Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/10/23

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] an M9 question...
From: lucien_vd at mac.com (lucien_vd at mac.com)
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:02:15 +0200
References: <76DF62EA-7B6E-4636-B595-8C67DB4AF929@gmail.com> <00d901ca5371$a32c9be0$e985d3a0$@net> <3B6B63ED-099F-4EF9-A04A-DAA4E8C5F133@embarqmail.com>

Ric,

Yes it is the  reason.

Lucien

Le 23-oct.-09 ? 01:52, Ric Carter a ?crit :

> was it not the increased thickness of the camera body?
>
> ric
>
>
> On Oct 22, 2009, at 7:44 PM, Frank Filippone wrote:
>
>> I meant to ask about something similar.....
>>
>> Why is the M8 and M9 VF set for a .68VF rather than the  
>> traditional .91 in
>> the M3 and .72 in the M6?
>>
>> I have forgotten the "wisdom" of this choice......
>>
>> Frank Filippone
>> red735i at earthlink.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



In reply to: Message from steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] an M9 question...)
Message from red735i at earthlink.net (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] an M9 question...)
Message from ricc at embarqmail.com (Ric Carter) ([Leica] an M9 question...)