Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [The Lubitel 166 Club] Camera types

Expand Messages
  • martin_doc_holiday
    I have a Retinette 1A, and considerably it is the same as the 1B, only without the meter. Indeed it has two windows at the front of the top plate, one for the
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 1, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I have a Retinette 1A, and considerably it is the same as the 1B, only
      without the meter. Indeed it has two windows at the front of the top
      plate, one for the viewfinder and one that has only a grayish plastic
      blind behind it - a RF dummy. So a person who sees only an image of
      the camera on the web could think this is a true RF.
      Perhaps Kodak has made just only one type of top plate, for RF
      (Retina?) and non RF versions.

      Martin L

      --- In thelubitel166club@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Y Javier"
      <nikitakat@e...> wrote:
      > That's in the same light as the previous discussion about what makes
      a TLR.
      >
      > For some reason, any camera with a separate, optical viewfinder is
      considered as a rangefinder- and some people even classify AF and PS
      under the same category. The general reason for this blanket
      classification is simple- the 35mm world is divided between SLR and
      non-SLR, and any non-SLR would be a rangefinder. The
      oversimplification of the categories lead to this.
      >
      > A non-RF (at least in the real sense) with an optical viewfinder (be
      it zone focus, or focus free, or even a P&S) really looks like a
      rangefinder camera. That ubiquitous rectangular window finder above
      the lenses of are found in all of these cameras- be they *true* RF
      like a Leica or Yashica G, or a zone-focusing one like the Smena 8m or
      even a no-focus one like those $5 plastic, made-in-Taiwan affairs. To
      an untrained eye or mind, this rectangular finder is enough to make a
      camera an rf- never mind if that window is really just a plastic cutout.
      >
      > Note too that the term "RF" is really taken loosely, with no real
      regard about what it really means. It is applied to many cameras
      which happen to have separate optical viewfinders without really
      considering what sort of viewfinder optics these camera really have.
      Maybe it's a case of convenience, or perhaps a lack of better
      terminologies, or just a case of plain ignorance.
      >
      > This is exactly my point about the TLR/non-TLR/pseudo-TLR/TLR-like
      issue. Many references, apparently base their descriptions on how a
      camera looks like or how it is laid out. However some references who
      have been into particular cameras do accurately classify cameras not
      only by appearance, but more importantly, by design. Given the
      number of cameras around, it is very likely that many of those tasked
      to identify them for their lists rely on popular description, or even
      by outward appearance.
      >
      > Jay
      >
      > thelubitel166club@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      >
      > >Just when you thought you knew what a rangefinder was,
      > >there seems to be some confusion concerning Kodak
      > >Retinettes. I know this is off topic, but
      > >Lubitellists seem to know a lot, so what the heck?
      > >
      > >If no one minds:
      > >
      > >I have a Kodak Retinette 1B. It's a nice camera, a
      > >cheap version of the revered Retina, but it's not a
      > >cheap camera. It's a retinette with a less expensive
      > >fixed lens and no rangefinder mechanism. It uses zone
      > >focus and has stops in the focus wheel for certain
      > >distances to make it easy. I like the camera a lot.
      > >Nice feel, nice pictures.
      > >
      > >Anyway, there's a guy with one on ebay and he has it
      > >listed as a rangefinder. I told him he was wrong; he
      > >told me I was wrong.
      > >
      > >To make matters worse, I went to the oz camera site
      > >and a cite called "living image" or something, just
      > >google retinette 1b and you'll get to them both. Both
      > >of these sites describe the 1b as a rangefinder with a
      > >match needle.
      > >
      > >Now the needle in the viewfinder in my camera is from
      > >a built in Gossen exposure meter (and works great even
      > >after 40 years, by the way).
      > >
      > >This camera to me a a zone focuser. The 1B manual
      > >(also easily found on line) contains instructions on
      > >zone focusing. The manual uses no terms such as
      > >rangefinder and any derivatives. On top of that, I
      > >have tons of rangefinders and all are "split image."
      > >
      > >My question: Is there really some way that camera
      > >makers could correctly call a zone focus camera a
      > >rangefinder? is there some sort of range finder that
      > >is not a split image range finder?
      > >
      > >The camera does have two windows in front, and looks
      > >like a range finder, but trust me, there are no
      > >rangefinder guts in there. When I bought the camera I
      > >thought it was a range finder. Luckily, I got it
      > >cheap, and I like the camera anyway. It's good to
      > >keep your zone focus skills sharp anyway. The one
      > >window is a bright viewfinder with a reflective flame
      > >that glows nicely when you shoot.
      > >
      > >Who's right?
      > >
      > >thanks
      > >
      > >__________________________________
      > >Do you Yahoo!?
      > >Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
      > >http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >To visit your group on the web, go to:
      > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thelubitel166club/
      > >
      > >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > thelubitel166club-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > >
      > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
      > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      > _______________________________________
      > EDSAMAIL. Internet the way YOU WANT IT.
      > www.edsamail.com.ph
    • Joseph Long
      That grayish plastic blind does have the frame outline on it, so it does do something. But I agree, I think that the top plate comes from a Retina just to
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 2, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        That grayish plastic blind does have the frame outline
        on it, so it does do something. But I agree, I think
        that the top plate comes from a Retina just to make
        the cameras look similar--perhaps a message from Kodak
        that there was no shame in buying a Retinette because
        at least it looks like its more expensive cousin.

