Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/06/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dan Cardish wrote: > Perhaps not a $5 camera, but a $500 camera with a $500 lens can > certainly take a photograph which is easily comparable to a $2000 > Leica with a $2000 lens. Perhaps not at the level of testing which > Erwin puts his equipment through (but then again...), but certainly > comparable. This is beside the point entirely. It is a well know fact that getting 1% more "quality" in a photo costs megabucks. However, the $5 timepiece is likely to keep time better than the $65,000 watch. Therefore it has to be concluded that the primary function of expensive watches has nothing to do with time, but with looks; it's a piece of jewelry. Nothing more and nothing less. I can't see why this notion would upset anyone. Come on..... you can buy a Leica because you can take pictures with it, you wouldn't have taken with an SLR, and the quality is likely to be a little better than some other brand. By contrast, an expensive watch will not get you to work on time, more effectively than a cheapo piece of Taiwanese "junk". In fact, it's likely to do worse. Bernard