Which 8x32: Victory FL or New Conquest HD ? (1 Viewer)

peter kitchener said:

Lee, An interesting point; maybe I should reconsider Leica? Where did you obtain this information?
Peter

Click to expand...

Hi Peter

I used to have an EL 8.5 and was puzzled at the eye relief quoted at the time: it didn't seem in practice to different from Zeiss Leica who quoted less. On joining Bird Forum a month or two ago I found this topic covered many times and folks who have done careful measurements say Swaro measures from the lens surface and Zeiss / Leica measure from the top of the screwed down eye cup. This makes sense of what I have found in practice so I believe it to be true.

Lee

brocknroller said:

But could you get used to the dimunitive size of the 8x32 Ultravids or would you need hand reducation surgery?

<B>

Click to expand...

Hi Brock

I know what you mean as I have a pair of FL 8x32s to go with my FL 8x42s and the 32s do feel tiny and require a little readjustment of handling technique. I can quite see that someone with hands only a bit larger than mine might feel uncomfortable.

Lee

s

ceasar said:

Brock,

If you please? If you are going to quote me, quote me, don't change my post. There is a place below the quotation for any editorial comments about my selective memory.

As I read the complaints about the EDG most of them were concerned with a problem about the cover closing completely after the diopter was set or with not staying closed. If some had wandering diopters that is not surprising because it seems to happen occasionally with diopters which are integrated with the focus wheel. Which was the point of my "sarcasm" about the Zeiss Conquest. The 6.5 x 32 Vortex was perhaps the worst of them and they were recalled. I have read here that it also happened with Leica. It doesn't seem to have happened with Swarovski but based on what we read in this forum they also have an "epidemic" of focus wheel problems described being harder to turn in one direction than the other and they are being returned by the "truckload." (I apologize here for plagiarizing from you.)

To date, there is no evidence that the EDGs were recalled simply because of diopter problems. We have also heard rumors about the open frame design violating a patent held by another manufacturer.

There was a new EDG I for sale at the Hawk Mountain Store last week. I didn't ask what it's price was, but there is a 10% discount for members. I think it is a 10 x 42.

They did not have an EDG II which I could compare with mine although I have been told on good authority that the ridged rubber cover surrounding the focus wheel on it has been improved so that it is not susceptible to stretching after long use. AFAIK nothing else has been done to the focus wheel. I will know more when I finally get to see a new EDG II.

Bob

Click to expand...

"Selective Memory" Bob,

Sorry, that was supposed to be the salutation not ending. I copied and pasted your denial quote at the end so people could see what I was addressing rather than them having to re-read the entire post and find it, but in the process, I pasted the end quote code [/QUOTE] after the saluation. UPDATE: Corrected. See post #16.

I think Kevin might have had problems with the diopter too. At least three BF members as I total recall, two of which were "regulars". It's an internal diopter, which is on the focuser, so if the focuser mechanism is faulty, anything can go wrong. And ths was the first of this kind of focuser that Nikon ever made.

From the way you wrote above, it seems like you are trivalizing the focus knob problem. It's not just that it would come loose, though it was annoying to be looking at a bid in a tree and have the focus knob fall back and hit you between the eyes, but more importantly, without the knob being locked, it couldn't engage the focuser so it would just spin. I had to poush dowh and back (in this positon) to keep it enaged, and just push down on it to keep it enaged when the bin was in a horizontal position.

This would even be unacceptable in entry level priced bin, but such a flaw at the alpha level was very disappointing. You don't even expect "fit and finish" problems at the alpha level, let alone common mechanical flaws.

One of the earliest reviewers noted this on a "prototype" Nikon gave him to try and said he was confident that Nikon would fix this on production models. They didn't. Or rather, as Mike Freiberg commented, they "tightend down" on the focusers in subsquent runs, which explains why some users do have EDG I's that work properly like yours.

Besdies which, the 8x32 model was made after the 7x42 and 10x42, which were the first to appear on the scene, and those had the most returns.

Even though Swaro either sued or threatened to sue Nikon if they didn't stop production, which I think still needs further explanation since just think of how many open bridge roofs there are out there today by various manufacturers who are not gettng sued, Nikon still would have had to go "back to the drawing board" because their first attempt at making an on the focuser pull back knob was flawed. If they did copy Swaro's design, they missed something.

