Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/09/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I sort of got both meanings from your original post Nathan. Yet market perceptions continually shift as corporations present new products. Canon and Nikon play leap frog with high ISO performance or a new lens release. Leica has gone from being the darling of photo journalists from its inception through to the 70's. When Nikon brought out the F Leica felt the need to respond; and they did in grand fashion with a beautiful machine. Leica then fell behind in the meter technology and other areas; while Nikon and Canon gained ground. But at this juncture Leica is playing at the pro level again. They're considered significant professional tools both in journalism and commercial fields. So - reconsidering filling the 24x36 DSLR hole between the M9 and S2 seems well worth the effort (to me and many others). (I realize I'm just a Leica lover spitt'n' into the wind) Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist On Sep 10, 2010, at 12:41 AM, Nathan Wajsman wrote: > George, I may have phrased it not clearly enough. Corporate profit is not > a criterion for us to purchase something, but it IS a criterion for the > company deciding whether to invest in the development of an R10.