Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Precisely. And have you noticed that a nice Contax S2 with a 50/1.4 can be > had for, oh, less than one quarter the cost of an M6 with a 50/1.4 or an > equivalent R system? