Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/14

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica Digilux 2, again
From: Eric Welch <eric@jphotog.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:16:07 -0800
References: <58A7238E-2D93-11D8-BD3D-0003938C439E@btinternet.com> <BAY10-DAV33jVuMhvqg000099f2@hotmail.com>

A MUCH shorter focal length. And have you seen the diagram of the 
internals of the Digilux2? The last element is almost touching the 
sensor. With longer focal lengths, and a shutter in the way, you have 
your answer.

On Dec 13, 2003, at 9:56 AM, eric wrote:

> The body and lens dimensions look so very M rangefinder.
> So again - Why can't they design a digital M body?
> I know it has been discussed at length about angles of incidence and 
> sensors
> not up to the task - but what is so different about the digilux 2 that
> precludes designing a body to accept M lenses?
Eric
Carlsbad, CA

'Never ask a man what computer he uses. If it's a Mac, he'll tell you. 
If it's not, why embarrass him?'"  - Tom Clancey

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@btinternet.com> (Re: [Leica] Leica Digilux 2, again)
Message from "eric" <leica_korenman@hotmail.com> (Re: [Leica] Leica Digilux 2, again)