David,
I meant for a full frame.
I still think of 35mm as normal on full frame. I use the
50 less often than the 90. A 35mm 0.9 would be much less heavy than a 50 as
well.
---- David Young <telyt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 18/10/2007, you wrote:
> >Doug,
> > 35 would make much more sense, woudn't it?
> >Charlie. :-)
>
>
> Not if the M9 is to be Full Frame. (Nothing was said about this,
> by anybody from Leica or Kodak, at Rochester.)
>
>
> ---
>
> David Young,
> Logan Lake, CANADA
>
> Wildlife Photographs: http://www.telyt.com/
> Personal Web-pages: http://www3.telus.net/~telyt
> Stock Photography at: http://tinyurl.com/2amll4
>
> ------
> 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/