Leica lens on Panasonic subcompact - any good?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sammy, Jun 12, 2007.

  1. Sammy

    Sammy Guest

    On 13 Jun 2007, Yoshi <> wrote:

    >
    > "Sammy" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns994E9644AA0C0451E7A@127.0.0.1...
    >
    >
    > You apparently didn't even read the original post... or else you
    > are the one who English comprehension is impaired. The OP
    > specifically mentions rebranding Nikkormat lenses as Nikkor. This
    > precludes your interpretation.
    >
    >
    >


    Yoshi, not only do you struggle with English but your eyesight must be
    poorer than is acceptable for taking part on the Usenet.

    Are you sure photography is the right hobby for you if can see so
    little?

    You write to me, "You apparently didn't even read the original post". I
    have to tell you that I did in fact read the original post because I
    wrote it.
     
    Sammy, Jun 16, 2007
    #61
    1. Advertising

  2. Sammy

    Rich Guest

    On Jun 13, 8:39 pm, "=\(8\)" <> wrote:
    > "Rich" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Jun 13, 2:43 pm, notbob <> wrote:
    > >> On 2007-06-13, Rich <> wrote:

    >
    > >> > Schneider on Kodaks, Zeiss on Sony's. It's the use of names for names
    > >> > sake, and has nothing to do with the actual quality or design of the
    > >> > lenses on those cheap cameras.

    >
    > >> ...and of course you have irrefutable proof of all these accusations
    > >> and are going to share them with us, right?

    >
    > >> nb

    >
    > > The proof is in the results you see. Leica sells a real West German
    > > made 50mm lens for around $3,000. Do you honestly think anything
    > > remotely related to that kind of engineering and production ends up in
    > > a Chinese made Panasonic?

    >
    > Panasonic nor Leica ever claimed that they did. What both companies have
    > claimed is that in order for Panasonic to put the Leica name on their
    > cameras they lenses have to meet Leica's specifications. If you think that
    > lenses makers only have one grade of lens then once again that makes your a
    > dumb ass.


    Kind of proves the point that their nameplates on those cameras MEANS
    NOTHING.
    "Uh, we'll reserve the GOOD standard for Summicron lenses for Leica
    cameras. For the sheep buying the Panasonic P&S, we'll permit a
    boatload of chromatic aberration." You might as well slap "Magnicon"
    on the front bezel.
     
    Rich, Jun 16, 2007
    #62
    1. Advertising

  3. Sammy

    Rich Guest

    On Jun 14, 5:33 am, John Bean <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:06:06 GMT, Irwin Peckinloomer
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >In article <>,
    > > says...
    > >> On Jun 13, 2:43 pm, notbob <> wrote:
    > >> > On 2007-06-13, Rich <> wrote:

    >
    > >> > > Schneider on Kodaks, Zeiss on Sony's. It's the use of names for names
    > >> > > sake, and has nothing to do with the actual quality or design of the
    > >> > > lenses on those cheap cameras.

    >
    > >> > ...and of course you have irrefutable proof of all these accusations
    > >> > and are going to share them with us, right?

    >
    > >> > nb

    >
    > >> The proof is in the results you see. Leica sells a real West German
    > >> made 50mm lens for around $3,000. Do you honestly think anything
    > >> remotely related to that kind of engineering and production ends up in
    > >> a Chinese made Panasonic?

    >
    > >The Panasonic cameras are made in Japan. (check it out)

    >
    > Don't confuse Rich by introducing facts to one of his
    > worthless rants.
    >
    > --
    > John Bean


    Explains why Panasonic's best pocket cameras cost more than a Nikon
    D40 body.
     