        Either way, I like the Retinette whether its an RF
        dummy or not.

        I admit, I was fooled when I bought it. I even took
        the top cover off after I bought it because I thought
        that the rangefinder was broken. To my surprise, no
        rangefinder in there!

        Good thing I only paid $10 for it. I've since learned
        to use it, and I find it very easy and reliable. It's
        also allowed me to relax and not be such a focus
        freak. The pictures almost always come out clear.
        The ones I do miss I miss because I forget to
        focus--something that doesn't happen with a "true" RF.

        Joseph


        --- martin_doc_holiday <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
        wrote:
        > I have a Retinette 1A, and considerably it is the
        > same as the 1B, only
        > without the meter. Indeed it has two windows at the
        > front of the top
        > plate, one for the viewfinder and one that has only
        > a grayish plastic
        > blind behind it - a RF dummy. So a person who sees
        > only an image of
        > the camera on the web could think this is a true RF.
        > Perhaps Kodak has made just only one type of top
        > plate, for RF
        > (Retina?) and non RF versions.
        >
        > Martin L
        >
        > --- In thelubitel166club@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Y
        > Javier"
        > <nikitakat@e...> wrote:
        > > That's in the same light as the previous
        > discussion about what makes
        > a TLR.
        > >
        > > For some reason, any camera with a separate,
        > optical viewfinder is
        > considered as a rangefinder- and some people even
        > classify AF and PS
        > under the same category. The general reason for
        > this blanket
        > classification is simple- the 35mm world is divided
        > between SLR and
        > non-SLR, and any non-SLR would be a rangefinder.
        > The
        > oversimplification of the categories lead to this.
        > >
        > > A non-RF (at least in the real sense) with an
        > optical viewfinder (be
        > it zone focus, or focus free, or even a P&S) really
        > looks like a
        > rangefinder camera. That ubiquitous rectangular
        > window finder above
        > the lenses of are found in all of these cameras- be
        > they *true* RF
        > like a Leica or Yashica G, or a zone-focusing one
        > like the Smena 8m or
        > even a no-focus one like those $5 plastic,
        > made-in-Taiwan affairs. To
        > an untrained eye or mind, this rectangular finder is
        > enough to make a
        > camera an rf- never mind if that window is really
        > just a plastic cutout.
        > >
        > > Note too that the term "RF" is really taken
        > loosely, with no real
        > regard about what it really means. It is applied to
        > many cameras
        > which happen to have separate optical viewfinders
        > without really
        > considering what sort of viewfinder optics these
        > camera really have.
        > Maybe it's a case of convenience, or perhaps a lack
        > of better
        > terminologies, or just a case of plain ignorance.
        > >
        > > This is exactly my point about the
        > TLR/non-TLR/pseudo-TLR/TLR-like
        > issue. Many references, apparently base their
        > descriptions on how a
        > camera looks like or how it is laid out. However
        > some references who
        > have been into particular cameras do accurately
        > classify cameras not
        > only by appearance, but more importantly, by design.
        > Given the
        > number of cameras around, it is very likely that
        > many of those tasked
        > to identify them for their lists rely on popular
        > description, or even
        > by outward appearance.
        > >
        > > Jay
        > >
        > > thelubitel166club@yahoogroups.com wrote:
        > >
        > > >Just when you thought you knew what a rangefinder
        > was,
        > > >there seems to be some confusion concerning Kodak
        > > >Retinettes. I know this is off topic, but
        > > >Lubitellists seem to know a lot, so what the