In fact, there was recently a report on the forums of a drifting diopter in the EDG II by a member, which caused us to revsit this issue.

Externally, the focuser was certainly different enough since the EDG's diopter isn't turned by the knob like Swaro's, but instead has a separate diopter ring. I dont like the design myself. Too hard to find that flat, smooth ring and turn it, particularly with gloves. I find Swaro's pull and turn knob design easier to use with or without gloves. Although the SLC's "push and turn" diopter was the easiest diopter I've ever tried. Nothing to pull out and turn like the EL or any bin with a right EP diopter, you can keep your hands positioned just as they are and make the adjustment while looking through the binoculars.

I havent read any reports about problems with the old SLC diopter design, but I guess Swaro wanted to make the SLC-HD with an EL diopter to give it more "class". While I do pay attention to aethetics, functinality and "user friendliness" are higher priorities.

The reason I gave you the moniker "Selective Memory Bob" is because you consistently miss things on the forums that I would think would be obvious to a regular reader, and it's almost always things mentioned in my posts, which forces me to take time out and go back through the archives to find the references, which I usually do, but no more. Too much work. I will just let your memory be selective.

Somethings are best forgotten, and the EDG I's focus problems are one of them.

"Selective Copy and Paste" Brock

Troubador said:

Hi Peter

I used to have an EL 8.5 and was puzzled at the eye relief quoted at the time: it didn't seem in practice to different from Zeiss Leica who quoted less. On joining Bird Forum a month or two ago I found this topic covered many times and folks who have done careful measurements say Swaro measures from the lens surface and Zeiss / Leica measure from the top of the screwed down eye cup. This makes sense of what I have found in practice so I believe it to be true.

Lee

Click to expand...

Thanks Lee
It is interesting how often manufacturers can present data in different ways. As I mentioned previously, the ease of use for spec wearers can vary considerably and is not just related to the quoted eye relief.

Another variable is the quoted close focusing distance; my Nikon HGL 8x32 is quoted as 2.5 metres, yet I can obtain 1.8 metres with specs - a considerable difference when you want to view insects. If you just read the specification and did not try them for yourself you might "discard" an excellent pair of bins.
Peter

brocknroller said:

s

"Selective Memory" Bob,

Sorry, that was supposed to be the salutation not ending. I copied and pasted your denial quote at the end so people could see what I was addressing rather than them having to re-read the entire post and find it, but in the process, I pasted the end quote code

Click to expand...

after the saluation. UPDATE: Corrected. See post #16.

I think Kevin might have had problems with the diopter too. At least three BF members as I total recall, two of which were "regulars". It's an internal diopter, which is on the focuser, so if the focuser mechanism is faulty, anything can go wrong. And ths was the first of this kind of focuser that Nikon ever made.

From the way you wrote above, it seems like you are trivalizing the focus knob problem. It's not just that it would come loose, though it was annoying to be looking at a bid in a tree and have the focus knob fall back and hit you between the eyes, but more importantly, without the knob being locked, it couldn't engage the focuser so it would just spin. I had to poush dowh and back (in this positon) to keep it enaged, and just push down on it to keep it enaged when the bin was in a horizontal position.

This would even be unacceptable in entry level priced bin, but such a flaw at the alpha level was very disappointing. You don't even expect "fit and finish" problems at the alpha level, let alone common mechanical flaws.

One of the earliest reviewers noted this on a "prototype" Nikon gave him to try and said he was confident that Nikon would fix this on production models. They didn't. Or rather, as Mike Freiberg commented, they "tightend down" on the focusers in subsquent runs, which explains why some users do have EDG I's that work properly like yours.

Besdies which, the 8x32 model was made after the 7x42 and 10x42, which were the first to appear on the scene, and those had the most returns.

Even though Swaro either sued or threatened to sue Nikon if they didn't stop production, which I think still needs further explanation since just think of how many open bridge roofs there are out there today by various manufacturers who are not gettng sued, Nikon still would have had to go "back to the drawing board" because their first attempt at making an on the focuser pull back knob was flawed. If they did copy Swaro's design, they missed something.

In fact, there was recently a report on the forums of a drifting diopter in the EDG II by a member, which caused us to revsit this issue.