    Rich, Jun 16, 2007
    #63
  4. In article <5945a$467280d5$3e18e6cb$>,
    lid says...
    > Frank ess wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > Allen wrote:
    > >> Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:
    > >>> In article <4670a4e5$0$8073$>,
    > >>> says...
    > >>>
    > >>>> Not in regard to this specific issue, but why would anyone ever
    > >>>> believe that a person who can't spell "lens" is much of an expert
    > >>>> on lenses? Allen
    > >>>>
    > >>> If you took everybody who can't spell (or use a spell checker) off
    > >>> Usenet you'd lose 85% of the morons, and 75% of the posters.
    > >> To me, the issue isn't spelling in general, but in consistently
    > >> misspelling a word that is a vital part of the area of expertise of
    > >> the subject. Anyone can maker typos, but consistency is the issue
    > >> here. Let's say that a person who claims to be an expert in the
    > >> chemistry of combustion consistently spells "oxygen" as "oxagen".
    > >> Would you respect their postings?
    > >> Allen

    > >
    > > Would you respect the opinion of a person whose world view doesn't
    > > account for societies whose language includes "colour" and "behaviour"
    > > as correct spellings for familiar phenomena?

    >
    > The words "colour", "color" are perfectly acceptable spellings. "Lense" is not.
    >
    > >
    > > How about someone who refers to "a person" and "their postings"?

    >
    > Sounds good to me. Why do you ask?
    >

    Because "a person" is singular, and "their" is plural, so can't be used
    together in the same statement. The correct usage is "a person ... his
    (or her, or his or her) postings. Or "several persons ... their
    postings"
    Trying to be politically correct does not trump being grammatically
    correct.
     
    Irwin Peckinloomer, Jun 16, 2007
    #64
  5. In article <>,
    says...
    > On Jun 13, 8:39 pm, "=\(8\)" <> wrote:
    > > "Rich" <> wrote in message
    > >
    > > news:...
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > > On Jun 13, 2:43 pm, notbob <> wrote:
    > > >> On 2007-06-13, Rich <> wrote:

    > >
    > > >> > Schneider on Kodaks, Zeiss on Sony's. It's the use of names for names
    > > >> > sake, and has nothing to do with the actual quality or design of the
    > > >> > lenses on those cheap cameras.

    > >
    > > >> ...and of course you have irrefutable proof of all these accusations
    > > >> and are going to share them with us, right?

    > >
    > > >> nb

    > >
    > > > The proof is in the results you see. Leica sells a real West German
    > > > made 50mm lens for around $3,000. Do you honestly think anything
    > > > remotely related to that kind of engineering and production ends up in
    > > > a Chinese made Panasonic?

    > >
    > > Panasonic nor Leica ever claimed that they did. What both companies have
    > > claimed is that in order for Panasonic to put the Leica name on their
    > > cameras they lenses have to meet Leica's specifications. If you think that
    > > lenses makers only have one grade of lens then once again that makes your a
    > > dumb ass.

    >
    > Kind of proves the point that their nameplates on those cameras MEANS
    > NOTHING.
    > "Uh, we'll reserve the GOOD standard for Summicron lenses for Leica
    > cameras. For the sheep buying the Panasonic P&S, we'll permit a
    > boatload of chromatic aberration." You might as well slap "Magnicon"
    > on the front bezel.
    >
    >

    Nikon P&S cameras are made in China, Panasonics are made in Japan.
     
    Irwin Peckinloomer, Jun 16, 2007
    #65
  6. Sammy

    Rob Morley Guest

    In article <>, Irwin
    Peckinloomer
    says...

    > Because "a person" is singular, and "their" is plural, so can't be used
    > together in the same statement. The correct usage is "a person ... his
    > (or her, or his or her) postings. Or "several persons ... their
    > postings"
    > Trying to be politically correct does not trump being grammatically
    > correct.
    >

    Political correctness tends to indicate woolly thinking or weasel words.

    As for grammatical niggles, how about "none of ... are ..."?
    GRRR :)
     
    Rob Morley, Jun 16, 2007
    #66
  7. Sammy

    John Bean Guest

    On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:08:59 GMT, Irwin Peckinloomer
    <> wrote:

    >Because "a person" is singular, and "their" is plural, so can't be used
    >together in the same statement. The correct usage is "a person ... his
    >(or her, or his or her) postings. Or "several persons ... their
    >postings"


    Merriam-Webster disagrees with you.

    http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=their

    >Trying to be politically correct does not trump being grammatically
    >correct.


