Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/08/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 12:55 AM 8/3/97 -0400, Paul Schliesser wrote: <good stuff snipped> >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. Thanks, Paul, for a good comparison of the construction of the two bodies. My question: If electronic shutter and other components are cheaper *and* just as accurate *and* just as reliable *and* just as durable, why doesn't Leica make the switch? What price should Leitz expect us to pay for battery-independence? >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. Exactamundo. Chuck