Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/08/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Marc: Thank you for correcting my assumption. Perhaps it is me, and not at all fair, but a Leica made in the Far East is not a Leica just as a Hasselblad made there is not a Hasselblad. I never owned an "R" series for that reason...again, totally not warranted as they were all built like tanks and very dependable. I have test driven the Lexus many times and I have tried to really like it. It is absolutely like velvet, but no soul and no character, again in my opinion. I use a Nikon F4s and a Pentax 645N. Both are very dependable and do everything that they are supposed to do and do it well but, they do not have the character and the soul and quality feel of a Leica or a Hasselblad. I am in love with quality and I cannot stand the thoughts of Leica or Hasselblad made anywhere except Germany and Sweden. Oh well! It won't make a hoot of a difference what any Lugger thinks as Leica will do what they think best suits their P&L and their investors. I think that we should pray a little. Thanks, BOB << >Leica thought that they >did the right thing when they commissioned Minolta to make the R series. This isn't quite what happened. Leitz and Minolta had been pooling research for some years prior to the R3, and the camera has a lot of Wetzlar technology contained in it. >>