wayne_murphy8

<p>I agree with you. The GF2 seems a marketing ploy to buy time. I am fairly disappointed with my GF1. The metering is unsophisticated, much worse than my previous Nikon SLRs. I don't think the Panasonic lenses are much good either. Why is there not a fixed aperture zoom if this camera is trying to be a high level camera? My post processing is also a painful process. <br>

It really seems that Panasonic has dropped the ball or has not realised that people were waiting for a ligtweight, but SLR-capable camera. The top pricing does not reflect the limited capabilities either. And the electronic viewfinder is expensive and rubbish.<br>

The GF2 does not seem to have any particular benefit over a point and shoot other than a larger sensor. Yes, you can interchange the lenses - from one mediocre lens to another. </p>

<p>Not sure where you are coming from JDM. Maybe I have misunderstood the context. <br>

The photo and the store are genuine, and I doubt that the motif, (probably Greek in fact, from my architectural days) has or had any hidden meaning, social or political. I suggest that it is probably merely decorative. It is a real photo of a social situation that, to me, relates poverty and wealth. Like many European urban buildings, it was probably built in the late 1800s or early 1900s, that is before 1930. What on earth has that got to do with the photograph? The photo was taken from memory in Avignon. Is it important? I think that the subject matter and the image itself is the message. I didn't stand around composing the photo - it was a quick passing shot. I don't believe in humiliating disadvantaged people. Yes, I realise that some people could say that just taking the photo is possibly humiliating but perhaps not so much if you give them some money to help.<br>

The Hermes name could have been any one of many luxury brands with the same photographic message, but the Leica/Hermes connection stood out for me as a Leica user. Any connection to swastikas seems to be drawing a very long bow to me.<br>

Sorry if I have misunderstood your comments. Other people can draw their own conclusions but I will sign off on this one.<br>

<br /> <br /></p>

 

<p>The recent discussion on special edition Leicas reminded me of a photo I took in France just after the Hermes edition was released. Not a happy photo but I could not resist taking it. Some might think it is unnecesary but perhaps it makes a social comment. Taken with a Nikon digital. I'm not trying to start a war of words here, just sharing a photo. </p><div></div>

<p>I know that the micro 4/3 mount is standard/universal but manufacturers find ways to deliberately frustrate compatibility. I would like a wide angle zoom for my Panasonic GF1 but the 7-14 mm price is ridiculous. Is the new Olympus 9-18 micro version compatible? I can't seem to find any other wide zooms specifically made for micro 4/3. Thanks.</p>

<p>As a serious Leica M and Nikon user in the past, I wanted a lighter camera capable of quality images. Compacts are generally rubbish but I believe that the micro 4/3 format is the future for people who don't want the weight of Nikons or the cost of Leicas. If you are determined to have an SLR, then nothing else will do. If you are determined to own Leicas, then that is your choice also. I have bought a Panasonic GF1 and it does what I want - it is light, has interchangeable lenses (pretty crappy so far but hopefully will improve) and costs much less. <br>

I have done the Hasselblad, Linhof, Nikon, Leica thing, and at the time they were superb. Now I am more pragmatic. How many photographs do I print over A4. Not many. I can print A3 and even A2 but I generally don't. I print a few 18x 12 and my GF1 can do that. <br>

It would be great to see Nikon attack the 4/3 market but it is probably too much to ask. It will never be a Leica M mount because the micro 4/3 mount is standardised. It will accept Leica M via an adaptor. Nikon has more than enough rangefinder experience to make such a camera, but could they make money? It's a business decision. My guess is no.</p>

<p>I sold my 17-55/2.8 (too heavy for me) and bought a 16-85. The loss of quality was huge and I don't think the 16-85 is better than average. Slow and not cheap either. Seems overpriced to me. But worse, I and others have experienced VR failure. Mine occurred after 15 months and less than 50 shots, and Nikon refused to repair under warranty. They told me that the internal data cable had worn through due to excessive use. That was a straight lie. I wouldn't buy this lens and I wouldn't trust Nikon again.</p>

<p>Thanks for the comments. The lens definitely has a 12 months warranty, as do all Nikon lenses sold by authorised Nikon dealers in Australia and Asia. The warranty is international and had the lens failed within 12 months, Nikon Australia would have repaired it without cost. My point was that because of the very limited use and great care taken of the lens, the fault must have been either a defective component or defective manufacture, causing premature failure. It was a component that failed - a data transfer cable used to relay information to the VR processor. What really annoyed me was the service guy saying that he had spoken to the repair technician and that the faiure was "due to wear and tear". There are three possibilities here.<br>

