Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/04/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]No need for image stabilisation? Gee, I'd love it, provided it worked well. Ok, I'll concede that focus confirmation could be kind of handy at times. But usually I'm concentrating on the subject so much that I've no time to check for something like a confirmation light. And the subject is usually moving, so by the time I checked, I'd have missed the moment. If it's so dark that an R is hard to focus, is it time to start using an M? But autofocus is definitely the lowest priority of the three, for me. My last two films shot with Leica tele lenses of da little boyds makes it clear to me that manual focus is way better for this kind of work. If I had my scanner already I'd let y'all see what I mean. Speaking of scanners, what's the voting for a Nikon Coolscan 5000 vs a Minolta Dimage 5400? I asked before and got not a hint :-( Rick. On 11/04/2005, at 9:08 AM, Grduprey@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/10/2005 4:48:00 PM Central Daylight Time, > rdcb37@dodo.com.au writes: > Rather than autofocus or focus confirmation, I'd rather have image > stabilisation of some kind. That would appear to be quite do-able for > the next R body. > > Don't need the first two. > > I have not had the needc for Image Stabilization either. Of the three > I'd > rather have autofocus or confirmation for when my eyes can't quite > hack it in > dark scenes. ;-) > > Gene > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >