Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/01/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I must apologise, you seem to think it was you to whom I was addressing my remarks when it was not (though I forget who). In any case whether you compare with an M or CL a zoom viewfinder is not an economical piece of engineering ;-) Frank On Saturday, January 31, 2004, at 02:29 pm, Nathan Wajsman wrote: > Frank Dernie wrote: >> >> I think there are a couple of things worth saying here. It is >> expecting >> too much to have prime lens levels of distortion in a high zoom ratio >> lens. It is expecting too much to get M levels of quality out of a >> sensor less than half the size of a Minox negative. > > Hi Frank, > > I specifically did not address the issue of ultimate image quality. I > agree that expecting the same image quality as I get out of my M would > be unreasonable. > >> It is completely >> unreasonable to imagine ever having an optical zoom viewfinder at >> almost any price which matches the M viewfinder. These are simple >> facts >> of mechanical engineering production at domestically acceptable >> prices. > > Well, I think that when I compare two digicams with essentially similar > specs (e.g. the Digilux 2 vs. the Canon G5) and one is $1000 more > expensive than the other, then it is reasonable to expect something > beyond the red dot to account for the price difference. Also note that > I > did not set the bar for the viewfinder at M levels--I referred to my > CL. > > Nathan > > -- > Nathan Wajsman > Almere, The Netherlands > > e-mail: n.wajsman@chello.nl > Mobile: +31 630 868 671 > > Photo site: http://www.wajsmanphoto.com/index.htm > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html