        > heck?
        > > >
        > > >If no one minds:
        > > >
        > > >I have a Kodak Retinette 1B. It's a nice camera,
        > a
        > > >cheap version of the revered Retina, but it's not
        > a
        > > >cheap camera. It's a retinette with a less
        > expensive
        > > >fixed lens and no rangefinder mechanism. It uses
        > zone
        > > >focus and has stops in the focus wheel for
        > certain
        > > >distances to make it easy. I like the camera a
        > lot.
        > > >Nice feel, nice pictures.
        > > >
        > > >Anyway, there's a guy with one on ebay and he has
        > it
        > > >listed as a rangefinder. I told him he was
        > wrong; he
        > > >told me I was wrong.
        > > >
        > > >To make matters worse, I went to the oz camera
        > site
        > > >and a cite called "living image" or something,
        > just
        > > >google retinette 1b and you'll get to them both.
        > Both
        > > >of these sites describe the 1b as a rangefinder
        > with a
        > > >match needle.
        > > >
        > > >Now the needle in the viewfinder in my camera is
        > from
        > > >a built in Gossen exposure meter (and works great
        > even
        > > >after 40 years, by the way).
        > > >
        > > >This camera to me a a zone focuser. The 1B
        > manual
        > > >(also easily found on line) contains instructions
        > on
        > > >zone focusing. The manual uses no terms such as
        > > >rangefinder and any derivatives. On top of that,
        > I
        > > >have tons of rangefinders and all are "split
        > image."
        > > >
        > > >My question: Is there really some way that
        > camera
        > > >makers could correctly call a zone focus camera a
        > > >rangefinder? is there some sort of range finder
        > that
        > > >is not a split image range finder?
        > > >
        > > >The camera does have two windows in front, and
        > looks
        > > >like a range finder, but trust me, there are no
        > > >rangefinder guts in there. When I bought the
        > camera I
        > > >thought it was a range finder. Luckily, I got it
        > > >cheap, and I like the camera anyway. It's good
        > to
        > > >keep your zone focus skills sharp anyway. The
        > one
        > > >window is a bright viewfinder with a reflective
        > flame
        > > >that glows nicely when you shoot.
        > > >
        > > >Who's right?
        > > >
        > > >thanks
        > > >
        > > >__________________________________
        > > >Do you Yahoo!?
        > > >Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool.
        > Try it!
        > > >http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
        > > >
        > > >To visit your group on the web, go to:
        > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thelubitel166club/
        > > >
        > > >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > > > thelubitel166club-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > > >
        > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
        > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > _______________________________________
        > > EDSAMAIL. Internet the way YOU WANT IT.
        > > www.edsamail.com.ph
        >
        >


        __________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
        http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
      • Joseph Long
        Someone needs to write a book. I ve never looked at the McKeown s. Does that offer any help? This (non) classification nonsense causes quite a bit of wasted
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 2, 2004
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Someone needs to write a book. I've never looked at
          the McKeown's. Does that offer any help? This (non)
          classification nonsense causes quite a bit of wasted
          trouble. I agree that cameras should be classified
          with design being one of several defining attributes,
          lest one end up placing a pair of binoculars in the
          same class as a TLR, or a telescope with an SLR.

