Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/08/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>I think you missed my point, Roger. No question the M6 is a better >long-term investment, but what is the justification for the immensely >higher initial cost? Where does the money *go*? Or is Kyocera >deliberately underpricing G's to horn in on the Leica market? One of the reasons for the proliferation of electronic cameras is that you can do many very precise things cheaper with electronics than you can mechanically. For instance, electronic shutters simply release the first curtain by means of an electromagnet, count off the time with a quartz clock and then release the second curtain, also by means of an electromagnet. This works the same no matter what speed you are shooting at. To do the same thing mechanically, you need springs, gears, cams, escapements and clutches, which need to be able to vary the exposure time from 1 second to 1/1000. It's a fiendishly complex mechanism. All of these small parts, mostly metal, must be precisely cast or machined. The rangefinder on the Ms is a whole conglomeraton of prisms, semi-reflective mirrors and lenses, not to mention all of the moving parts. Even the system for projecting the framelines into the viewfinder is pretty intricate. Many electronic parts need only superficial testing, can be individually tested prior to assembly, and the testing can be automated. The actual assembly is a matter of wiring self-contained electronic modules together. Each M6 needs a lot of individual, personal attention by several skilled technicans, in order to assemble, test and adjust it. The less automated the process is, and the more attention you need to give to individual units, the higher your costs will be. If you broke the two cameras down into their component parts, which do you think would be easiest to put back together? The M6 would be a lot like a mechanical watch. Much of the G would be circuit boards and small electric motors. I'm not saying the G is a bad camera; it's just the opposite and has exceptional lenses. I'm simply saying that I believe that the G bodies would be cheaper to produce than an M6, and that is the reason for the difference in price. They are also selling a lot more Contax G bodies per year than Leica is M6 bodies, so the per-unit costs would be lower even if they cost the same to produce. On the other hand, no matter how complex it is, one would think that Leica has recovered their R&D and tooling costs for the M-series bodies by now. It's been over 40 years, after all. I'm exagerating slightly to make a point, but consider: are the cheapest P&S cameras out there electronic auto cameras or manual mechanical ones? (Those disposable plastic cameras don't count!) - - Paul