Externally, the focuser was certainly different enough since the EDG's diopter isn't turned by the knob like Swaro's, but instead has a separate diopter ring. I dont like the design myself. Too hard to find that flat, smooth ring and turn it, particularly with gloves. I find Swaro's pull and turn knob design easier to use with or without gloves. Although the SLC's "push and turn" diopter was the easiest diopter I've ever tried. Nothing to pull out and turn like the EL or any bin with a right EP diopter, you can keep your hands positioned just as they are and make the adjustment while looking through the binoculars.

I havent read any reports about problems with the old SLC diopter design, but I guess Swaro wanted to make the SLC-HD with an EL diopter to give it more "class". While I do pay attention to aethetics, functinality and "user friendliness" are higher priorities.

The reason I gave you the moniker "Selective Memory Bob" is because you consistently miss things on the forums that I would think would be obvious to a regular reader, and it's almost always things mentioned in my posts, which forces me to take time out and go back through the archives to find the references, which I usually do, but no more. Too much work. I will just let your memory be selective.

Somethings are best forgotten, and the EDG I's focus problems are one of them.

"Selective Copy and Paste" Brock[/QUOTE]

You must be patient with me on this while I respond. Because you are now using your professionally trained journalistic skills to accuse me of resorting to selective memory to ballast my argument while at the same time you are saying it is best to forget the EDG I's focus problems.

I was aware that Kevin had problems with his as he got his about the same time I got mine. His seemed to have "wandered." Others did not stay locked. There was, and still seems to be, an intermediate position where the focus remains locked and the focus wheel will spin until it is pushed back down into the 1st position. I also discussed this wandering problem diopters had when integrated with focus wheels in my response to you in thread #20.

But all that aside, if you will go back to my original post at thread #16 I believe you will see I was lampooning the overstated, in my opinion, problems with the new Nikon's diopter by comparing it with the casual way that Zeiss's diopter problem is being handled here. Nikon handled theirs and apparently have corrected it but they are still being hounded by it. Will this happen to Zeiss?

Which is why I have spent this time explaining why I find your description of my memory as "selective" troubling.


I agree that it is too much work to go back through the archives as you state. But "selective memory" has nothing to do with it when it comes to the nature of the EDG I's diopter problems. To date we have no evidence that Nikon changed the diopter when it replaced the EDG I with the EDG II.

The change that took place in the EDGII was a complete redesign of the EDG I's exterior. We all know that. Nikon got rid of the open frame design introduced with the EDG I and made the new single bridge longer. If that involved changing the focusing somehow or somewhat; so be it. We do not know that.

I was always under the impression that the open bridge design was the issue involving Nikon's alleged patent infringement dispute with Swarovski.

It did not involve the design of Nikon's focus/diopter knob. AFAIK that remains unchanged. As I noted in my original post I have been informed that Nikon "tweaked" it a bit to make the ridged rubber cover around it's circumference more durable but it still works the same way; that is to say it is still an awkward procedure to set it's diopter; using a thick finger on a cramped narrow ring which has small indents.

I have not read that the procedure to set it has changed: (1) Pull the cover all the way back to expose the diopter ring in order to set it. (2) Push it all the way back to lock it. There is still an intermediate setting to lock the focus if it is needed while in use. If this procedure has changed, I stand corrected, but no one here to my knowledge has said that it has changed.

Somewhere back I had a post about the creation of IBLs: Internet Binocular Legends. In a way, this is an extension of that post.

Bob

brocknroller said:

s

"Selective Memory" Bob,

Sorry, that was supposed to be the salutation not ending. I copied and pasted your denial quote at the end so people could see what I was addressing rather than them having to re-read the entire post and find it, but in the process, I pasted the end quote code

Click to expand...

after the saluation. UPDATE: Corrected. See post #16.

I think Kevin might have had problems with the diopter too. At least three BF members as I total recall, two of which were "regulars". It's an internal diopter, which is on the focuser, so if the focuser mechanism is faulty, anything can go wrong. And ths was the first of this kind of focuser that Nikon ever made.

From the way you wrote above, it seems like you are trivalizing the focus knob problem. It's not just that it would come loose, though it was annoying to be looking at a bid in a tree and have the focus knob fall back and hit you between the eyes, but more importantly, without the knob being locked, it couldn't engage the focuser so it would just spin. I had to poush dowh and back (in this positon) to keep it enaged, and just push down on it to keep it enaged when the bin was in a horizontal position.

