RE: [Leica] Miserable Failure

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

My "savaging" on Leica digitals has nothing to do with my receiving
equipment from Olympus, Adam, it has to do with the fact that thus far
Leica's digital efforts have been more than a little half-assed, and
have been limited to rebadging cameras manufactured by others - or, as
you note, making a back for a film camera at a price that will buy you a
Canon D1s which is clearly THE 35 digital at this point. 

As to the new Digilux II - based on its description - and obviously we
have nothing more at this point, it is nothing more than a 5 mgp p&s
posing as an M. It is really, really cool looking - as I've said several
times, but cool looking isn't what I look for in a camera. And at the
price at which is it being offered, you can buy a Canon Digital Rebel
with a good Canon lens, or you can buy a Nikon D100 body, an Oly E1
body, or a Canon D60 body. And that strikes me as Leica's once again
missing the digital boat. BUT - and if you'd check the archives before
pouncing for once - I have also said on several occassions that I think
the digiII looks like a VERY smart marketing move on Leica's part,
because they know full well that many, many of their buyers are buying
marque, their buying Red Dots, and if they can buy a digital that looks
like an M, they will.

And I have NEVER savaged Tina for liking her digilux - I did point out,
as you are quick to do re me and Olympus, that Tina has a relationship
with Leica, which I found as relevant as you find my relationship with
Olympus. I don't consider that 'savaging.' And I am quite sure Tina
doesn't feel I ever 'savaged' her.

Tina, have you felt savaged? ;-)




- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Adam
Bridge
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 5:41 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Leica] Miserable Failure


On 2003-12-16 <bdcolen@earthlink.net (B. D. Colen)> thoughtfully wrote: 

>Oh, and btw - Yes, my posted images have been shot with the E-1. You'll

>notice I haven't made a bunch of BS claims - I've simply posted what 
>I've been shooting; just as I've posted my Leica images. Either the 
>images speak for themselves, or they don't. Same thing goes for the 
>digilux you're drooling all over - except that the only images are 
>those OF the digilux, not those taken in the field, under real-world 
>conditions. ;-)

Excuse me, B.D. but I'm not drooling over the Digilux. My sole digital
is a D30 and it works just fine for family purposes right now so no
Digilux need apply. I'd love to have a digital back for my R8 but at the
price point Leica has set I can darn near buy the full-frame Canon
that's superior to any "35mm" digital out there.

But...

Every single time a Leica digital is mentioned on this list you find a
way to savage it. Now you're on the Olympus payroll. There's a seemingly
obvious connection. I pointed that out. Remember, you savaged Tina for
actually liking her Digilux I, couldn't wait to point out that as a
result of her liking the product she'd be asked by Leica to make a
presentation about it.

You don't get it both ways.

Adam


- --
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