More fun with the Leica M8

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Böwser, Aug 13, 2008.

  1. Böwser

    Böwser Guest

    OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the Decade."

    http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU

    Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically, it
    falls apart. Yes, really.

    My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.
    Böwser, Aug 13, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Böwser

    Hap S. Guest

    On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:51:11 -0400, Böwser <> wrote:

    >OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the Decade."
    >
    >http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU
    >
    >Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically, it
    >falls apart. Yes, really.
    >
    >My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.


    The more detailed thread with photos of more camera body failures (and other
    camera problems, focusing, color-balance, IR filter errors, etc.):
    http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/25121-base-plate-failure.html


    As they say, "You get what you pay for!"

    In this day and age never has that been a greater lie. Example: I've tested many
    makes and prices of polarizers in the past, tested against lab-grade polarizer
    material. Some of the $10 generic polarizers easily surpass the $90 top-shelf
    brand-name filters. The average purchaser just sees the brand-name and
    outrageous price and assumes it must be the best. They don't have the
    intelligence nor foresight in how to easily test them for polarizing strength
    and homogeneity.

    The only thing that is true today is "A fool and his money are soon parted." You
    can tell which ones they are, they're the ones who are always running around
    yelling, "You get what you pay for!"
    Hap S., Aug 13, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Böwser

    ransley Guest

    On Aug 13, 7:51 am, Böwser <> wrote:
    > OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the Decade."
    >
    > http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU
    >
    > Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically, it
    > falls apart. Yes, really.
    >
    > My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.


    Didnt that camera also have issues with purple discolorations.
    ransley, Aug 13, 2008
    #3
  4. Böwser

    Bõwser Guest

    "ransley" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Aug 13, 7:51 am, Böwser <> wrote:
    > OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the Decade."
    >
    > http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU
    >
    > Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically, it
    > falls apart. Yes, really.
    >
    > My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.


    >Didnt that camera also have issues with purple discolorations.


    Yes, the IR filter in front of the sensor is far too weak, so in order to
    record accurate colors, you'll need a hot filter on each and every lens. But
    Leica will give you two of them! Isn't that precious? Spend $5K on a camera,
    and they'll provide a couple of filters to cover an obvious defect.
    Bõwser, Aug 13, 2008
    #4
  5. Böwser

    ransley Guest

    On Aug 13, 2:07 pm, Bõwser <0m> wrote:
    > "ransley" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    > On Aug 13, 7:51 am, Böwser <> wrote:
    >
    > > OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the Decade.."

    >
    > >http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU

    >
    > > Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically, it
    > > falls apart. Yes, really.

    >
    > > My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.
    > >Didnt that camera also have issues with purple discolorations.

    >
    > Yes, the IR filter in front of the sensor is far too weak, so in order to
    > record accurate colors, you'll need a hot filter on each and every lens. But
    > Leica will give you two of them! Isn't that precious? Spend $5K on a camera,
    > and they'll provide a couple of filters to cover an obvious defect.


    And the price for an extra filter is something outragous like 350 US.
    I cant figure out how they can actualy sell any cameras at those
    prices and stay in business, some of their models are simply upgraded
    Panasonics, all are overpriced by many times and the dumb design-
    performance issues. I wanted one, once, till I read reviews and heard
    of the issues.
    ransley, Aug 13, 2008
    #5
  6. Böwser

    Böwser Guest

    "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Böwser wrote:
    >
    >> OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the
    >> Decade."
    >> http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU
    >>
    >> Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically,
    >> it falls apart. Yes, really.
    >>
    >> My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.

    >
    > Totally irrelevant! Like really, who would buy anything other than a
    > Nikon,
    > other than a dumbass?


    I agree, even Nikons are purchased by dumbasses. Sometimes.
    Böwser, Aug 14, 2008
    #6
  7. Böwser

    ransley Guest

    On Aug 13, 7:24 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote:
    > Böwser wrote:
    > > OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the
    > > Decade."
    > >http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU

    >
    > > Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically,
    > > it falls apart. Yes, really.

    >
    > > My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.

