Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/01/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 10:51 AM 1/2/97 +0000, you wrote: >>=20 >> Anyway, wouldn=B4t it be strange if almost US$500 extra only got you=20 >> a different, however pretty, surface? > >Well, I think that is exactly what it is.=20 >With massive titanium you have more dent-resistance and other=20 >manufacturers use it for that reason even without letting it=20 >show up on the exterior (Nikon F3-Press). > >But with titanized brass I can't find any advantage in functionality=20 >at all. IMHO you just pay for a nicer look, that's all=20 >(If I were you I knew better occasions to throw my money in but=20 >if you really like that look I will be the last one to argue).=20 > Amen. I was very excited when the titanium M6 came out because of that metal's real advantages, and disappointed when I found out the titanium is cosmetic only. Nikon and Olympus, among others, have built cameras which had real titanium top and bottom plates, and it's disappointing that Leica couldn't do the same for $500. However, in their partial defense, I seem to recall that the camera was originally intended as a limited production collector's piece and got more popular than they expected (I'm not really sure about that; anyone else know?). Charles E. Love, Jr. CEL14@CORNELL.EDU