RE: [Leica] lenses

[Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net>]

At 07:00 PM 9/5/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Eric, this is an erroneous statement..... No they do not cost the same, but
>not because of MORE  rejects, but rather because there are stricter limits

It is NOT an erroneous statement, because this is a reality. Leica rejected 
so many CL cameras, that Minolta gave up doing them. Zeiss rejected so many 
of their own Contax 80-200 f/4 lenses (which was a wonderful lens that 
could focus right down to the front element) that it cost 8-10 times the 
competition at the time. High rejection rates are well-known.

>Leica exists because of people on this list and others like  us...
>Passion.... and inexplicable dedication....   Otherwise we would all own
>Rebels and N100 and P+S .  The problem is to make a profit and keep the
>moniker and the customers....

This is true, but in many ways, this kind of market is growing. Leica 
should take advantage of that by marketing to the right people. Us and 
other potential customers, but they don't seem to be doing it yet.

>What Nikon lens costs $1700 for a 90 F2?   Sure the picture is "better", but
>so is having the better part of $1300 in your pocket too......

How many people buy cars that cost $30,000 to $50,000 who could get by with 
an $18,000 car? They do it because they like them, they can, or for a 
status symbol. Certainly on many levels rationality keeps people from 
spending money on Leicas as status symbol, when hardly anyone knows what 
Leica is. But I'm running into more and more people who do know these day. 
It's those of us who demand the best image on film that keep Leica alive. 
And photographers want them. But they don't buy them because the 
competition is so good. Leica needs to work on that.

Eric Welch
St. Joseph, MO

http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch

    My best work is often almost unconscious and occurs ahead of my ability 
to understand it. -Sam Abell; "Stay This Moment"