Either 15 months is the life expectancy of this component and failure after 15 months of light use is normal; or<br>

The component was incorrectly installed and somehow was subject to severe wear, leading to failure; or<br>

Perhaps Nikon's policy is to use this "wear and tear" nonsense as a standard response to anyone who dares to question a product's quality? Failure due to wear and tear after 50-60 shots? Give me a break. It's not even remotely credible for a competent technician to claim this. Perhaps the service guy made it up? Impossible to know.<br>

I propose to write to the General Manager of Nikon Australia to let him know how customers are being treated and I will post his reponse if I receive one.</p>

<p><!--StartFragment-->

<p >The VR function on my 15 month old 16-85 lens has failed. On start up, the lens jumps and clicks a few times but there is no VR. autofocus is OK. This lens was bought from an authorised Nikon dealer (not grey market) with a Nikon international guarantee. It has been used very little and never bumped or knocked, even slightly. The lens looks like it just came out of the box. I phoned Nikon Australia where I live and was informed that the 12 months’ warranty was absolute and even if it was a component failure, I would have to pay.</p>

<p >This stinks. The fault has turned out to be a failed data transfer cable. I consider that to be a defective part. The lens has hardly been used and has taken about 50 to 60 photos total. I have just received the preliminary invoice for A$270, or one third of the new lens price. Sure, the guarantee is 12 months but a failed component after 15 months? The customer service guy at Nikon Australia told me that they adhere strictly to the 12 months warranty regardless of what the problem is. He also cheerfully informed me that because I bought the lens overseas (when I was living there, not just on holidays), I had no rights under Australia’s consumer protection laws. This is worse than pathetic and just shows that Nikon is behaving as just another corporate bully in my opinion. </p>

<p >I pointed out to the guy that I had seen a number of VR failures on this lens in internet forums. His response was that people were not necessarily truthful in these forums. I then pointed out that it was ONLY through these forums that the D200 sensor banding was finally admitted by Nikon after denying it existed for months. </p>

<p >After receiving the quote, I again contacted Nikon Australia and was told that they would definitely not cover the repair under warranty and the failure of the cable was due to wear and tear. I take this to mean extensive use. This is rubbish and totally untrue. </p>

<p >So, now you know that Nikon, or at least the person I spoke to, thinks forum members are a bunch of liars. It seems to me that Nikon is so big that it doesn't need to care about its customers or product failures. That's the only conclusion I can arrive at after my treatment. When I said that I would post a less than complimentary message regarding this matter, I was told to be very careful regarding libel or defamation. I take this as an implied threat to take action against me if they don’t like the post. Perhaps “threat” is libelous? Let’s just say that I feel intimidated by their attitude.</p>

<p >I have been a Nikon owner and user for over 25 years but I don't need this attitude or Nikon's blind refusal to accept responsibility for a faulty component in a near new lens. It’s not the first time I have experienced this attitude from Nikon Australia. </p>

<br />

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<!--EndFragment--></p>

I have attempted large prints from a D70. From raw files and using upscaling software, the absolute best I could get was 24 inches by 16 inches. Above that, pixellation started to break up the image unacceptably. I was using an Epson 4800 printer and Epson semi gloss paper. If you were to go to canvas, I suspect that you could live with a bit less resolution. Some people claim 30 x 20 is possible. If you stand 20 feet away, perhaps yes. However, some proplabs can also do amazing things but at a price.

For Tin Cheung try Cameron Road, off Nathan Road, you'll have better luck. Or phone the agents, Schmidt Group and ask for a likely dealer or ask them if they will sell you one direct. Tell them no dealers have any and it's urgent.

 

Or try Francisco Cameras in East Tsim Sha Tsui or Man Shing in Mongkok.

You are concerned about waiting a few DAYS or even (gasp) WEEKS? Try Leica - wait months and sometimes years. And then it doesn't work. I waited 6 months for a D200. Have a beer, settle down.. It's only a camera.

Whatever the highest bid is on ebay.

The mirror box is dirty and needs to be professionally cleaned. This is a common problem with all Leicaflex models. I had it with two. After cleaning, no problem. Don't force anything.

Peter,

 

I am living in HK also(returning to Brisbane next year) and would be happy to take you to the various stores mentioned. Tin Cheung is good and they know me and give me the right price. There are some others as well, including Kinefoto in Stanley Street. They are also highly reputable and are authorised dealers for Leica, Hasselblad and Linhof. There is a grey market dealer I know well also, having bought lots(of Leica gear) from him. The prices are a little lower. He used to sell massive amounts of Leica but now stocks very little because digital has almost killed Leica sales here. There are also a few reputable used equipment dealers.

