Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/12/21

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

Subject: [Leica] Quality (was un-believable)
From: grduprey at mchsi.com (grduprey@mchsi.com)
Date: Sun Dec 21 13:46:06 2008
References: <C571F947.46C4F%mark@rabinergroup.com><818DA469-3DE6-49D3-8596-E0D538DA279E@mac.com><a3f189160812200737k6a677a81jebc064dd84f23722@mail.gmail.com><4CEF8D73-2513-4D73-A418-0CCC02BFE54E@woh.rr.com><122120080236.4937.494DABBC0003F0C200001349223245003003010CD2079C080C03BF970A9D9F9A0B9D09@mchsi.com><45F58096-FCAD-4427-8F19-A80E510E76F4@frozenlight.eu> <110D01BCB4BB4607895FE24A3B1783DE@precisionm50>

 
Bot really an issue Bob. ?My M8 has been in dust of the California and 
?Arizona Deserts, along with down pouring rain and not a single problem. 
?Tina has seen even worse.


Gene -------------- Original message from "Bob W" <leica@web-options.com>: 
--------------


> > In my view, Leica should be spending their money on ironing 
> > out the infra-red nonsense, and on making the next M the same 
> > size as the M3.
> 
> and they should also make sure it's properly sealed against dust and
> weather.
> 
> Bob 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob W [mailto:leica@web-options.com] 
> > Sent: 21 December 2008 10:09
> > To: 'Leica Users Group'
> > Subject: RE: [Leica] Quality (was un-believable)
> > 
> > If you're coming to the M8 from the M7 the difference in size 
> > may be less noticeable than if you're coming from the M3 and 
> > M4-2 as I have. To show the difference I have photographed 
> > the M8 and M3 side by side here:
> > 
> > http://www.web-options.com/M3M8/
> > 
> > Apologies for the cluttered background - it's my kitchen. 
> > Also apologies for the poor focus in one of them, but it 
> > makes the point and I can't be bothered to reshoot it.
> > 
> > I strongly prefer the smaller size, and find the size 
> > difference very noticeable - it was the first thing I 
> > remarked on when I first handled an M8. Not only because it's 
> > more comfortable to handle, but also because the larger body 
> > changes the proportions of the camera quite noticeably and 
> > makes it less attractive in my opinion.
> > 
> > For the record, here are the numbers, in millimetres:
> > 
> > Body        Length  Height  Depth   Ratio
> > m3  138.00  77.00           33.50   1.79
> > m8  138.60  80.20           36.90   1.73
> > 
> > In my view, Leica should be spending their money on ironing 
> > out the infra-red nonsense, and on making the next M the same 
> > size as the M3.
> > 
> > Bob 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information

Replies: Reply from leica at web-options.com (Bob W) ([Leica] Quality (was un-believable))
In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] un-believable)
Message from imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George) ([Leica] Quality (was un-believable))
Message from sonc.hegr at gmail.com (Sonny Carter) ([Leica] Quality (was un-believable))
Message from rmcclure2 at woh.rr.com (rob mcclure) ([Leica] Quality (was un-believable))
Message from grduprey at mchsi.com (grduprey@mchsi.com) ([Leica] Quality (was un-believable))
Message from photo at frozenlight.eu (Nathan Wajsman) ([Leica] Quality (was un-believable))
Message from leica at web-options.com (Bob W) ([Leica] Quality (was un-believable))