Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Pascal <cyberdog@attglobal.net> wrote: > If you don't need/want absolute image quality, why invest in Leica? > ;-) Because I can. [:) right back at you] A Leica R holds little appeal to me. I can get "close enough" with my N**** SLR. A Leica M, on the other hand, is a different beast entirely. Smaller and easier to take with me than my N****. I'd differ over the term invest. When I bought my M, that's what the salesman said. "Welcome to the world of Leica. Enjoy your investment." In my mind, an investment is something that will probably give me more money than I put into it. Such as the stocks that allowed me to buy Leica in the first place. I see Leica as a giant blackhole, ready to suck up any funds I have to spare. :) As far as vices go, it's better than many. I was all set to buy a Contax G1 or G2, along with a Mamiya 7II. I'd get two rangefinders for the price of one Leica. What fool would chose to buy just one, especially when he already has a perfectly good 35mm system? If it's *absolute image quality* I was after, I'd have gone with large format. Rather, I went with convenience. A Leica M is dang convenient for me. And the quality is slightly better than using a coke bottle for a lens. :) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/