Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/07/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It is all these problems which have been voiced from users which has kept me from going the R-D1 route, and I have been tempted due to the trouble in finding good film processing in my new home. ----- Original Message ----- From: cummer@netvigator.com Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 9:58 AM To: lug@leica-users.org Subject: [Leica] RD 1 QC issues Dear Luggers, To weigh in on the Richard / Nathan discussion, I am on my third RD 1. My first one had rangefinder problems that simply defied the laws of optics, the second one had clumps of dead pixels which, when extinquished by Epson, left "holes" in the CCD pattern. After returning the second body Epson offered me a full refund, but I wanted a digital rangefinder body to use with my M lenses so I asked for body #3. They brought two new bodies from the warehouse for me to check and I chose the one with a small vertical rangefinder fault because I knew how easy it was to fix that. Having adjusted the rangefinder (hot shoe cover off - hot shoe off - tall screw on the right) I am quite happy with my RD 1 and have shot several thousand pictures with a wide variety of Leica glass.My RD 1 will tide me over until Leica or Zeiss or Konica / Minolta produces a better digital rangefinder camera to take M lenses and I do enjoy the process of making (and immediately seeing) digital photos with M l! enses. I would conclude by saying that the Epson people I dealt with were very courteous and understanding and as puzzled as I was about the lack of quality control in the production of the RD 1. Cheers Howard (not in Hong Kong but travelling in Canada (with the RD 1) _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information