Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/07/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I know little about road cars (apart from they are becoming too heavy :-). If you are referring to racing it is easier to achieve a smaller frontal area with a rear engine although with the rules written as they are there may be a technical reason for a front engined car again. AFAIK front engined front wheel drive cars are the most inexpensive to make and are pretty good dynamically as well for small lower powered models. Frank On 14 Jul, 2004, at 10:50, Peter Dzwig wrote: > Frank, > > as a matter of interest - and not totally irrelevant to this > discussion - was the ratio always so? I thought that one of the > reasons that contributed to the impact of rear-engined cars in the US > in the 60s was cost. > > Peter Dzwig > > Frank Dernie wrote: >> BD, >> I am an engineer with a reasonable knowledge of manufacturing >> processes and costs. The main reason for the high cost of Leica items >> is that their market is so small. Canon can recover the design and >> tooling costs of a lens over probably hundreds more units than Leica >> can. >> To put this in perspective a good quality road car production cost is >> about $4000, a Champ car (Indy car) about $400,000 and a Formula 1 >> (World Championship) car about $25,000,000. There is a considerable >> technological difference but the main reasons for these vast >> difference in costs are the quantity of units over which engineering >> and tooling costs are amortised. >> Leica lenses are sold in too few numbers to be inexpensive without >> bankrupting the company. And you have to pay a premium for the brand, >> like cars :-) >> Frank >> On 13 Jul, 2004, at 19:39, B. D. Colen wrote: >>> There is no question that the M and Rs are extremely well built - >>> the Ms >>> are probably the best built modern cameras. And the lenses have no >>> peers >>> in terms of build quality. However...Is the build quality of an MP >>> five >>> times better than that of a Bessa R2? I don't think so. Much better? >>> Absolutely! Twice as good? Not a doubt. Three times as good? >>> Probably? >>> But five times better? I seriously doubt it - and yet the MP is five >>> times the price. Is the build quality of the old Summilux 50 almost >>> five >>> times better than that of the Cosina Nokton 50 1.5? No chance in >>> hell. >>> Twice as good? Even that's a stretch, but I'll grant that. Image >>> quality? It's pretty much a dead heat. Yet the Summilux cost almost >>> five >>> times as much. Why? The red dot. >>> >>> Is the DigiII 33 % better built, or does it produce 33% better images >>> than the Panasonic version of the same camera? How could it possibly >>> - >>> it's the same damn camera but black and without a red dot. >>> >>> Leica equipment is stellar - but please don't tell me you're not >>> paying >>> a huge premium for the name and red dot. :-) >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org >>> [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf >>> Of >>> Peterson Arthur G NSSC >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 12:13 PM >>> To: 'Leica Users Group' >>> Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Digital M >>> >>> >>> >>> I do not think the prices of Leica cameras and lenses are not >>> "reasonable." They are built like no others, and the prices are >>> "reasonable" for what you get. You can buy many Toyotas, or even >>> several very fine Mercedes Benzes, for the price of a single >>> Rolls-Royce. >>> >>> Art Peterson >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Felix Lopez de Maturana [mailto:fmaturana@euskalnet.net] >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 11:51 >>> To: lug@leica-users.org >>> Subject: [Leica] Re: Digital M >>> >>> >>>> I don't know that I call fine-tuning lenses innovative, David. Yes, >>>> they produce stunning lenses; absolutely no question about it. But >>>> the >>>> reality is that Canon also produces some stunning lenses, and even >>>> Nikon produces a few. ;-) There's nothing really "innovative" about >>>> it. >>> >>> >>>> Now, if they found a way to produce stunning lenses at far lower >>>> cost, >>>> that would be innovative. ;-) >>> >>> >>> May be the problem of Leica is that, probably due to the size and >>> management of the company, Leica cannot achieve the production of >>> stunning lenses not at a lower cost, this may be mathematically >>> impossible, but at a reasonable price. A "standard" lens like the new >>> 50mm ASPH is merely out of reason at the price is offered. I can buy >>> two >>> excellent Canon L lenses for this price. Probably a problem of >>> efficacy >>> of the company that will disappear if this situation remains. >>> >>> Felix >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >