roland_schmid

<p>yes</p>

<p>My 24-70 broke down twice (zoom ring), several photographer friends of mine had the same problem, usually more than once. The optic is splendid, the mechanic is lousy...</p>

<p>The HC-4 works well. I use it with a 500 c/m, the cfv-39 and the flash hand grip - good also for working in portrait mode.</p>

<p>You can't change the viewfinder and the lens at a G617. But you can at a GX617 </p>

<p>They look definitely more Dutch than Russian. Strange hobby anyway.</p>

<p>Hi. I use the CB60/3.5 with my CFV-39 and it is very, very sharp.</p>

<p>Ok, I try again:<br>

<br /><em>"You gotta see this in person. This is beyond the doubt, the most precise thing, and one of the most beautiful we've ever made. Glass on the front and back, and steel around the sides. It's like a beautiful old Leica camera."</em><br /><br />Come on gentlemen, that is really nonsense.</p>

<p>At least they got the sunshade right.</p>

<p>Well, I used quite a lot of 120 rolls. That's why they survived.</p>

<p>Hi Scott. Arca makes such plates.</p>

<p>A real fake</p>

<p><em>"75MM shit lens for the RZ67" </em>Why shit lens? I always thought that Mamiya lenses are of very good qualitiy.</p>

<p>The most visible difference would be that the 100mm has absolutely no distorsion</p>

<p>Sorry, I'm not from Sacramento;-)</p>

<p>Well, a couple of weeks ago I played with the S2 and the release delay was really shocking. It was a prototype but the Leica representant defented the delay and argued that the S2 will not be an reportage camera.</p>

<p>I think the enormous release delay of the S2 is nothing for the Salgado kind of photography.</p>

<p>Even the 3.5/60mm C is the same. Excellent lens by the way!</p>

<p>I handled a S2 prototype a couple of weeks ago. The most disappointing thing was the enormous release delay. Hopefully that will be fixed for the serial cameras. It should, for that money. Otherwise it will be an useless camera for many applications.</p>

<p>Ugly Russian fake.</p>

<p>All I see are some fingerprints on the mirror and they definitely shouldn't be there.</p>

 

<p >Gentlemen, I still owe you the end of the story.</p>

<p >Nikon Switzerland sent me a mail in which they write that they checked the whole affair again and came to the conclusion that the hit isn't clearly visible. In spite of that (!) they will fix the lens for free.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Thank you Nikon!</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p>Guys, thanks for your advices and ideas so far. I'll keep you informed on the story.</p>

 

<p>Kelly, thanks for your efforts. I don' want to sue your agenda at all, but my lens was definitely not flooded. I just see a discrepancy in Nikon's high promises concerning NPS, Pro-lenses etc. and the reality. Of course I will ask another repair shop.</p>

<p>Paul: No problem, you can call me even Donald;-)</p>

<p>Kelly - nothing is bent, no dings or dangs. It feels like an inner obstruction, like a loose screw, which was developping the blockade during maybe one week. Nikon sells this product as a professional tool which should last longer than just one year, even when permanently used.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><i>"In the picture there is a second rail with a smaller looking lens and front standard. What is this item? Am I right in saying that it is another lens?"</i></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Brent, that is not a lens, that is only a shutter as far as I can see.</p>