Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/12/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Yes, a camera that no picture is not going to be better than the camera that gets taken out :-) Not surprising assessment. This is why there are so many excellent and even great cameras - for different reasons. It's only brand bigots that insist on "how can a $300 VC equals that of the $6000 Leica." Well it can, if that someone cannot afford the Leica lens :-) On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com>wrote: > I have a M9 and D3x. > The difference between the results, in my case, are due to 4 factors: > Focus - I can actually focus the M9 better than the D3x, and maybe/probably > the sensor mount shimming is more accurate in the M9 > Size - I usually leave the D3x at home... > Subject - there are certain things a SLR will always be more suitable for, > the 600mm lens for example. > Lens - in my case my Leica lens is better than the alternative which I own > for the Nikon. > Other than that, they both produce great results. > FD > > -- // richard <http://www.imagecraft.com/> // icc blog: <http://imagecraft.com/blog/> // photo blog: <http://www.5pmlight.com> [ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all previous replies in your msgs. ]