What camera is not junk compared with its ancestors? You'd need to
compare it with an M7 to be fair.
No-one could afford to make an M3 any more - even Leica cheapened it
down a bit (rangefinder mechanism) in subsequent models. That's why a
nice one still costs more than an E-520 with all the trimmings. And
don't even mention the near mint black M4 I saw the other day - I'll
start sobbing.
Would you compare a D300 with an F or F2 or FTn? (Absolute tanks)
A Canon D40 with an early body like my Canonflex?
A Sony A700 with a Minolta SRT?
A K20D with a Spotmatic?
Each of them represent a different world of engineering. The body
shape and function is the same but everything inside and out is of a
different standard. I once stripped down the top deck of a late
1950's Ricoh 519 and was blown away by the design of the rangefinder
- a big, solid, cemented double element with a semi-silvered mirror
on the angled interface. Hardly surprising that a clean one works as
well as the day it was born.
Andrew Fildes (who works both better and worse than the day he was
born).
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 14/06/2008, at 10:28 AM, John Hudson wrote:
> I'd bet that the M8 is a piece of 21st century junk compared to the
> M3 of
> old.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|