    >
    > Totally irrelevant!  Like really, who would buy anything other than a Nikon,
    > other than a dumbass?
    >
    > Rita
    > --
    > Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time.  Never empower the
    > idiot, embrace it and stimulate it.  For more details go to the Usenet
    > Stimulus Project page.
    >
    > http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com


    Your posts continue to prove you need to be kill filed. You are the
    one that posts internet stupidity.
    ransley, Aug 14, 2008
    #7
  8. Böwser

    Dave Cohen Guest

    ransley wrote:
    > On Aug 13, 7:24 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote:
    >> Böwser wrote:
    >>> OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the
    >>> Decade."
    >>> http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU
    >>> Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically,
    >>> it falls apart. Yes, really.
    >>> My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.

    >> Totally irrelevant! Like really, who would buy anything other than a Nikon,
    >> other than a dumbass?
    >>
    >> Rita
    >> --
    >> Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
    >> idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
    >> Stimulus Project page.
    >>
    >> http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com

    >
    > Your posts continue to prove you need to be kill filed. You are the
    > one that posts internet stupidity.


    I disagree, I once owned a Leica, if memory servers me correctly is was
    a IIIc. Never took a picture with it, I inherited it from my father but
    a better motor bike was more in line with my tastes than photography at
    that time (1953).
    The point is that Leica, together with Contax and other pre-wwII German
    cameras were tops, arguably Leica being the top of the tops.
    But today things are different, yes both Leica and Zeiss lenses are
    still excellent, but so are many others with cameras to match. The Leica
    thing is nostalgia and bloody expensive nostalgia at that, and if
    performance doesn't match the price then who needs it. Pointing that out
    is not internet stupidity. Rita may be controversial but hardly stupid.
    Dave Cohen
    Dave Cohen, Aug 15, 2008
    #8
  9. Böwser

    ransley Guest

    On Aug 15, 1:56 am, "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    > "Dave Cohen" <> wrote:
    >
    > > The point is that Leica, together with Contax and other pre-wwII German
    > > cameras were tops, arguably Leica being the top of the tops.

    >
    > They still are. In terms of putting images on film, the current Leica and
    > Zeiss Ikon (and discontinued Contax G) rangefinder lenses are the best
    > lenses you can find in focal lengths up to 90mm. The Contax and Leica R SLR
    > lenses are nearly as good.
    >
    > Nikon and Canon are a distant second. Which is why people with gobs of money
    > put Leica R and Contax/Zeiss SLR lenses on their dSLRs, at gross cost.
    > (Actually, the new Zeiss lenses for the Nikon dSLRs aren't all that
    > expensive, and work on Canon with an adapter.)
    >
    > > But today things are different, yes both Leica and Zeiss lenses are still
    > > excellent, but so are many others with cameras to match. The Leica thing
    > > is nostalgia and bloody expensive nostalgia at that, and if performance
    > > doesn't match the price then who needs it.

    >
    > The last 10% of performance always costs more than the first 90%.
    > Diminishing returns.
    >
    > Leica messed up big time with the M8. Arrogance on their part, I'd guess.
    > But the lenses are as good as it gets.
    >
    > --
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan


    DJL so a Zeiss can work on a Canon with an adapter, is there increased
    image quality compared to Canon lenses, what do you use with your 5d.
    ransley, Aug 15, 2008
    #9
  10. "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    : Too bad, the M6 and prior Leica's were favoured by combat correspondents
    : and photogs for their reliability, simplicity, compactness not to
    : mention image quality.

    Indeed.

    All Leica were trying to do was try and maintain the qualities
    for which they've always been renowed, in the face of the totally
    different demands being made on the familiar body shape by digital
    reproduction.

    It's not particularly edyifying to watch people jumpimg up and down
    in glee over their failure, in what's turned out to be a difficult if not
    impossible task.

    Yes it cost far too much, yes it turned out to be a pile of crap,
    yes Leica were the Nazis camera of choice, but it was a noble enterprise
    neverthless IMO.



    michael adams

    ....





