[Leica] less expensive or less quality?

[Guy Bennett <guybnt@idt.net>]

>Guy, why is it, that everybody ,when it comes to a less expensive Leica
>Camera,
>Talks about either cheap or lesser quality.
>
>When Leitz made more than 1 model  of cameras concurrently, they didn't make
>the lower priced models with a lower quality. These cameras had less
>functions.
>
>However the functions they had, where of as high a quality as the same
>functions on the more expensive models. Or are you trying to tell me, that a
>IIIf camera was of a lower quality than a IIf, or a M2 camera was of a lower
>quality, than the M3? . In the end, the less expensive M2 had more advanced
>features than the M3. Or are you trying to tell me,
>that the 50mm Elmars where of a lesser quality than a F2 lens, available
>at the
>same time.


horst,

your point is well made and well taken. i have certainly not forgotten that
the m2 was less expensive (though not of lesser quality) than the m3, that
the iif - indeed, the if - were the same thing to the iiif, nor that the
elmar lens was not as fast, and subsequently not as costly, as the
summarit, summicron, and others in production at the same time. my point
was made within the context of a number of posts to the lug over the past
week or so, most of which have focused on a konica hexar or cosina
viewfinder style camera as models of what leica should be doing to gain a
bigger market share. these cameras have caught people's attention because
they are cheap, compared to leica. for leica to attract camera buyers who
might otherwise purchase a hexar or cosina and thus make their presence
felt in that segment of the market, their price will have to come down
considerably. the hexar q.d. currently costs $539, the conica viewfinder
$249. i personally find it difficult to imagine a leica rangefinder camera
that could compete in that price range without some significant sacrifice
of quality.

my best,

guy