 

You should remember that exotic equipment(ie, any Linhof) is not always in stock at dealers or even at the agent. Also, if it is in stock, there is no way of really knowing how long they have had it. I saw one Master Technika in one shop for over 3 years. Plenty of Horseman 6x12 around.

 

One way I might be able to help further is to inquire about prices and availability before you arrive. If you would like to discuss this idea further, please contact me directly by email. I can also give you a telephone number then. Cheers, Wayne M.

I have some incredible news. Leica reps work for Leica not for dealers. They get the spiel

from Leica and deliver it to dealers. They are paid salesmen with the gift of delivering

information in such a way that it convinces others. Maybe their story is true...and maybe it

isn't. I suspect it is true, but then it becomes a matter of poor management if there is a

shortage. Can't have it both ways.

Some of those "armchair generals" are actually long time Leica owners and users who paid

a great deal of money over a number of years in the belief that what Leica was saying had

some sense of reality. I owned both R8 and R9s with a substantial set of lenses. I think

that gives me some right to voice a critical view in this case, based on personal experience

and ongoing interest in Leica.

 

The R lenses are still fantastic and I would be most pleased to see a really competitive R

body. There are other ways out too, such as licensing the lens designs to a manufacturer

who had the resources to make them autofocus. Leica would en effect become a

consultant and quality certifier for the R system. I would buy into it again.

The only sane future for a Leica R digital is for Leica to buy in a third party (Canon?) body and

use a Leica R mount. The licensing cost would be substantial but much less than developing

a new R10D, and once the partnership deal was done, future "Leica" R bodies could flow.

 

After this, would anyone ever trust Leica again to maintain it's stated commitment to R

system users with its own body? Not me.

The helical focussing unit has a click stop to set the autofocus position. It can pop out

and the focussing unit will just turn without the detent at the stop. This is not the lens

aperture adjustment. If it is not in place, then maintaining autofocus is near impossible

because every time you adjust the aperture, you bump the the focus out. It can be fixed

easily by a good technician.

 

Check the lamphouse as stated before to make sure the styrofoam diffusers are not

disintegrating.

 

There are a number of adjustment set screws on the autofocus mechanism and they are

factory set for each enlarger. They are coated with a blue paint seal. If this paint seal is

broken, then someone has interfered with the autofocus mechanism and it might not work

- ever again.

 

Try to get the matching Focotimer if you can, it will make life easier. Forget the Focometer

- too unreliable. Also check the lens for fungus or cleaning scratches. Cleaning scratches

will destroy the performance.

 

Great enlarger, Hope this helps.

Do the Nikon Stabileyes binoculars work well? As good as the Canon? I amparticularly interested in the 14

x 40 model. If this is off topic, please delete it.

Discount program???? You mean that Leica has admitted that the M8 has a serious design

deficiency and has significantly reduced the price as an acknowledgement? And promises on

its heart to do better next time? $5000 for this inherently faulty camera is nothing short of

extortion and/or exploitation of the gullable. The camera works, sort of. So does a Lomo.

 

Reduce the price? Yes, that would go down well with the customers who paid the inflated

price and saw their "investment" plummet in value. The only way to force the issue is to vote

with your wallets and sink the Leica M8 Edsel - unsound at any speed.

The black ones are the collectibles.

Low noise does not mean no noise. It is just means low relative to something. My

DSLR also has low noise but the noise at 800 is atrocious compared to 100. The same

deal applies as with film. If you want best quality use low iso. If you like spotty,

noisy shots use high iso.

Thanks, I suspected the OS might be the problem. I downloaded the 3.4 update and

that worked fine with 10.2.8. It's for a Nikon D200 so I can work with 3.4. Thanks

again.

I have attempted to download the Camera Raw 3.5 update (Mac OS 10.2.8). I have the download

on the desktop but when I try to open the dmg file to get the new plug in, I get a message

"Camera Raw 3.5 dmg failed to mount due to error 95 (no mountable file system).

 

Can anyone help please. I can't recall this happening before with any update or download. Thanks.

Try reformatting the card in the actual camera. I had the same experience when I put a

card that had been formatted in a D70 into a D200. The capacity showed as way less than

it should have. When I reformatted the card in the D200, the proper number of shots

showed. Don't know why.