:11
Aihe: Re: Re[6]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
>On Sunday, January 13, 2002, at 01:09 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
>
>> So I am just trying to find
>> out under what conditions (other than low light) my MZ-S's will fail
>> me and an LX would not. Make sense?
On Sunday, January 13, 2002, at 01:09 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> So I am just trying to find
> out under what conditions (other than low light) my MZ-S's will fail
> me and an LX would not. Make sense?
Makes total sense, and I totally can't answer that question. :)
So just buy the 67II alrea
Aaron,
I think the reason I asked the question like that is I keep hearing
members of the list talk about the meter in situations that aren't
related to low light sensitivity or metering OTF - In normal lighting.
So I have been trying to find out if I have been deprived all these
years. The low
On Friday, January 11, 2002, at 02:36 PM, Bob Blakely wrote:
> I prefer CW metering over matrix metering because it's performance
> is predictable. I know if the meter is going to be over or under for
> given situations and
> use compensation accordingly.
Amen! I know about a trillion times m
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Re[6]: getting LX - worth it? (repairs,...)
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bruce Dayton" Subject: Re[6]: getting LX - worth it?
>
> > On a side note - I found it odd tha
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Dayton" Subject: Re[6]: getting LX - worth it?
> On a side note - I found it odd that each year, Pop
Photograhpy does a
> camera roundup where they list the main models of each maker.
The LX
> has not been shown for a very long time, even though it could
Bob,
What you say makes sense. It make the LX more versatile than many
other cameras. It still doesn't make the usage of the center weighted
only meter any better than other bodies. There are many on the list
who seem to continually refer to the metering capability as something
godlike. I fee
7 matches
Mail list logo