This would even be unacceptable in entry level priced bin, but such a flaw at the alpha level was very disappointing. You don't even expect "fit and finish" problems at the alpha level, let alone common mechanical flaws.

One of the earliest reviewers noted this on a "prototype" Nikon gave him to try and said he was confident that Nikon would fix this on production models. They didn't. Or rather, as Mike Freiberg commented, they "tightend down" on the focusers in subsquent runs, which explains why some users do have EDG I's that work properly like yours.

Besdies which, the 8x32 model was made after the 7x42 and 10x42, which were the first to appear on the scene, and those had the most returns.

Even though Swaro either sued or threatened to sue Nikon if they didn't stop production, which I think still needs further explanation since just think of how many open bridge roofs there are out there today by various manufacturers who are not gettng sued, Nikon still would have had to go "back to the drawing board" because their first attempt at making an on the focuser pull back knob was flawed. If they did copy Swaro's design, they missed something.

In fact, there was recently a report on the forums of a drifting diopter in the EDG II by a member, which caused us to revsit this issue.

Externally, the focuser was certainly different enough since the EDG's diopter isn't turned by the knob like Swaro's, but instead has a separate diopter ring. I dont like the design myself. Too hard to find that flat, smooth ring and turn it, particularly with gloves. I find Swaro's pull and turn knob design easier to use with or without gloves. Although the SLC's "push and turn" diopter was the easiest diopter I've ever tried. Nothing to pull out and turn like the EL or any bin with a right EP diopter, you can keep your hands positioned just as they are and make the adjustment while looking through the binoculars.

I havent read any reports about problems with the old SLC diopter design, but I guess Swaro wanted to make the SLC-HD with an EL diopter to give it more "class". While I do pay attention to aethetics, functinality and "user friendliness" are higher priorities.

The reason I gave you the moniker "Selective Memory Bob" is because you consistently miss things on the forums that I would think would be obvious to a regular reader, and it's almost always things mentioned in my posts, which forces me to take time out and go back through the archives to find the references, which I usually do, but no more. Too much work. I will just let your memory be selective.

Somethings are best forgotten, and the EDG I's focus problems are one of them.

"Selective Copy and Paste" Brock[/QUOTE]


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brock,

You must be patient with me on this while I respond. Because you are now using your professionally trained journalistic skills to accuse me of resorting to selective memory to ballast my argument while at the same time you are saying it is best to forget the EDG I's focus problems.

I was aware that Kevin had problems with his as he got his about the same time I got mine. His seemed to have "wandered." Others did not stay locked. There was, and still seems to be, an intermediate position where the focus remains locked and the focus wheel will spin until it is pushed back down into the 1st position. I also discussed this wandering problem diopters had when integrated with focus wheels in my response to you in thread #20.

But all that aside, if you will go back to my original post at thread #16 I believe you will see I was lampooning the overstated, in my opinion, problems with the new Nikon's diopter by comparing it with the casual way that Zeiss's diopter problem is being handled here. Nikon handled theirs and apparently have corrected it but they are still being hounded by it. Will this happen to Zeiss?

Which is why I have spent this time explaining why I find your description of my memory as "selective" troubling.


I agree that it is too much work to go back through the archives as you state. But "selective memory" has nothing to do with it when it comes to the nature of the EDG I's diopter problems. To date we have no evidence that Nikon changed the diopter when it replaced the EDG I with the EDG II.

The change that took place in the EDGII was a complete redesign of the EDG I's exterior. We all know that. Nikon got rid of the open frame design introduced with the EDG I and made the new single bridge longer. If that involved changing the focusing somehow or somewhat; so be it. We do not know that.

I was always under the impression that the open bridge design was the issue involving Nikon's alleged patent infringement dispute with Swarovski.

It did not involve the design of Nikon's focus/diopter knob. AFAIK that remains unchanged. As I noted in my original post I have been informed that Nikon "tweaked" it a bit to make the ridged rubber cover around it's circumference more durable but it still works the same way; that is to say it is still an awkward procedure to set it's diopter; using a thick finger on a cramped narrow ring which has small indents.

I have not read that the procedure to set it has changed: (1) Pull the cover all the way back to expose the diopter ring in order to set it. (2) Push it all the way back to lock it. There is still an intermediate setting to lock the focus if it is needed while in use. If this procedure has changed, I stand corrected, but no one here to my knowledge has said that it has changed.