          --- Jay Y Javier <nikitakat@...> wrote:
          > That's in the same light as the previous discussion
          > about what makes a TLR.
          >
          > For some reason, any camera with a separate, optical
          > viewfinder is considered as a rangefinder- and some
          > people even classify AF and PS under the same
          > category. The general reason for this blanket
          > classification is simple- the 35mm world is divided
          > between SLR and non-SLR, and any non-SLR would be a
          > rangefinder. The oversimplification of the
          > categories lead to this.
          >
          > A non-RF (at least in the real sense) with an
          > optical viewfinder (be it zone focus, or focus free,
          > or even a P&S) really looks like a rangefinder
          > camera. That ubiquitous rectangular window finder
          > above the lenses of are found in all of these
          > cameras- be they *true* RF like a Leica or Yashica
          > G, or a zone-focusing one like the Smena 8m or even
          > a no-focus one like those $5 plastic, made-in-Taiwan
          > affairs. To an untrained eye or mind, this
          > rectangular finder is enough to make a camera an rf-
          > never mind if that window is really just a plastic
          > cutout.
          >
          > Note too that the term "RF" is really taken loosely,
          > with no real regard about what it really means. It
          > is applied to many cameras which happen to have
          > separate optical viewfinders without really
          > considering what sort of viewfinder optics these
          > camera really have. Maybe it's a case of
          > convenience, or perhaps a lack of better
          > terminologies, or just a case of plain ignorance.
          >
          > This is exactly my point about the
          > TLR/non-TLR/pseudo-TLR/TLR-like issue. Many
          > references, apparently base their descriptions on
          > how a camera looks like or how it is laid out.
          > However some references who have been into
          > particular cameras do accurately classify cameras
          > not only by appearance, but more importantly, by
          > design. Given the number of cameras around, it is
          > very likely that many of those tasked to identify
          > them for their lists rely on popular description, or
          > even by outward appearance.
          >
          > Jay
          >
          > thelubitel166club@yahoogroups.com wrote:
          >
          > >Just when you thought you knew what a rangefinder
          > was,
          > >there seems to be some confusion concerning Kodak
          > >Retinettes. I know this is off topic, but
          > >Lubitellists seem to know a lot, so what the heck?
          > >
          > >If no one minds:
          > >
          > >I have a Kodak Retinette 1B. It's a nice camera, a
          > >cheap version of the revered Retina, but it's not a
          > >cheap camera. It's a retinette with a less
          > expensive
          > >fixed lens and no rangefinder mechanism. It uses
          > zone
          > >focus and has stops in the focus wheel for certain
          > >distances to make it easy. I like the camera a
          > lot.
          > >Nice feel, nice pictures.
          > >
          > >Anyway, there's a guy with one on ebay and he has
          > it
          > >listed as a rangefinder. I told him he was wrong;
          > he
          > >told me I was wrong.
          > >
          > >To make matters worse, I went to the oz camera site
          > >and a cite called "living image" or something, just
          > >google retinette 1b and you'll get to them both.
          > Both
          > >of these sites describe the 1b as a rangefinder
          > with a
          > >match needle.
          > >
          > >Now the needle in the viewfinder in my camera is
          > from
          > >a built in Gossen exposure meter (and works great
          > even
          > >after 40 years, by the way).
          > >
          > >This camera to me a a zone focuser. The 1B manual
          > >(also easily found on line) contains instructions
          > on
          > >zone focusing. The manual uses no terms such as
          > >rangefinder and any derivatives. On top of that, I
          > >have tons of rangefinders and all are "split
          > image."
          > >
          > >My question: Is there really some way that camera
          > >makers could correctly call a zone focus camera a
          > >rangefinder? is there some sort of range finder
          > that
          > >is not a split image range finder?
          > >
          > >The camera does have two windows in front, and
          > looks
          > >like a range finder, but trust me, there are no
          > >rangefinder guts in there. When I bought the
          > camera I
          > >thought it was a range finder. Luckily, I got it
          > >cheap, and I like the camera anyway. It's good to
          > >keep your zone focus skills sharp anyway. The one
          > >window is a bright viewfinder with a reflective
          > flame
          > >that glows nicely when you shoot.
          > >
          > >Who's right?
          > >
          > >thanks
          > >
          > >__________________________________
          > >Do you Yahoo!?
          > >Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool.
          > Try it!
          > >http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >Yahoo! Groups Links
          > >
          > >To visit your group on the web, go to:
          > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thelubitel166club/
          > >
          > >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          > > thelubitel166club-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > >
          > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
          > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          > _______________________________________
          > EDSAMAIL. Internet the way YOU WANT IT.
          > www.edsamail.com.ph
          >