    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
    -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
    michael adams, Aug 15, 2008
    #10
  11. Böwser

    ransley Guest

    On Aug 15, 5:37 pm, "michael adams" <> wrote:
    > "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > : Too bad, the M6 and prior Leica's were favoured by combat correspondents
    > : and photogs for their reliability, simplicity, compactness not to
    > : mention image quality.
    >
    > Indeed.
    >
    > All Leica were trying to do was try and maintain the qualities
    > for which they've always been renowed, in the face of the totally
    > different demands being made on the familiar body shape by digital
    > reproduction.
    >
    > It's not particularly edyifying to watch people jumpimg up and down
    > in glee over their failure, in what's turned out to be a difficult if not
    > impossible task.
    >
    > Yes it cost far too much, yes it turned out to be a pile of crap,
    > yes Leica were the Nazis camera of choice, but it was a noble enterprise
    > neverthless IMO.
    >
    > michael adams
    >
    > ...
    >
    > --
    > -- r.p.e.35mm user resource:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    > --        r.p.d.slr-systems:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    > --      [SI] gallery & rulz:http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    > --                   e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
    > -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.


    For a camera maker that has been proven for over 80 years to make the
    best equipment to put out a crap product with several stupid defects,
    the weak body and lack of proper filter makes one wonder what kind of
    drunk cheap idiot tested and approved their design. The mistakes were
    so obvious. Nobody is jumping for glee but rather are happy they didnt
    mortgage their house for what should have been a great camera, to last
    their lifetime. Everybody wants one, few can afford one. What is so
    difficult about making and testing a piece of equipment when that is
    your business, there are millions of tough little good cameras made
    every year by many companies. Leica should go out of business for
    rebadging Panasonics at double the price, the failure of the M8 and
    Leicas lack of customer support of the issues. At the outragous prices
    people shelled out these issues should have been fixed free. I am
    happy I will now never want or consider a Leica body.
    ransley, Aug 16, 2008
    #11
  12. Böwser

    Bõwser Guest

    "Allen" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > ransley wrote:
    > <snip>
    >> For a camera maker that has been proven for over 80 years to make the
    >> best equipment to put out a crap product with several stupid defects,
    >> the weak body and lack of proper filter makes one wonder what kind of
    >> drunk cheap idiot tested and approved their design. The mistakes were
    >> so obvious. Nobody is jumping for glee but rather are happy they didnt
    >> mortgage their house for what should have been a great camera, to last
    >> their lifetime. Everybody wants one, few can afford one. What is so
    >> difficult about making and testing a piece of equipment when that is
    >> your business, there are millions of tough little good cameras made
    >> every year by many companies. Leica should go out of business for
    >> rebadging Panasonics at double the price, the failure of the M8 and
    >> Leicas lack of customer support of the issues. At the outragous prices
    >> people shelled out these issues should have been fixed free. I am
    >> happy I will now never want or consider a Leica body.

    >
    > It makes one wonder if the people who created Windows Vista have bought
    > Leitz.
    > Allen


    And here's the worst part: I have Vista 64 loaded on three machines, none of
    them have ever failed. All run perfectly.
    Bõwser, Aug 16, 2008
    #12
  13. Bõwser wrote:
    > "Allen" <> wrote in message

    []
    >> It makes one wonder if the people who created Windows Vista have
    >> bought Leitz.
    >> Allen

    >
    > And here's the worst part: I have Vista 64 loaded on three machines,
    > none of them have ever failed. All run perfectly.


    Strange that - I had just the same experience with Vista 32 here. Must be
    something in the mains!

    David
    David J Taylor, Aug 16, 2008
    #13
  14. Böwser

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 15:54:15 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

    >Bõwser wrote:
    >> "Allen" <> wrote in message

    >[]
    >>> It makes one wonder if the people who created Windows Vista have
    >>> bought Leitz.
    >>> Allen

    >>
    >> And here's the worst part: I have Vista 64 loaded on three machines,
    >> none of them have ever failed. All run perfectly.

    >
    >Strange that - I had just the same experience with Vista 32 here. Must be
    >something in the mains!
    >

    The most common complaint I hear/see about Vista is not about the
    stability of the OS, but about compatibility of older programs with
    this OS. Many of us have older ("older" in the computer sense of
    being purchased one year or more ago) programs that we don't want to
    upgrade to fit a new OS.

