Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/07/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a message dated 96-07-16 08:03:31 EDT, you write: << As to the lessening of quality in M cameras. Frankly, I don't see that. As great as the M3 is or was, one would be hard put to say that it is better in any meaningful way than the M6. Any comments abut price ought to be viewed in the context of inflation over the years. I really think that the M6 is probably no more expensive than the M3 in 1953. >> Bowtie: I agree about the statement of the M6 being just as fine as the M3. I have never had an M3, but I have compared the two and I certainly believe the M6 is every bit as fine in workmanship for practical puposes. At least, there is no glaringly obvious gap that is immediately obvious.....and I certainly wouldn't think the lack of a TTL meter in the M3 (actually, any on board meter) would make it worth the trade off. As far as the price issue is concerned, I would be interested to see a comparison of the original MSRP and selling prices of the M2, M3 and others in the Leica lineup from when they were introduced, with inflation factored in. Do any of you longtime users have any recollection of the new selling prices and dates on some of these? It would be interesting to compare. Maybe we would not see such a price disparity. I have to remember that we saw a great effective lowering (in real currency) of camera prices vis a vis other products in the late 70s and early 80s. When we compare prior years with inflation factoreed in, the current Leica stuff might not be so overpriced after all. JayPax@aol.com