Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/06/11[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
I agree: very different animals indeed and there's no great point in comparing them. The lesson I learned was that the conditions were such that a non 'pro-spec' DSLR struggled in Iraq whereas the simple and robust mechanical rangefinder I took coped with them perfectly well (I did have the M6 overhauled when I got back as a precaution but the repairer didn't notice any particular problems with it). While it isn't something I'm losing any sleep over, I'm wondering whether, when I go to Afghanistan next year, I should bother with a digital camera at all or just stick to a couple of M film bodies. Oddly enough, the film stock I took with me (Fuji Provia 100) coped with the heat very well. The D100 was a perfectly acceptable camera but I had no hesitation in Ebaying it when the D200 appeared and actually got just under ?500 for it! Adrian Mark Rabiner wrote: Both the D100 and M8 are digital "first outs" by the respective companies Nikon and Leica. And that's where their similarity ends. The D100 is a plastic cameras which broke DSLR price barriers. It got me into digital photography. ... If the D100 was not perfect it was ok was it was a grand and a half and the D200 was a real camera made for serious use and we all just got that when the time came. I don't even use the D100 as a back up body I use a D40x.