Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/04/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]That's why I said IF, Jeff...:-)...It was in response to the comment that the lens isn't good enough to use on a....LEYE KAH..... I, for one, find it extremely hard to believe that Konica would produce such a rotten lens, even in a cheap point & shoot...I think that who ever made the comment about name tag/label obsession hit proverbial nail on its proverbial head... B. D. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Jeff Spirer Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 10:14 AM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: RE: [Leica] Konica on Leica At 09:26 AM 4/18/00 -0400, B. D. Colen wrote: >IF that report is accurate, it's not good enough to use. Period. :-) Well as I said, I have yet to see it in anything I have used it for. It also doesn't correlate with other user reports. It's always possible in a single sample test that the lens has been dropped or otherwise damaged. Statistical significance is not established by testing one lens. Jeff Spirer Photos: http://www.spirer.com One People: http://www.onepeople.com/