Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/08/18

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Re: Re: Why M is so popular?
From: "Miro Jurcevic" <miroj@ozemail.com.au>
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 09:03:28 +1000
References: <B5C2C190.D8B8%maestro_logos@mac.com>

I did note that all the cameras I looked at were used. Some were extremely
low mileage with weekend shooters, others wer just in good shape. One of my
points was that dealers kept the prices high, never did CLA, and based the
notion of condition and value on the quality of the cosmetic impression. I
always ask if the camera had been serviced. I have sold almost all of my
cameras with a service report.

The significance of my assertion is on a sample of 15. Therefore the chances
that I am totally wrong is very low. Of course, my sample excludes any
cameras that cost the same price used as a new one.

> That is not to say the R cameras are problem-free. But claiming that such
a
> large proportion of R cameras produced is defective sounds absurd to me.
It
> just doesn't make much economic sense. All I can say is, in all
likelihood,
> some (i.e. Miro) have been relatively unlucky with the Rs. Small sample
> error, I presume.

Replies: Reply from "A.H.SCHMIDT" <horsts@primus.com.au> (Re: [Leica] Re: Re: Re: Why M is so popular?)
Reply from Ted Grant <tedgrant@home.com> ([Leica] WAS WAS Re: Why M is so popular? NOW MIRO R!)
In reply to: Message from Maestro Logos <maestro_logos@mac.com> (Re: [Leica] Re: Re: Why M is so popular?)