    It was gramatically correct usage according to a
    well-respected dictionary.

    --
    John Bean
     
    John Bean, Jun 16, 2007
    #67
  8. Sammy

    John Bean Guest

    On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:30:23 -0700, Rich
    <> wrote:

    >On Jun 14, 5:33 am, John Bean <> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:06:06 GMT, Irwin Peckinloomer
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> <> wrote:
    >> >In article <>,
    >> > says...
    >> >> On Jun 13, 2:43 pm, notbob <> wrote:
    >> >> > On 2007-06-13, Rich <> wrote:

    >>
    >> >> > > Schneider on Kodaks, Zeiss on Sony's. It's the use of names for names
    >> >> > > sake, and has nothing to do with the actual quality or design of the
    >> >> > > lenses on those cheap cameras.

    >>
    >> >> > ...and of course you have irrefutable proof of all these accusations
    >> >> > and are going to share them with us, right?

    >>
    >> >> > nb

    >>
    >> >> The proof is in the results you see. Leica sells a real West German
    >> >> made 50mm lens for around $3,000. Do you honestly think anything
    >> >> remotely related to that kind of engineering and production ends up in
    >> >> a Chinese made Panasonic?

    >>
    >> >The Panasonic cameras are made in Japan. (check it out)

    >>
    >> Don't confuse Rich by introducing facts to one of his
    >> worthless rants.

    >
    >Explains why Panasonic's best pocket cameras cost more than a Nikon
    >D40 body.


    So which specicif models do you consider to be Panasonic's
    "best pocket cameras" and how much do they actually cost? Or
    is this yet another case of avoiding facts?

    Of course if you are now claiming that the D40's plastic
    construction makes it intrinsically better than the un-named
    Panasonic (all their pocket cams are metal) then that's a
    good start to becoming cured of your fear of plastic. Keep
    it up.

    --
    John Bean
     
    John Bean, Jun 16, 2007
    #68
  9. Sammy

    JoeT Guest

    "John Bean" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:08:59 GMT, Irwin Peckinloomer
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Because "a person" is singular, and "their" is plural, so can't be used
    >>together in the same statement. The correct usage is "a person ... his
    >>(or her, or his or her) postings. Or "several persons ... their
    >>postings"

    >
    > Merriam-Webster disagrees with you.
    >
    > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=their
    >
    >>Trying to be politically correct does not trump being grammatically
    >>correct.

    >
    > It was gramatically correct usage according to a
    > well-respected dictionary.
    >
    > --
    > John Bean


    As is true of the word lense being an acceptable variant to lens, which was
    the complaint that brought this futile word game to the surface once again.

    Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source
    Main Entry: lens
    Variant: also lense /'lenz/
    Function: noun
    1 : a curved piece of glass or plastic used singly or combined in eyeglasses
    or an optical instrument (as a microscope) for forming an image
    2 : a device for directing or focusing radiation other than light (as sound
    waves, radio microwaves, or electrons)
    3 : a highly transparent biconvex lens-shaped or nearly spherical body in
    the eye that focuses light rays entering the eye typically onto the retina,
    lies immediately behind the pupil, is made up of slender curved rod-shaped
    ectodermal cells in concentric lamellae surrounded by a tenuous mesoblastic
    capsule, and alters its focal length by becoming more or less spherical in
    response to the action of the ciliary muscle on a peripheral suspensory
    ligament -lensed adjective -lens·less adjective

    Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


    Now that the group has dispensed with its weekly round of dueling
    dictionaries might I suggest a cessation of the pretentiousness and a return
    to the discussion of photography, which is itself a form of communication
    that transcends the limitations of written and/or spoken language?