    If I was concerned only with the stability/functional aspects of an
    OS, I'd have no problem buying a new computer with Vista. It's the
    integration with my extant programs that concern me.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Aug 16, 2008
    #14
  15. tony cooper wrote:
    []
    > The most common complaint I hear/see about Vista is not about the
    > stability of the OS, but about compatibility of older programs with
    > this OS. Many of us have older ("older" in the computer sense of
    > being purchased one year or more ago) programs that we don't want to
    > upgrade to fit a new OS.
    >
    > If I was concerned only with the stability/functional aspects of an
    > OS, I'd have no problem buying a new computer with Vista. It's the
    > integration with my extant programs that concern me.


    I can appreciate that, Tony, but so far I haven't found any modern
    software (say from year 2000 onwards, intended for Windows 2000 or XP)
    which won't run. I understand that 16-bit software won't work (but
    perhaps it might under a virtual machine), but the only 16-bit software I
    still have is from 1999 and would not be transferred to a new PC in any
    case as it runs on its own dedicated machine. I have seen some software
    which has a 16-bit installer, but even that software worked if the files
    were simply copied from another PC. A note to the author quickly resulted
    in a 32-bit installer version!

    I do hear that some hardware manufacturers have been rather late in
    producing drivers for their hardware, and I may be about to encounter that
    problem myself with a new PC install for someone else shortly.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Aug 16, 2008
    #15
  16. Böwser

    Bõwser Guest

    "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 15:54:15 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    >>Bõwser wrote:
    >>> "Allen" <> wrote in message

    >>[]
    >>>> It makes one wonder if the people who created Windows Vista have
    >>>> bought Leitz.
    >>>> Allen
    >>>
    >>> And here's the worst part: I have Vista 64 loaded on three machines,
    >>> none of them have ever failed. All run perfectly.

    >>
    >>Strange that - I had just the same experience with Vista 32 here. Must be
    >>something in the mains!
    >>

    > The most common complaint I hear/see about Vista is not about the
    > stability of the OS, but about compatibility of older programs with
    > this OS. Many of us have older ("older" in the computer sense of
    > being purchased one year or more ago) programs that we don't want to
    > upgrade to fit a new OS.


    True that...

    Where I work, we have two enterprise apps that need to be updated, which
    means pushing a new app or two out to 80,000 seats. But the IT Security
    folks want to make the move to Vista sooner, not later, so away we go...

    >
    > If I was concerned only with the stability/functional aspects of an
    > OS, I'd have no problem buying a new computer with Vista. It's the
    > integration with my extant programs that concern me.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    Bõwser, Aug 16, 2008
    #16
  17. "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > michael adams wrote:
    > > "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >
    > > : Too bad, the M6 and prior Leica's were favoured by combat correspondents
    > > : and photogs for their reliability, simplicity, compactness not to
    > > : mention image quality.
    > >
    > > Indeed.
    > >
    > > All Leica were trying to do was try and maintain the qualities
    > > for which they've always been renowed, in the face of the totally
    > > different demands being made on the familiar body shape by digital
    > > reproduction.
    > >
    > > It's not particularly edyifying to watch people jumpimg up and down
    > > in glee over their failure, in what's turned out to be a difficult if not
    > > impossible task.

    >
    > Don't count me as 'gleeful'. It's always a benefit to the industry to
    > have companies dedicated to excellence.
    >
    > (OTOH: it is a bucket of cooling water for those blinded by faith).
    >
    > Leica, from the linked report, did not do enough design engineering,
    > user consultation and user testing before release. They were under very
    > high pressure to get their camera into the market as film camera sales
    > were all but dead.


    >
    > Leica, although posting rare earnings in the last two years after 5 or
    > more of losses (and forecasting a loss this year and 'maybe' break even
    > next year) made the error of rushing the M8 to market before it was
    > really ready for photographers.
    >
    > > Yes it cost far too much, yes it turned out to be a pile of crap,
    > > yes Leica were the Nazis camera of choice, but it was a noble enterprise
    > > neverthless IMO.

    >
    > Americans, Brits and many others (military and other agencies) did not
    > throw out their extensive inventory of Zeiss and Leica (and other)
    > equipment in the war; but used same to good measure (Likewise Browning
    > in Utah used to send the "HP" pistol to Germany complete to engraved
    > eagle and swastika before the war...)


