Re: [Leica] Thanks!! OT Contax G2: Cost

["AWSteg" <upstream1@mindspring.com>]

I will buy all the Leica M6's you have to offer with a 3 year warrantee at
$1,000. ( the price of the G2.)  I will also buy all the 21mm Leica lens's
with 3 year warrantee for $1,000 and so on. . with the exception of the 35mm
glass and the offerings of glass where Leica does have the edge.  The bang
for the buck is simply not the same but at a factor of about 2X. For my
money I can't see 2X the difference in the same offerings of glass.  If your
buying M6's for the price of G2's please tell us where?

To put it another way, I'll trade you a new G2 for a new M6. . .want me to
go on or is cost now a factor?  The fact is the G2 is not cheaper but less
expensive.

Al Stegmeyer
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Takeshi Hashimoto" <hashimoto.takeshi@mailcity.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Thanks!! OT Contax G2: Cost


> To put an end to this discussion (ahem!). If one chooses to buy a G2 and
what you really want is an M6, but you believe that "cost" is a big factor,
I say you're mistaken. The costs are close enough to be negigible. If you
buy a G2 because you prefer a G2, or prefer an M but cannot use an M, then
that's different. I'm not impugning the G2, only the idea that it's a
"cheaper" M6. It's neither cheaper nor the same sort of camera.
> --
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2000 17:29:57   john wrote:
> >Mark Rabiner wrote:
> >>
> >> Takeshi Hashimoto wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, 22 May 2000 08:49:27   John Collier wrote:
> >> > >You will be delighted to learn that the word "cost" does not have to
be
> >> > >confined to a strictly monetary definition. The space allotted and
the
> >> > >patience of the average leica-user forbears a detailed discussion.
Perhaps
> >> > >we could take this off list and amaze one another with a new nuance
of
> >> > >meaning and usage of this oh so useful word every day. We probably
could
> >> > >occupy ourselves thus for several weeks.
> >> > >
> >> > >Cheers
> >> > >
> >> > >John Collier ;-)
> >> >
> >> > What I meant was that all things being equal (which they're not) if
cost were to be the deciding factor, the difference was negligible. If, as
you point out, the M6 could not be used efficiently because of poor
eyesight, then that's something else again. It's not cost.
> >> >
> >> > >> From: "Takeshi Hashimoto" <hashimoto.takeshi@mailcity.com>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> What does this have to do with "cost".
> >> > >
> >> ><Snip>
> >>
> >> Yes and to make a small point:
> >> Every time you shot with your G2 a small part of your soul rots away.
> >> Until you left with a steaming hunk of steaming....DNA confusion.
> >> Leica M photography however is an uplifting experience in every way!
> >> Leica photographers are known to all of a sudden blink off into a
gleaming all
> >> knowing state of bliss!*
> >> But i don't wish to put too fine of a point on it!
> >> Mark :-) Rabiner
> >> *not the same as f8 and be there.
> >Oh My God!!!!!!!!!!! So now using your Leica can lead to an O----m. Holy
Crow.
> > This is a family e-mail group. Puleeeeze.  I am still sound of mind from
> >using a G2 and pure of heart from using an M Leica.
> >John
> >
>
>
> Get your FREE Email at http://mailcity.lycos.com
> Get your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://my.lycos.com