[LRflex] Re: Is it worth repairing the R3?
- From: Philippe Amard <phamard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 22:52:14 +0200
R3: Thrice the blinded cat hath mewed: (Shakespeare got one for sure.)
a) Longest thread I've ever followed too Alex - courteous and
informative - that's what I like on the list..
b) Doug et al., you can't be wrong about the SL being brighter as you've
used both bodies which most of us have not.
c) my extra two euro-cents to the debate: the viewfinder may be bright,
or not, but it all also depends on the optics you're using. The brighter
the lense, the better and the brighter the view, except if you're using
early bodies where "real" aperture is a necessity. This is worth
considering as everycompound has different features. This is one of the
reasons I opted for Angenieux lenses (2.5 35/70 and 3.5 70/210), it DOES
make a difference, not an aboslute one for sure and the viewfinder
brightness is in no way negigible, but highly important when it comes to
seeing what you want to shoot..
Yours
Phileicangenieux
Post Scriptum: Is it worth repairing the R3? That was the question.Well,
I hate seeing a mechanical device end up on the tip, I'd say YES,
conditionally.
Douglas Herr wrote:
>Alex Hurst <corkflor@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
>>.... Some will have no problem with the R3's viewfinder, but my own
>>view is that it isn't within a donkey's screech of its immediate
>>predecessors, the SL and SL2.
>>
>>
>
>My opinion as well.
>
>
>Doug Herr
>Birdman of Sacramento
>http://www.wildlightphoto.com
>------
>Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
> http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
>Archives are at:
> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>
>
>
>
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
