Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/01/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Pascal and Nathan: What you have to do to explain it to people is to put it into perspective. For example, when I bought my 400 2.8 it seemed like a lot of money. It is not a lot compared to other's hobbies. For example, it is less than the cost of a travel trailer, HD or BMW motorcyle, boats, and other such indulgences that are consider normal for middle class people. Regards, Robert At 01:12 PM 1/24/99 +0100, you wrote: >On 20-01-1999 08:26 Nathan Wajsman wrote: > >>As for money, from time to time people make an implication that the >>amateurs who buy Leica are rich dilletantes. Without revealing the exact >>numbers (it is seven-figure, but I get paid in Belgian Francs ;-) I can >>assure the LUG that I am not rich by any stretch of the imagination, and >>neither are the LUGgers I have met in person. It is a matter of >>priorities. > >Nathan: > >love that, well said and it's true! >It is really all a matter of setting personal priorities. I hate the >image of Leica owners as "rich (mostly middle-aged) & spoilt dilletantes" >whose main reason to buy into Leica gear is because of the perceived >"snobbish" name. This is what gives Leica a bad name with photographers >of other brands (but some of the latter are just plain jealous). >Happily, there are so many other people who are really in love with the >equipment, and they know how to use it! > >Pascal >NO ARCHIVE > >-------------------------------------------------------- >See my photo pages at http://members.xoom.com/cyberplace/ >-------------------------------------------------------- >An Apple a day keeps greedy Microsoft away ! >-------------------------------------------------------- ><<< PGP public key available on request >>> > > > > > >