Re: [Leica] Re: Re: Re: Why M is so popular?

["Bill Larsen" <ohlen@sierratel.com>]

I do not understand this whole thread.  I have an R 6 and R
7, neither which sit on the shelf...but both which look
pristine.  I have never had any problem what so ever.  The
great thing about the R series is that used lens are a
relative bargain to the M series lenses. Oh, they were both
R cameras were bought used.

Perhaps you should consider giving up Leica and using other
brands and participating in other camera lists??

- -----Original Message-----
From: Miro Jurcevic <miroj@ozemail.com.au>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
<leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Friday, August 18, 2000 4:18 PM
Subject: [Leica] Re: Re: Re: Why M is so popular?


|I did note that all the cameras I looked at were used. Some
were extremely
|low mileage with weekend shooters, others wer just in good
shape. One of my
|points was that dealers kept the prices high, never did
CLA, and based the
|notion of condition and value on the quality of the
cosmetic impression. I
|always ask if the camera had been serviced. I have sold
almost all of my
|cameras with a service report.
|
|The significance of my assertion is on a sample of 15.
Therefore the chances
|that I am totally wrong is very low. Of course, my sample
excludes any
|cameras that cost the same price used as a new one.
|
|> That is not to say the R cameras are problem-free. But
claiming that such
|a
|> large proportion of R cameras produced is defective
sounds absurd to me.
|It
|> just doesn't make much economic sense. All I can say is,
in all
|likelihood,
|> some (i.e. Miro) have been relatively unlucky with the
Rs. Small sample
|> error, I presume.
|
|
|