Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Mike Johnson wrote:
> But at the summit of the contest for "best" tactile
> and visual quality--the feel, the look, the sense of it--I just don't
> think it can be argued that some of the older equipment was more
> precise, better machined, more luxurious, and of better finish. Really,
> as I said before, the current 50mm f/2.8 Elmar-M and an original 50mm
> f/2.8 Elmar just clinch the point. Compare them side by side; it's
> self-evident. Optically the Elmar-M is better, yes, but in terms of
> build-quality it is just this side of shoddy by comparison.
>
Interesting viewpoint. I have often heard that the older Leica cameras
have a better finish than the M6 but what about the "titanium" option than
no one seems too interested in? Isn't this just a perfect argument that the
vast majority of Leica users aren't willing to pay large $$$ for
improvements in finish? Isn't Solms merely reacting to what we are asking
for?
No doubt older equipment might have a 'smoother' or 'more luxurious'
feel, but 'more precise' is a definable quanitity and the simple fact is
that even mass market items such as a Tamron Aspherical lens are machined to
much tighter tolerances than the best lens of the 1950's.
I have no doubt that if there were in fact a large consumer market for
cameras made of titanium/ceramic/rare earth alloy composite materials
machined to micron tolerances that Leica would produce such, this sort of
thing really isn't that difficult if cost is no object. Of course in this
market the M6 would be analogous to an Olympus Stylus epic, and perhaps the
most popular camera in the world.
Jonathan Borden