LEICA D VARIO-ELMARIT 14-50mm/F2.8-3.5 lens— NUMBERS WEARING OFF ALREADY?

[philipotto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After the talk of numbers wearing off the lens barrel of the Digilux 2 and LC1, and after experiencing a bit number fade myself, I found this photo ammusing. Where is the 1 in 14?

[ATTACH]14096[/ATTACH]

[ho_co]

Sharp eye, Philip!

 

I guess if you don't put it on, it won't fade!

 

--HC

[spylaw4]

If it hasn't been put on in the first place - what price Panasonic quality control? I would not expect this on a lens supplied with a D3!

[Enrique Santa]

Do you know if it´s avaible only the lens? and where?. I´m thinking in a olympus e400 and

LEICA D VARIO-ELMARIT 14-50mm/F2.8-3.5

[terrycioni]

If it hasn't been put on in the first place - what price Panasonic quality control? I would not expect this on a lens supplied with a D3!

 

Given the comments being made about the banding/magenta issues of the M8 - one could question Leica QC as opposed to Panasonic QC (the preception that Leica is somehow perfect is interesting). I have had the L1 (on loan) for nearly a month now and all the the numbering is intact and the camera operates as specified.... I hope to have a D3 in the next week - to that end I can only hope it is up to spec or better than the L1.

 

Kindest Regards. Terry.

[farnz]

It's obvious what's happened: Pana ran out of white 1's and had to use black 1's instead

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When Leitz Midland produced the KE-7A for the US (for NASA as I recall), one of the bodies was engraved "CAMERA, STILL PICTUPE KE-7A." (Should have been 'PICTURE,' of course.)

 

That meant that a camera already in such a small quantity run as to become a collectible overnight had one sample worth tremendously more.

 

The 'numeric engraving assembly' missed a stroke, just like here. That was before we knew how much cooler it would be to say 'digital' instead of 'numeric.'

 

--HC