Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/25

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

Subject: RE: [Leica] Nikon 300 2.8 vs Leica SLR lens
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk@lucent.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 1999 15:53:47 -0700

Eric,

Just had a problem with the term "real" SLR. But then again, as you say
maybe I should have read the post a bit closer.  For me, I am an M'er but my
SLR preference is not the R, not to say it is not a "real" SLR just not
suited for my needs.

Peter K

> ----------
> From: 	Eric Welch[SMTP:ewelch@ponyexpress.net]
> Reply To: 	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Sent: 	Friday, September 24, 1999 5:32 PM
> To: 	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us;
> 'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us'
> Subject: 	RE: [Leica] Nikon 300 2.8 vs Leica SLR lens
> 
> At 12:50 PM 9/24/99 -0700, Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:
> >Gee! Its so great to know that a real SLR is an R8.  I guess I will have
> to
> >throw away my EOS SLRs and go back in time to when people relied on on MF
> >and slow sync speeds.
> >And the cult continues.......
> 
> Peter, read a bit closer. We (Ted and I that is) did not say anything 
> negative about anyone's SLR. We were just defending the R8 from a dork who
> 
> wouldn't know an F-stop from a door stop.
> 
> Eric Welch
> St. Joseph, MO
> 
> http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch
> 
> Learn from your parents' mistakes - use birth control!
>