    ;)
     
    JoeT, Jun 16, 2007
    #69
  10. JoeT wrote:
    >
    > As is true of the word lense being an acceptable variant to lens, which
    > was the complaint that brought this futile word game to the surface once
    > again.
    >


    No, it's not acceptable here, with a handful of eccentrics or
    contrarians being exceptions.

    --
    john mcwilliams

    She grew on him like she was a colony of E. coli and he was
    room-temperature Canadian beef.
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 16, 2007
    #70
  11. Sammy

    John Bean Guest

    On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:17:25 -0500, "JoeT"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"John Bean" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:08:59 GMT, Irwin Peckinloomer
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Because "a person" is singular, and "their" is plural, so can't be used
    >>>together in the same statement. The correct usage is "a person ... his
    >>>(or her, or his or her) postings. Or "several persons ... their
    >>>postings"

    >>
    >> Merriam-Webster disagrees with you.
    >>
    >> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=their
    >>
    >>>Trying to be politically correct does not trump being grammatically
    >>>correct.

    >>
    >> It was gramatically correct usage according to a
    >> well-respected dictionary.

    >
    >As is true of the word lense being an acceptable variant to lens, which was
    >the complaint that brought this futile word game to the surface once again.


    You think?

    >Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source


    A *medical* dictionary? Why on earth should I look up a
    common word in a specialised medical dictionary?

    I suggest you instead try the standard online
    Merriam-Webster dictionary at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary
    and search for "lense".

    You won't find it.


    --
    John Bean
     
    John Bean, Jun 16, 2007
    #71
  12. Sammy

    JoeT Guest

    "John Bean" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:17:25 -0500, "JoeT"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"John Bean" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:08:59 GMT, Irwin Peckinloomer
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Because "a person" is singular, and "their" is plural, so can't be used
    >>>>together in the same statement. The correct usage is "a person ... his
    >>>>(or her, or his or her) postings. Or "several persons ... their
    >>>>postings"
    >>>
    >>> Merriam-Webster disagrees with you.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=their
    >>>
    >>>>Trying to be politically correct does not trump being grammatically
    >>>>correct.
    >>>
    >>> It was gramatically correct usage according to a
    >>> well-respected dictionary.

    >>
    >>As is true of the word lense being an acceptable variant to lens, which
    >>was
    >>the complaint that brought this futile word game to the surface once
    >>again.

    >
    > You think?
    >
    >>Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source

    >
    > A *medical* dictionary? Why on earth should I look up a
    > common word in a specialised medical dictionary?
    >
    > I suggest you instead try the standard online
    > Merriam-Webster dictionary at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary
    > and search for "lense".
    >
    > You won't find it.
    >


    I'm online. Why on earth would I limit myself to any one dictionary when the
    internet is littered with options, all of which are accessable by simply
    typing a word into one of many search engines available from my browser? A
    dictionary was used to prove a point in each instance. The second merely a
    subcategory of the first. The existence of said reference removes the debate
    over this word from the realm of opinion and places it into that of fact.
    Lense has been found to be a variant of lens, preferred or not.

    Isn't the real question here whether or not the misspelling or variant use
    of this word in a Usenet post alters the intent of said post in such a
    manner as to render it incomprehensible? In my experience, never.

    To correct or otherwise berate a poster for such a slight is pretentious as
    well as presumptuous, especially in a community where there's neither reason
    to assume all participants speak English as their primary language nor any
    implied expectation of educational achievement such as the case with
    photography groups.

    Joe Taibi
     
    JoeT, Jun 16, 2007
    #72
  13. JoeT wrote:

    >
    > To correct or otherwise berate a poster for such a slight is pretentious
    > as well as presumptuous, especially in a community where there's neither
    > reason to assume all participants speak English as their primary
    > language nor any implied expectation of educational achievement such as
    > the case with photography groups.


    Do you know the background of the posters? History?

    What would you think of a third party barging in and pontificating? Or,
    if pontificating is too strong, just the insertion?

