[rollei_list] Re: Okay -- SL66 vs. 2.8 TLR

From: Jeff Dilcher <dilcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:08:32 -0400

This is a dumb question, but, here goes...

Is the image quality resulting from the "big" lens of an SL66 superior
to those on TLRs?

I would think for the size and weight of the chunks of glass on the
SL66s, that there must be some kind of hidden goodness in there...



---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' 
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Follow-Ups:

[rollei_list] Re: Okay -- SL66 vs. 2.8 TLR
From: Craig Roberts

[rollei_list] Re: Okay -- SL66 vs. 2.8 TLR
From: Slobodan Dimitrov

[rollei_list] Re: Okay -- SL66 vs. 2.8 TLR
From: Jerry Lehrer

References:
- [rollei_list] rollei_list Digest subject lines.....c'mon people!
  - From: Richard Sintchak
- [rollei_list] Digest subject lines.....c'mon people!
  - From: Marc James Small
- [rollei_list] Okay -- SL66 vs. 2.8 TLR
  - From: Craig Roberts
- [rollei_list] Re: Okay -- SL66 vs. 2.8 TLR
  - From: Allen Zak

[rollei_list] Re: Okay -- SL66 vs. 2.8 TLR

Other related posts: