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 03:03 PM 7/16/96 -0400, you wrote: >This misses my point. I was replying to someone who used the M6-J's >scarceness to prove that Leicas were in high demand. Substitute "M6" for >"M6-J" and the point is still the same--the fact that Leica "can't make M6s >fast enough to meet the demand" does not prove that their sales are >sufficient to support the upgrading and technical innovation Leica needs to >take up--let alone make any money. Leica is making money. Their 1994 reciptes after expenses was about 180 Million DM. Not bad for such a small company. And their IPO is going to raise money for research and upgrading. So said the London Financial Times. >BTW, I think a CL type camera would be a bad mistake, especially if it is >somewhat incompatible with the M system as the old one was. Just continue >the M6, and bring out an M7 with autoexposure and more sophisticated >metering (to do aperture preferred and spot metering would require no >changes to the lenses). Remember how the M sales took off when Leica >finally brought out the M6, with the M4's virtues AND TTL metering? Who's >to say that wouldn't happen with an M7? Good point. I don't think it will be incompatible. It's just going to be a less expensive camera with more automation for the M system. BTW, I know several people who have traded in their G1s. Mabye they're too new to fill shutterbug just yet, but when the G2 comes out, watch their prices drop for used ones! =================== Eric Welch Grants Pass (OR) Daily Courier NPPA Region 11 JIB chair (D)inner not ready: (A)bort (R)etry (P)izza.