          __________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
          http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
        • martin_doc_holiday
          Yep, you are right. I investigated the camera one more time. That plastic blind has a function, supposedly a diffusor to let some light in. As far I can see
          Message 4 of 5 , Feb 2, 2004
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Yep, you are right. I investigated the camera one more time. That
            plastic blind has a function, supposedly a diffusor to let some light in.
            As far I can see from the front of the actual viewfinder, there is
            inside a mirror (half transparent?). I think this bears the frame that
            is mirrored into the viewfinder image.
            If I shade the plastic blind, the frame disappears.

            Martin L

            --- In thelubitel166club@yahoogroups.com, Joseph Long <jos_long@y...>
            wrote:
            > That grayish plastic blind does have the frame outline
            > on it, so it does do something. But I agree, I think
            > that the top plate comes from a Retina just to make
            > the cameras look similar--perhaps a message from Kodak
            > that there was no shame in buying a Retinette because
            > at least it looks like its more expensive cousin.
            >
            > Either way, I like the Retinette whether its an RF
            > dummy or not.
            >
            > I admit, I was fooled when I bought it. I even took
            > the top cover off after I bought it because I thought
            > that the rangefinder was broken. To my surprise, no
            > rangefinder in there!
            >
            > Good thing I only paid $10 for it. I've since learned
            > to use it, and I find it very easy and reliable. It's
            > also allowed me to relax and not be such a focus
            > freak. The pictures almost always come out clear.
            > The ones I do miss I miss because I forget to
            > focus--something that doesn't happen with a "true" RF.
            >
            > Joseph
            >
            >
            > --- martin_doc_holiday <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
            > wrote:
            > > I have a Retinette 1A, and considerably it is the
            > > same as the 1B, only
            > > without the meter. Indeed it has two windows at the
            > > front of the top
            > > plate, one for the viewfinder and one that has only
            > > a grayish plastic
            > > blind behind it - a RF dummy. So a person who sees
            > > only an image of
            > > the camera on the web could think this is a true RF.
            > > Perhaps Kodak has made just only one type of top
            > > plate, for RF
            > > (Retina?) and non RF versions.
            > >
            > > Martin L
            > >
            > > --- In thelubitel166club@yahoogroups.com, "Jay Y
            > > Javier"
            > > <nikitakat@e...> wrote:
            > > > That's in the same light as the previous
            > > discussion about what makes
            > > a TLR.
            > > >
            > > > For some reason, any camera with a separate,
            > > optical viewfinder is
            > > considered as a rangefinder- and some people even
            > > classify AF and PS
            > > under the same category. The general reason for
            > > this blanket
            > > classification is simple- the 35mm world is divided
            > > between SLR and
            > > non-SLR, and any non-SLR would be a rangefinder.
            > > The
            > > oversimplification of the categories lead to this.
            > > >
            > > > A non-RF (at least in the real sense) with an
            > > optical viewfinder (be
            > > it zone focus, or focus free, or even a P&S) really
            > > looks like a
            > > rangefinder camera. That ubiquitous rectangular
            > > window finder above
            > > the lenses of are found in all of these cameras- be
            > > they *true* RF
            > > like a Leica or Yashica G, or a zone-focusing one
            > > like the Smena 8m or
            > > even a no-focus one like those $5 plastic,
            > > made-in-Taiwan affairs. To
            > > an untrained eye or mind, this rectangular finder is
            > > enough to make a
            > > camera an rf- never mind if that window is really
            > > just a plastic cutout.
            > > >
            > > > Note too that the term "RF" is really taken
            > > loosely, with no real
            > > regard about what it really means. It is applied to
            > > many cameras
            > > which happen to have separate optical viewfinders
            > > without really
            > > considering what sort of viewfinder optics these
            > > camera really have.
            > > Maybe it's a case of convenience, or perhaps a lack
            > > of better
            > > terminologies, or just a case of plain ignorance.
            > > >
            > > > This is exactly my point about the
            > > TLR/non-TLR/pseudo-TLR/TLR-like
