Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/10/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> The following statement does not make sense to me??? > > >> I bought the Leica *because* it is a Leica, as much as I bought it > >> because of its qualities as a camera. Sometimes, I'd just > like a little > >> more camera and a little less Leica for my money. > > More gadgets? Less quality? Less serviceability? > > What does "less Leica" mean? > > Jim Allow me to wade in here....I think what is meant by less Leica is less price charged for the Red Dot. No one can challenge the fact that the M cameras are absolutely superb mechanical rangefinders, and that the optics are world class. On the other hand, from everything I have read and heard, the optics for the Contax G2 are also world class, and they are a fraction of the cost of the Leica lenses - which suggests that with the Leica one is paying for the name, for the fact that the product is made in a higher cost labor market - which is Leica's lookout, not ours, etc. As to the R cameras. Yes they are terrifically well made. Yes they are serviceable. Yes the optics are terrific. But are the optics enough MORE terrific than the top Canon and Nikon optics? If they were, I'd wager more working pros would use them than do, because there would be more of a demand for that quality. I think we on this list often lose sight of the fact that it is no longer 1954, and the photo equipment industry is no longer dominated by the Germans. Yes, Leicas are mythically wonderful cameras. But they are over-priced. :-)