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 16, 2007
    #73
  14. Sammy

    John Bean Guest

    On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:39:19 -0500, "JoeT"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"John Bean" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:17:25 -0500, "JoeT"
    >> <> wrote:


    >> A *medical* dictionary? Why on earth should I look up a
    >> common word in a specialised medical dictionary?
    >>
    >> I suggest you instead try the standard online
    >> Merriam-Webster dictionary at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary
    >> and search for "lense".
    >>
    >> You won't find it.
    >>

    >
    >I'm online. Why on earth would I limit myself to any one dictionary when the
    >internet is littered with options, all of which are accessable by simply
    >typing a word into one of many search engines available from my browser? A
    >dictionary was used to prove a point in each instance. The second merely a
    >subcategory of the first. The existence of said reference removes the debate
    >over this word from the realm of opinion and places it into that of fact.
    >Lense has been found to be a variant of lens, preferred or not.


    Loser's argument. Any fool can find whatever he wants to
    find on the Internet; that you had to look in a *medical*
    dictionary to find it is proof enough. Medicine is full of
    specialised words and/or specialised uses of normal words -
    that's why M-W has a *separate* medical dictionary.

    >Isn't the real question here whether or not the misspelling or variant use
    >of this word in a Usenet post alters the intent of said post in such a
    >manner as to render it incomprehensible? In my experience, never.


    No, the question here was whether "their" is valid when used
    with an singular pronoun, which I pointed out was fine
    according to M-W. I made absolutely no comment about "lense"
    until you challenged me by claiming that my dictionary
    source for the use of "their" also allowed the use of
    "lense". It doesn't.

    End of discussion.

    --
    John Bean
     
    John Bean, Jun 16, 2007
    #74
  15. Sammy

    JoeT Guest

    "John Bean" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 15:39:19 -0500, "JoeT"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"John Bean" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 09:17:25 -0500, "JoeT"
    >>> <> wrote:

    >
    >>> A *medical* dictionary? Why on earth should I look up a
    >>> common word in a specialised medical dictionary?
    >>>
    >>> I suggest you instead try the standard online
    >>> Merriam-Webster dictionary at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary
    >>> and search for "lense".
    >>>
    >>> You won't find it.
    >>>

    >>
    >>I'm online. Why on earth would I limit myself to any one dictionary when
    >>the
    >>internet is littered with options, all of which are accessable by simply
    >>typing a word into one of many search engines available from my browser? A
    >>dictionary was used to prove a point in each instance. The second merely a
    >>subcategory of the first. The existence of said reference removes the
    >>debate
    >>over this word from the realm of opinion and places it into that of fact.
    >>Lense has been found to be a variant of lens, preferred or not.

    >
    > Loser's argument. Any fool can find whatever he wants to
    > find on the Internet; that you had to look in a *medical*
    > dictionary to find it is proof enough. Medicine is full of
    > specialised words and/or specialised uses of normal words -
    > that's why M-W has a *separate* medical dictionary.
    >
    >>Isn't the real question here whether or not the misspelling or variant use
    >>of this word in a Usenet post alters the intent of said post in such a
    >>manner as to render it incomprehensible? In my experience, never.

    >
    > No, the question here was whether "their" is valid when used
    > with an singular pronoun, which I pointed out was fine
    > according to M-W. I made absolutely no comment about "lense"
    > until you challenged me by claiming that my dictionary
    > source for the use of "their" also allowed the use of
    > "lense". It doesn't.
    >
    > End of discussion.
    >
    > --
    > John Bean


    I didn't challenge your definition of their, it was correct, I merely used
    it as a pseudo corollary to point out that the word that was originally
    challenged in the thread you were participating in can be supported in the
    same manner, via link to a definition. You might try following the thread
    back say two or three messages before yours in order to gain a reasonable
    grasp of the thought process involved. Or not, it makes no difference to me.
    In any event a careful read of my response to your post shows no
    disagreement with your proof of the usage of their.
     
