Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/07/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Howard - I don't doubt that the Epson people were very courteous; I don't believe for a nanosecond that they were "as puzzled as (you were) about the lack of quality control in the production of the RD1." :-) B. D. On 7/27/05 12:58 PM, "cummer@netvigator.com" <cummer@netvigator.com> wrote: > Dear Luggers, > To weigh in on the Richard / Nathan discussion, I am on my third RD 1. My > first one had rangefinder problems that simply defied the laws of optics, > the > second one had clumps of dead pixels which, when extinquished by Epson, > left > "holes" in the CCD pattern. After returning the second body Epson offered > me a > full refund, but I wanted a digital rangefinder body to use with my M > lenses > so I asked for body #3. They brought two new bodies from the warehouse for > me > to check and I chose the one with a small vertical rangefinder fault > because I > knew how easy it was to fix that. Having adjusted the rangefinder (hot shoe > cover off - hot shoe off - tall screw on the right) I am quite happy with > my > RD 1 and have shot several thousand pictures with a wide variety of Leica > glass.My RD 1 will tide me over until Leica or Zeiss or Konica / Minolta > produces a better digital rangefinder camera to take M lenses and I do > enjoy > the process of making (and immediately seeing) digital photos with M l! > enses. I would conclude by saying that the Epson people I dealt with were > very courteous and understanding and as puzzled as I was about the lack of > quality control in the production of the RD 1. > Cheers > Howard > (not in Hong Kong but travelling in Canada (with the RD 1) > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information