Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/10/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]-----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Richard F. Man Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 8:14 PM To: Leica Users Group Subject: RE: [Leica] Here we go, RD-1 in the US Well BD, we know the camera cannot be a total dog. It may have some problems experienced by some people, but I bet it's kind of like the Hexar RF fiasco - some people swear there is a problem and some not, and both can produce voluminous mathematical data showing why they are right... So.... My rationale is this: if I buy a digital camera (most likely an E-1), I would need lens. So adding a 50/2 macro and the 14-55, the total cost would be $2600-$3000, and the camera would handle like a SLR. Right at the moment, I am engulfed by the rangefinder religion, and small as my OM-4T is, the RF experience is better for me. So I'd imagine that if I were to get the E-1, wonderful it may be, I would still reach for the M. Now if I get the R-D1, I can reuse all the lens I have (well, I would need to get a 28mm besides the Tri-Elmar to get ~42mm view :-(, so the cost is not so bad, in that sense. I need to reread the thread on sneaking things pass the CFO though... At 04:49 PM 10/22/2004, B. D. Colen wrote: >But wait, girls and boys - EITHER this camera is the dog described by >Henning - in which case $1500 is $1500 too much - or else it is the >pretty good camera described by many others who have used it, a camera >that produces images on a level with the D100, in which case the price >is high, but perhaps acceptable in order to be able to shoot digitally >with a rangefinder. > >Which is it? ;-) // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please use richard at imagecraft.com)