Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/07/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 08:42 PM 7/15/96 -0700, you wrote: >At 10:35 PM 7/14/96 -0400, you wrote: > >>price. The final 5% ALWAYS triples or quadruples the price. >> >>Leica costs money. Zeiss costs money. Rollei costs money. Quality costs >>money -- if you want junk, then buy cheap. >> > >Marc, > >That is the point. Well said. > >=================== >Eric Welch >Grants Pass (OR) Daily Courier >NPPA Region 11 JIB chair > >Diplomacy: Say nice doggie until you find a *BIG* stick > We need to be careful here. First, I would hardly call top-line Nikon and Canon 35 or Mamiya MF "junk." There aren't even always such huge price differentials. More important, as I have already said, the price differentials are sometimes based upon differences in size of production run. In addition, such differentials can be based upon old-fashioned hand craftsmanship as opposed to more modern production lines, as well as the different costs involved in making electronic vs. manual equipment. The point is that *these* differences don't *necessarily* translate into improved on-film performance--though there are other qualities that attract us to the higher priced goods. Second, I smell a whiff of racism in this sort of statement. Eric pointed out earlier that it's objectionable to use the term "Jap." But entirely too many Leica and Hasselblad fans carry with them the assumption that anything European must be better than anything Japanese (witness the debate about the origins of Leica zooms). Nonsense! Even if you don't like Canon and Nikon's auto-everything pro SLR's, any Leica rangefinder lover who cannot appreciate a Mamiya 6/7 ought to look at his/her attitudes! Charles E. Love, Jr. 517 Warren Place Ithaca, New York 14850 607-272-7338 CEL14@CORNELL.EDU