Archived posting to the
Leica Users Group, 2013/03/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index]
[Home]
[Search]
Subject: [Leica] What I don't like about the new M (was Leica M240)
From: benedenia at gmail.com (Marty Deveney)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:20:17 +1030
References: <F4A78B27-7673-48AA-82D9-F7B809AC7574@me.com> <6C0C8D0D-427B-45E4-8748-8D585DD4B6A1@archiphoto.com> <80F9701439F20347874CE5E4E03C22E9B6FB2EC0@WhizzMAIL01.whizz.org> <834F2D15-FA08-418C-9B35-FF9A0126C84C@archiphoto.com> <C010CEAE93D44BDDA0FCCC0356ECB3F4@jimnichols> <3C77A1E2-AEF5-4DC4-AB6D-D05CCEA4AF95@archiphoto.com> <AAA20E59-572C-4A8E-8A1D-99347FCAE99E@archiphoto.com> <0057AEC1-8C3A-48E4-AC25-3CD9D1C09C51@archiphoto.com> <CAE3QcF7TRzmyLAtF=JWmArzeRhFCDVhRFJYS3L0jp8AchxVd-A@mail.gmail.com>
> Impossible to please everyone of course.
Now that the framelines are electronic, why not make them adjust for
distance as well as parallax so that no matter what distance you are
focused at, you get ~5% more than the framelines show? Like a _1963_
Konica SIII, say.
I think that would keep everyone happy.
Marty
Replies:
Reply from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] What I don't like about the new M (was Leica M240))
In reply to:
Message from gerry.walden at me.com (Gerry Walden) ([Leica] Leica M240)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Leica M240)
Message from john at mcmaster.co.nz (John McMaster) ([Leica] Leica M240)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Leica M240)
Message from jhnichols at lighttube.net (Jim Nichols) ([Leica] Leica M240)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Leica M240)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Leica M240)
Message from henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] What I don't like about the new M (was Leica M240))
Message from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] What I don't like about the new M (was Leica M240))