John H. wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:34:24 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...


I sent me back while it was in warrenty and had them set it to
specs. I
am very pleased with it.
Oh, I didn't recall your having done that. Now I feel better about
taking
mine in. It's either the lens, the camera, or me. Hopefully it's
not the
latter!
--
John H
You could always sell the boat and replae everything with Leica.
My only remaining film camera is a Leica, which I like to take on
trips, because it is relatively small, quiet, and I have three really
sharp lenses for it.
Is there such a thing as a Leica lens that's NOT sharp?

I had an M5 (?? current rangefinder model around 1971). Women hated
it. It revealed every pore on their face, every imperfection.


Mine is older, with a pop down lever on the bottom for "rapid film
advance."
You really should scan some of your photos and share them with us.

Have you forgotten the owls down by the creek, or river, or waterway?

I thought the owl was a really nice photo. It looked like it was taken
with a 400mm 2.8, a really nice lens.