Archived posting to the
Leica Users Group, 2003/12/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index]
[Home]
[Search]
Subject: [Leica] Re: Re: DoF, was: Noctilux-M v. Summilux-R
From: JCB <jcb@visualimpressions.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:31:13 -0800
References: <002901c3cce1$d80e9c90$388a8418@symkeehx5nw8g8> <20031227201539.78162.qmail@web40909.mail.yahoo.com> <000f01c3ccc9$777428e0$87d86c18@gv.shawcable.net> <002901c3cce1$d80e9c90$388a8418@symkeehx5nw8g8> <5.1.1.6.2.20031228094538.03e28e98@mail.brick.org>
At 07:42 PM 12/28/2003 +0100, animal wrote:
>Why ?they are not inaccuat are they?
>regards
>simon j
>inaccuat ?
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
Replies:
Reply from "animal" <s.jessurun95@chello.nl> (Re: [Leica] Re: Re: DoF, was: Noctilux-M v. Summilux-R)
In reply to:
Message from "animal" <s.jessurun95@chello.nl> (Re: [Leica] DoF, was: Noctilux-M v. Summilux-R)
Message from Lee <leeh0@yahoo.com> (Re: [Leica] DoF, was: Noctilux-M v. Summilux-R)
Message from Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca> (Re: [Leica] DoF, was: Noctilux-M v. Summilux-R)
Message from "animal" <s.jessurun95@chello.nl> (Re: [Leica] DoF, was: Noctilux-M v. Summilux-R)
Message from JCB <jcb@visualimpressions.com> ([Leica] Re: DoF, was: Noctilux-M v. Summilux-R)