticateda guy to tell me that that quote really says > > anything. Frankly, the two > > megapixle Olympus digital P&Ses are - no fooling - excellent little > > cameras and one that millions and millions of people are likely > to > > buy - > > but that sure doesn't mean that it is any more than that. > > > > B. D. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > > [owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of GREG LORENZO > > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 12:44 PM > > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > > Subject: Re: RE: [Leica] Digilux 2 review pt posted - many samples > > > > > > B. D. Colen wrote in part: > > > > > Very interesting review. The problem is, it seems to me, that to > > say > > > that it is the best small sensor camera is damning with faint > > praise - > > > > > because it is priced higher than the Canon 10D, Digital Rebel, > > and > > > NikonD100, and priced on a part with the Olympus E-1. > > > > Hi B.D., > > > > I don't want a digital camera myself (Leica or not) but was the > > Reviewerin question "damning with faint praise" when he wrote > this > > in Part 1 of > > his Review? > > > > "I'll discuss the price and many other aspects of the camera in > > the full > > review but my overall impression so far is that this is an excellent > > little camera and one that I am likely to purchase." > > > > Regards, > > > > Greg > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > -- > 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 -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html