Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hoyen, I have on my wrist the Rolex my father bought in 1962 that he gave me in 1991. I consider this Rolex to be a better value for the money than any $30 quartz watch. How do Leica lenses fit into your analogy? Regards, Ray Hoyen Tsang wrote: > On Fri, 15 September 2000, Bmceowen@aol.com wrote: > > > > <SNIP> > > I expect only one thing from a watch -- to > > be able to look at it and know what time it is. Any watch that fails to > > perform this basic task is a piece of junk -- no matter what it costs . . . > > > > Bob (wears a Seiko quartz) McEowen > > Allow me to change Bob's statement to demonstrate an analogy: > > "I expect only one thing from a camera -- to be able to pick it up and take pictures with it. Any camera that fails to perform this basic task is a piece of junk -- no matter what it costs..." > > I think it is agreed on this list that the M6, or indeed any mechanical camera, can be off by as much as 1/3 a stop (or more) even in tiptop shape. By analogy, the best mechanical wristwatches are "allowed" by COSC chronometer standards to be off by -4 to +6 seconds a day in total variance. > > Leica M camera and Patek wristwatch... fine mechanical instruments... require periodic maintenance and are almost never 100% accurate... near infinite lifespan if properly cared for and maintained... potential heirlooms. Nikon F5 and Casio G-Shock... representatives of the digital age... nearly 100% accurate... use it up, throw it out, cuz something new's always around the corner... heirlooms, forget it... > > Hoyen > (Seiko Titanium Diver's Automatic, gaining 15 seconds per day) > > ----------------------------------------------- > FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com > Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com