Somewhere back I had a post about the creation of IBLs: Internet Binocular Legends. In a way, this is an extension of that post.

Bob

Brock,

You must be patient with me on this while I respond. Because you are now using your professionally trained journalistic skills to accuse me of resorting to selective memory to ballast my argument while at the same time you are saying it is best to forget the EDG I's focus problems.

I was aware that Kevin had problems with his as he got his about the same time I got mine. His seemed to have "wandered." Others did not stay locked. There was, and still seems to be, an intermediate position where the focus remains locked and the focus wheel will spin until it is pushed back down into the 1st position. I also discussed this wandering problem diopters had when integrated with focus wheels in my response to you in thread #20.

But all that aside, if you will go back to my original post at thread #16 I believe you will see I was lampooning the overstated, in my opinion, problems with the new Nikon's diopter by comparing it with the casual way that Zeiss's diopter problem is being handled here. Nikon handled theirs and apparently have corrected it but they are still being hounded by it. Will this happen to Zeiss?

Which is why I have spent this time explaining why I find your description of my memory as "selective" troubling.


I agree that it is too much work to go back through the archives as you state. But "selective memory" has nothing to do with it when it comes to the nature of the EDG I's diopter problems. To date we have no evidence that Nikon changed the diopter when it replaced the EDG I with the EDG II.

The change that took place in the EDGII was a complete redesign of the EDG I's exterior. We all know that. Nikon got rid of the open frame design introduced with the EDG I and made the new single bridge longer. If that involved changing the focusing somehow or somewhat; so be it. We do not know that.

I was always under the impression that the open bridge design was the issue involving Nikon's alleged patent infringement dispute with Swarovski.

It did not involve the design of Nikon's focus/diopter knob. AFAIK that remains unchanged. As I noted in my original post I have been informed that Nikon "tweaked" it a bit to make the ridged rubber cover around it's circumference more durable but it still works the same way; that is to say it is still an awkward procedure to set it's diopter; using a thick finger on a cramped narrow ring which has small indents.

I have not read that the procedure to set it has changed: (1) Pull the cover all the way back to expose the diopter ring in order to set it. (2) Push it all the way back to lock it. There is still an intermediate setting to lock the focus if it is needed while in use. If this procedure has changed, I stand corrected, but no one here to my knowledge has said that it has changed.

Somewhere back I had a post about the creation of IBLs: Internet Binocular Legends. In a way, this is an extension of that post.

Bob[/QUOTE]

Bob:

I agree with your summary view of the Nikon EDG, and I do pardon myself
as off topic in a Zeiss thread. I have posted in the past on the EDG, as
I have had both versions of 2 different sizes.
The original diopter, could have some creep or such, and it would move
without being disturbed in the EDG I.
You are correct in the EDG II, the design of the focuser, diopter, is the
same, but the focuser knob has been changed to prevent the problem.

I do not post here so much anymore, as I have grown tired with the same old, same old, negative posts, from some here, whether it is the focuser of the EDG, or the Swarovski.
It seems there are so many users that are truly enjoying their fine optics,
with not a bit of compaint and we do not here so much from them.

Jerry

I don't want interfere in discussions but maybe it's a good suggestion to open a new thread/forum header "quality issues on binoculars"?

From what I read there are few:
a) Nikon EDG has a few dioptersetting problems, but we do not know how many in percentages
b) Zeiss has probably the same problems
c) The Swaro focusser is not smooth and has a different feeling whether one turns left or right
d) the service of Leica seems not the industry standard
e) Zen ray has.... etc etc.


Please keep in mind:
a) The Nikon problem is addressed by just a few members (including me but I don't find it a problem) but gets by far the most attention
c) the Swaro-problem isn't addressed to often but "in the field" I hear this a lot but strangely it doesn't lead to bad marketing....
AND if you have a problem with a premuim brand the subjective perception of this problem is always much bigger than reality requires. I.e. if you have the same, let's say small, problem with a Mercedes Benz you did not expect, it's gets a lot more attention and you feel almost mislead than if you experience the same problem with a Kia... But it's the same problem...

Summary:
It seems that all producers seem to have quality issues of any kind but how much is this in comparison to what they sell and how do they solve problems? A customer can be very, very happy if the problem is solved and to my knowlegde Nikon serves well but Swaro serves the best.

