Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I still cannot believe my eyes seeing a Leica rebadged from Fuji. I weigh them both in my hand and they weigh the same. STILL, the anti-glare coating is DIFFERENT. But the aspherical lens seems the same. The only idea which comes to mind is the glass is zeiss but all else is the same. Leica's main asset is its brand; they are aware of it by adding that retro-rubber grip, also useful (but not worth extra $150 for digilux 4.3 v. finepix 4700. The only difference in packaging is 32 MB SmartMedia for Leica v. 16 MB for finepix, but 4 Ni-MH batteries for the latter v. only 2 for the former). If indeed even the lens are the same, how on Earth they intended to explain it? If Leica is more proficient with optics and mechanics as it always was, and probably before Fujifilm existed, it's stunning to see such a shameless rebadging! Does anybody have an insight on why is it happening? The brand name has its magic, so I still ponder whether I'll send the one with the red dot back or will give finepix as a present and will keep the leica. But I'd feel much better about keeping it if I'd knew why the prices differ! And NY distributors claim Leica has Zeiss lens... Any optical experts who can suggests more tests for lens difference? The barrel distortion in wide-angle mode is ugly for close objects. If you shoot a window from 1 meter away on wide-angle, the barrel is disgusting. But are there any pocket-sized zooms which avoid it? Apparently my hopes of a better lens with less distortion were idealistic, yet if the glass is better, perhaps overall picture quality can be better in certain cases?