Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/12/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The real issue is the expense of making a real rangefinder. The Minolta CLE wasn't that much cheaper than an M4, and that was a large part. I just looked at a G2 system last night. The finder (if you can call it that) hurts your eyes. Not to mention color-fringing that the edges, which is really proletarian in such an expensive camera. The same problem appears in their $1200 p/s with the foldout door (TVSII?). User interface is important, and the new Konica one should be pretty transparent for existing users. The other thing is that the Hexar RF, from what I have heard, is going to be 6000 total units (per year?), which is a number so small that the manufacturer will never achieve an economy of scale. At that rate, it will take them about fifteen years to make as many RFs as Leica has made M6s to *last year* (100,000+). It is my understanding (from a reliable source) that the new Hexar is hand-built, which in Japan would make it even more expensive. And if you think about the sheer variety of stuff that can be put on Leica M cameras, you get a lot wider system. It's sad that there's no TTL flash, but rangefinders aren't something you hook a lot of flash equipment to. Cheers Dante In a message dated 12/5/99 11:15:03 AM, bdcolen@earthlink.net writes: << A lot > >more expensive that the G2. Why do they think that their > camera's can fetch > >more money that Contax? Because - and this is only based on what I've read, not hands-on experience - the Konica is a real camera, while the G2 is a really snazy P&S with interchangable lenses. Don't forget, the Konica takes the M lenses - which means it gives you a motordriven, AE exposure, high shutter speed, higher sync speed, body to use with your M lenses. If those are feature you want, you're going to be willing to pay more for it than for a G2. I would think. B. D. </XMP> >>