Uptill now I have never have used the customer service of either Nikon, Zeiss, Swaro or Kowa and I hope it stays that way

The difference in turning resistance between both turning directions of the Swarovski SV-EL can easily be understood by looking at the cut-away of the instrument (for Dutch readers, there is one on display at House of Outdoor in Maarssen, and I think als one in the shop of the Dutch Bird Protectin Association, but from the last one I am not 100 % sure). There is a spring which is not giving resistance when turning in one direction and when turning in the other direction one has to turn against the resistance of this spring. So this is not a problem, but a consequence of the construction.

It would be nice if someone could take a photo of the cut-away bin and share it with us here, please.

Anders

Here's a link to the 8.5 cut-away. They have one for the SLC HD too, but I don't see one for the 8x32.


http://www.swarovskioptik.us/en_us/download-product-photos

Mark

Kammerdiner said:

Here's a link to the 8.5 cut-away. They have one for the SLC HD too, but I don't see one for the 8x32.


http://www.swarovskioptik.us/en_us/download-product-photos

Mark

Click to expand...

That Focus Wheel/Diopter looks a lot like the one on the Nikon EDG. I've never looked at the ELs diopter up close though so they may be different.

Bob

I have been telling people about the spring-loading of the Swaro binoculars on these forums for years, but it has not made a dent in the beliefs of those who prefer to consider this a QC-problem. I hope this time it would stick. In that spirit, I'll just add that the reason for having this spring in the system is not to annoy users or to help distinguish which direction one is turning the knob, but to keep any slack from developing in the moving focussing lens assemblies. It is not uncommon in other roof-prism binoculars with internal focussing that there is such a slack, and the problem that comes from it is not so much the feel of slack when turning the wheel, but the fact that with uneven amounts of slack between the right and left tubes, you can never get the diopter setting to stay exactly right. The side with more slack will always lag a bit behind the other side when focussing in one direction, and may be a bit ahead when focussing in the opposite direction, and this will cause a diopter setting discrepancy depending on which side of focus you came from.

Personally, I think that Swarovski's solution is a good engineering decision and works as intended, and the "unwanted side-effect" of uneven resistance is a small price to pay for knowing that the system will function properly for a very long time.

Kimmo

I've never quite been able to make sense of that cut-away. The focus knob is pulled out for diopter adjustment while the innards look to be still in focus mode. I think the diopter mechanism is largely hidden though, so I don't know.

The spring may well be used to prevent any and all "focus slop" between the two barrels, something that has come up in regards to Zeiss products of late. I've seen focus slop (where one barrel has a bit more play than the other) and it really bugs me.

If my theory is right, and Swaro put that spring in there to keep both barrels perfect--well, then thank you Swaro. I guess my eyes have about zero accomodation at this point so the barrels have to be exactly right.

I ain't no mechanical engineer though,
Mark

PS: Kimmo's got it. I've suspected it for quite a while. All this talk of uneven barrels in the Zeiss 8x32 HD, and even FL is proof of it. But the problem is fairly common I think. Incidentally, I don't think the problem actually has much to do with the diopter, except that with barrel slop the diopter can only fix things in one focus direction, or else you have to split the difference and live with a compromise in both directions.

Real cut-away photos?

Mark, thanks for the link. It seems to be a computer-generated image.
It would be interesting to see some photos taken on a real cut-away close up, at least of the focussing part, as i understood there was a real cut-away in Holland, right?

Anders

Binoseeker,
Yes there is a real cut-away in Holland and there are quite a few cut-aways of the first EL's in Holland as well.

Is there a spring somewhere in this cutaway of the Swarovski 8 x 42 SLC HD?

http://www.swarovskioptik.us/upload/media/media/90/SLC_HD_cut_mechanik_Schnitt[2314].jpg

Bob

Gijs van Ginkel, that´s great, hope someone will be kind to take some photos and upload here...

Anders

Amazing no one picked up on this, but oh well.

Mark

Kimmo,
I never noticed. You need to figure out how to make your posts come out in red! But that is a very smart observation. Now, people should complain if their SV DOESN'T exhibit the dreaded cw ccw difference!

Any idea what's the problem with the previous, for years, focus whipping boy, Leica?
Ron