Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/02/19

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

Subject: [Leica] Re: The Elusive Digilux 3 (NOT DLlux3)
From: telyt at telus.net (David Young)
Date: Mon Feb 19 08:01:53 2007
References: <5f1be6b50702182254g3a539e4y7728164b9685889f@mail.gmail.com> <a8278124b400024800bf0facb8080c0b@comcast.net>

For Bob and David & anyone else:
>David:
>
>You been reading my mind?
>
>Scary.  Very scary of you.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Bob
>
>
>
>On Feb 18, 2007, at 22:54, David Keenan wrote:
>
>>better firmware
>
>That's a laugh. The firmware issues of the M8 is pretty strong evidence that
>Leica ain't so good at writing code.

For what it's worth, David, Leica did not write the M8's code.  All 
Leica will admit is that it was done  by "a partner".   By bets are 
on Jenoptik, (still the) owner of Sinar.

>Frankly, I doubt that it (the firmware) is any different then what is in the
>Lumix. Why would it be? Why would Panasonic agree to market a camera with
>"inferior" firmware. Ridiculous.

The firmware in the Digilux 3 is written by Leica.  Whether it is any 
better is "in the eye of the  beholder", but they claim better colours.

>I have strongly considered buying the Panasonic.

Were I to go that route, I'd buy the PanaLeica or even the Oly, 
first. (Howard and Gary are very happy with their Olys!)  Even if the 
firmware in the Digilux 3 IS better, I can't see it being $800 worth of 
better!

Cheers!
---

David Young,
Logan Lake, CANADA

Wildlife Photographs: http://www.telyt.com/
Personal Web-pages: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt





Replies: Reply from rsphotoimages at comcast.net (Bob Shaw) ([Leica] Re: The Elusive Digilux 3 (NOT DLlux3))
In reply to: Message from ausdlk at gmail.com (David Keenan) ([Leica] Re: The Elusive Digilux 3 (NOT DLlux3))
Message from rsphotoimages at comcast.net (Bob Shaw) ([Leica] Re: The Elusive Digilux 3 (NOT DLlux3))