    I was possibly a bit over-hasty there. While Leicas with Eagles and
    Swastikas are well known, and prized as collectors' items, apparently
    some members of the Leitz family were instrumental (no pun intended)
    in helping Jews escape their otherwise inevitable fate. Although there
    were rumours that it was at Eishenhower's request as a pre-war Leica
    owner, that the factories be spared in bombing raids, in fact they were
    already earmarked as being useful in helping in post-war German
    reconstruction. I discoverd all this 5 minutes after making the rather
    glib Nazi remark. They also like Becks beer in the U-Boats as
    confirmed by many photographs - Leica presumably in "U-Boot Krieg".

    It would have been nice to think that that classic shape of rangefinder
    camera could have survived into the digital age, nevertheless.


    michael adams

    ....




    >
    > --
    > -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    > -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    > -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    > -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
    > -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
    michael adams, Aug 17, 2008
    #17
  18. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    drugs began to take hold. I remember ransley <>
    saying something like:

    >I cant figure out how they can actualy sell any cameras at those
    >prices and stay in business, some of their models are simply upgraded
    >Panasonics, all are overpriced by many times and the dumb design-
    >performance issues. I wanted one, once, till I read reviews and heard
    >of the issues.


    Ditto. Mind you, I was willing to wait until used prices came down a
    bit. There's no way I'd pay even used prices for the M8 now, though.
    I'm just really disappointed that a name that stood for quality and
    reliability has become so debased with this crock of shit.
    --

    Dave
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Aug 17, 2008
    #18
  19. On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:51:11 -0400, Böwser <> wrote:

    >OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the Decade."
    >
    >http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU
    >
    >Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically, it
    >falls apart. Yes, really.
    >
    >My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.


    From:

    http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/25121-base-plate-failure-15.html#post632457

    I inserted some missing currency conversions.

    ===============================

    "Quoted today repair estimate...

    Well, I got the reply from Leica about my camera with broken bottom plate.
    Talked to the importer today, and they quoted Leica HQ's repair estimate at

    NOK 6,726 plus VAT = NOK 8,407.50 ( equivalent to USD 1,553.11)

    Quite a bill... Includes labour NOK 5,636 (USD $1,041.40), material NOK 840 (USD
    $155.21), shipping NOK 250 (USD $46.17) plus VAT (25%). Comments were "Impact
    damage. A piece of the camera housing is broken off." Also got the same on the
    snail mail today. I knew it would be frustrating when the 'repair charge' would
    be quoted, since the 'impact damage' all happened while the camera was swiveling
    on the tripod, and I consider this to be of normal use. The camera was never
    dropped so the body shell is scratch free. My Norwegian importer says this was
    'the first such case' they have seen. Well, I tried to be as impartial as
    possible on my reporting to the forum of what happened. So there. Think need to
    cool off my head.

    oslo terry"

    ===========================


    Total cost for the body alone is now well in excess of $6,500, and it still
    takes crappy photos worse than any $100 P&S camera. That's true for 100% of all
    M8s, the cracking body only happens to some, so far. After that repair cost it
    still has the body defect that will crack again if you put it on a tripod in
    portrait orientation, which Leica conveniently calls abnormal use / abuse of the
    camera.

    Four forum participants have so far reported the same problem (a fraction of a
    percent of all M8 owners), and also reported to Leica who claim they've never
    heard of this happening before.

    7,080 hits if you do a Google search with:

    leica m8 (baseplate OR base-plate OR latch OR shell OR cover) (cracked OR broken
    OR failure)

    This is the sign of a company trying to undermine itself and call it quits. The
    CEOs must be transferring funds into something more lucrative today, like their
    pockets.

    Anyone getting their M8 repaired only brings to mind that saying about a fool
    throwing their good money after bad. A repaired cracked body isn't going to fix
    those useless images that it creates.
    Greggor Campbell, Aug 18, 2008
    #19
    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. Ken Briscoe
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    427
    Ken Briscoe
    Jul 14, 2004
  2. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    637
  3. Luke

    Fun fun fun

    Luke, Oct 7, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    548
    Petit Alexi
    Oct 7, 2003
  4. John Navas

    Is Lumix Leica real Leica?

    John Navas, Nov 17, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    611
    Dennis Pogson
    Nov 18, 2007
  5. TJ
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,709
    Tony Polson
    Dec 23, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page