Re: Nice RFs

[David.Bernard@Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard)]

----- Begin Included Message -----

>From leica-request@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Wed Oct  7 14:56:07 1992
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 14:22:55 -0400
From: Darrell Raymond <drraymon@daisy.uwaterloo.ca>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re:  Nice RFs
Content-Length: 464





>>  Jeff says:

>>I have used all of these, and also an Olympus XA, which is cute but has a very
>>disappointing lens--I get sharper pictures by guess-focusing a Minox 35GT
>>than by using the RF on the XA

Darrell says:

>  Glad to hear someone else thinks so.  Some of the dialogue in rec.photo
>would have you believe that the XA was a great optical instrument.  I
>haven't used one recently, but it certainly was poor when it first came 
>out.  The Minox was much better.

	Interesting, first I'm hearing about this.  The XA enjoys a
	quasi-cult status, and I've been happy with the results I've
	seen.  Can it be the lens or crfdr gets out of alignment?

	I replaced an old Rollei 35s which had a very nice Sonnar 2.8
	lens, but with seat-of-pants focussing, with the XA.  So this
	is not the first mixed results I've heard about a line of lenses
	(I've heard alternate praise and damnation with the Pentax 67
	lens line, for instance).  At least no one really says anything
	bad about Leica lenses... or do they?

		Dave
----- End Included Message -----