Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/11

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

Subject: [Leica] VF sizes
From: hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:24:14 +1000
References: <mailman.855.1268285013.1001.lug@leica-users.org> <A76884FC9D914B5698BACB80B942BA84@SueHome>

Bill I'm sure that Leica's engineers will be happy to see your design for
the shrunken M10 ;-)  ;-)  ;-) There's not a lot of room in there!
FWIW I think that Olympus wanted to call the first OM the M1 but Leica
objected. May be entirely an internet myth!

M9
W 139 x H 80 x D 37 mm

OM2
W 136 x H 83 x D 50 mm

I guess the larger depth to the lens mount with the OM 2 was due to the
larger flange focal distance.

Lots of micro four thirds folks are blessing those larger distances now. So
are the adaptor manufacturers.


FWIW I think that Olympus wanted to call the first OM the M1 but Leica
objected. May be entirely an internet myth!

Cheers
Geoff
http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman


On 12 March 2010 14:51, Sue Pearce <bs.pearce at cox.net> wrote:

> Yeah, the D3 has a good but not great VF, but...
>
> There's no reason that the contents of the M9 couldn't fit into the space
> of the OM's. Even if slightly expanded, it would be sublime!
>
> Bill Pearce
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>


Replies: Reply from Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie) ([Leica] VF sizes)
Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] VF sizes)
Reply from philippe.amard at sfr.fr (philippe.amard) ([Leica] VF sizes)
In reply to: Message from bs.pearce at cox.net (Sue Pearce) ([Leica] VF sizes)