            > > issue. Many references, apparently base their
            > > descriptions on how a
            > > camera looks like or how it is laid out. However
            > > some references who
            > > have been into particular cameras do accurately
            > > classify cameras not
            > > only by appearance, but more importantly, by design.
            > > Given the
            > > number of cameras around, it is very likely that
            > > many of those tasked
            > > to identify them for their lists rely on popular
            > > description, or even
            > > by outward appearance.
            > > >
            > > > Jay
            > > >
            > > > thelubitel166club@yahoogroups.com wrote:
            > > >
            > > > >Just when you thought you knew what a rangefinder
            > > was,
            > > > >there seems to be some confusion concerning Kodak
            > > > >Retinettes. I know this is off topic, but
            > > > >Lubitellists seem to know a lot, so what the
            > > heck?
            > > > >
            > > > >If no one minds:
            > > > >
            > > > >I have a Kodak Retinette 1B. It's a nice camera,
            > > a
            > > > >cheap version of the revered Retina, but it's not
            > > a
            > > > >cheap camera. It's a retinette with a less
            > > expensive
            > > > >fixed lens and no rangefinder mechanism. It uses
            > > zone
            > > > >focus and has stops in the focus wheel for
            > > certain
            > > > >distances to make it easy. I like the camera a
            > > lot.
            > > > >Nice feel, nice pictures.
            > > > >
            > > > >Anyway, there's a guy with one on ebay and he has
            > > it
            > > > >listed as a rangefinder. I told him he was
            > > wrong; he
            > > > >told me I was wrong.
            > > > >
            > > > >To make matters worse, I went to the oz camera
            > > site
            > > > >and a cite called "living image" or something,
            > > just
            > > > >google retinette 1b and you'll get to them both.
            > > Both
            > > > >of these sites describe the 1b as a rangefinder
            > > with a
            > > > >match needle.
            > > > >
            > > > >Now the needle in the viewfinder in my camera is
            > > from
            > > > >a built in Gossen exposure meter (and works great
            > > even
            > > > >after 40 years, by the way).
            > > > >
            > > > >This camera to me a a zone focuser. The 1B
            > > manual
            > > > >(also easily found on line) contains instructions
            > > on
            > > > >zone focusing. The manual uses no terms such as
            > > > >rangefinder and any derivatives. On top of that,
            > > I
            > > > >have tons of rangefinders and all are "split
            > > image."
            > > > >
            > > > >My question: Is there really some way that
            > > camera
            > > > >makers could correctly call a zone focus camera a
            > > > >rangefinder? is there some sort of range finder
            > > that
            > > > >is not a split image range finder?
            > > > >
            > > > >The camera does have two windows in front, and
            > > looks
            > > > >like a range finder, but trust me, there are no
            > > > >rangefinder guts in there. When I bought the
            > > camera I
            > > > >thought it was a range finder. Luckily, I got it
            > > > >cheap, and I like the camera anyway. It's good
            > > to
            > > > >keep your zone focus skills sharp anyway. The
            > > one
            > > > >window is a bright viewfinder with a reflective
            > > flame
            > > > >that glows nicely when you shoot.
            > > > >
            > > > >Who's right?
            > > > >
            > > > >thanks
            > > > >
            > > > >__________________________________
            > > > >Do you Yahoo!?
            > > > >Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool.
            > > Try it!
            > > > >http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links
            > > > >
            > > > >To visit your group on the web, go to:
            > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thelubitel166club/
            > > > >
            > > > >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > > > > thelubitel166club-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            > > > >
            > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
            > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > >
            > > > _______________________________________
            > > > EDSAMAIL. Internet the way YOU WANT IT.
            > > > www.edsamail.com.ph
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            > __________________________________
            > Do you Yahoo!?
            > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
            > http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.