[rollei_list] Re: Not My Definition of a Thoroughbred (Re: Nikon vs. Leica)
- From: Nick Roberts <nickbroberts@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:37:06 +0100 (BST)
I certainly wasn't thinking R, and would agree that an
F whatever. Not sure why you wouldn't include the
original F - much as I dislike the camera in use, it's
as solid as anything. Unless you mean the Photomic
heads...
Nick
--- Douglas Shea <dshea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Which Leica are we discussing here, the "R" or the
> "M?" With all due
> respect, having used a vast array of Nikon and
> various Leica "R" cameras I'd
> stop way short of calling the "R" a thoroughbred. I
> would also not refer to
> any of the Nikon FM/FE series cameras as
> "workhorses" either. As for build
> quality and expected durability I'd put the "R" and
> the FM2 in the same
> league; rather light duty cameras and a notch or two
> below any of the Nikon
> F series, especially from the F2 onwards. I'm sure
> that Leica enjoys seeing
> the "thoroughbred" reference -- it reinforces their
> belief in their own
> advertising hype. Only two SLR's come to my mind as
> thoroughbreds: the
> second and third generation Alpa cameras and the
> Contarex.
>
> Doug
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