    JoeT, Jun 17, 2007
    #75
  16. JoeT wrote:
    >
    >
    > I didn't challenge your definition of their, it was correct, I merely
    > used it as a pseudo corollary to point out that the word that was
    > originally challenged in the thread you were participating in can be
    > supported in the same manner, via link to a definition.



    That's the problem right there! You must stop using pseudo corollaries.
    And bone up on reasoning.

    --
    john mcwilliams

    Arguments are down the hall.
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 17, 2007
    #76
  17. Sammy

    JoeT Guest

    "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > JoeT wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> To correct or otherwise berate a poster for such a slight is pretentious
    >> as well as presumptuous, especially in a community where there's neither
    >> reason to assume all participants speak English as their primary language
    >> nor any implied expectation of educational achievement such as the case
    >> with photography groups.

    >
    > Do you know the background of the posters? History?
    >
    > What would you think of a third party barging in and pontificating? Or, if
    > pontificating is too strong, just the insertion?
    >
    > --
    > john mcwilliams


    Individual histories and backgrounds are irrelevant to the discussion of the
    spelling of a word in a public forum. The use of the terms barging in or
    third party implies exclusivity. Seeing as this is an un-moderated public
    forum, there really can be no such things. Only a choice to participate or
    not.

    As to pontification? The type of personality that looks down on others for
    misspelling a simple word isn't apt to respond to anything less. (In honesty
    not likely to be affected either way, hence the last sentence in this
    response) After all, pontificating is what they do!

    "Hey dude, it's just a word and you understood the question anyway didn't
    ya?" gets dismissed, out of hand.

    My only error in this instance was in failing to adhere to my usual policy
    of responding in order to get it out of my system, yet canceling the post
    rather than get involved. It happens. <grin>
     
    JoeT, Jun 17, 2007
    #77
  18. Sammy

    JoeT Guest

    "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > JoeT wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> I didn't challenge your definition of their, it was correct, I merely
    >> used it as a pseudo corollary to point out that the word that was
    >> originally challenged in the thread you were participating in can be
    >> supported in the same manner, via link to a definition.

    >
    >
    > That's the problem right there! You must stop using pseudo corollaries.
    > And bone up on reasoning.
    >
    > --
    > john mcwilliams
    >
    > Arguments are down the hall.



    Aw, there ya go introducing reason and taking all the fun right out of it!

    LOL
     
    JoeT, Jun 17, 2007
    #78
  19. In article <>,
    says...
    > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:08:59 GMT, Irwin Peckinloomer
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >Because "a person" is singular, and "their" is plural, so can't be used
    > >together in the same statement. The correct usage is "a person ... his
    > >(or her, or his or her) postings. Or "several persons ... their
    > >postings"

    >
    > Merriam-Webster disagrees with you.
    >
    > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=their
    >
    > >Trying to be politically correct does not trump being grammatically
    > >correct.

    >
    > It was gramatically correct usage according to a
    > well-respected dictionary.
    >
    >

    Your dictionary citation says "their" is plural, so it should not be
    used the singular "person"
     
    Irwin Peckinloomer, Jun 17, 2007
    #79
  20. In article <>,
    says...
    <snip>
    > No, the question here was whether "their" is valid when used
    > with an singular pronoun, which I pointed out was fine
    > according to M-W. I made absolutely no comment about "lense"
    > until you challenged me by claiming that my dictionary
    > source for the use of "their" also allowed the use of
    > "lense". It doesn't.
    >
    > End of discussion.
    >

    Not the end of discussion. The dictionary you quote says "their" is
    plural. Can't be used correctly as object of a singular noun.
    THAT is the end of the discussion.
     
    Irwin Peckinloomer, Jun 17, 2007
    #80
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Peter Larsson
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,926
    Frank ess
    Feb 16, 2004
  2. Eric
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    489
  3. John Navas

    Is Lumix Leica real Leica?

    John Navas, Nov 17, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    662
    Dennis Pogson
    Nov 18, 2007
  4. TJ
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,782
    Tony Polson
    Dec 23, 2007
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    307
    RichA
    Feb 2, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page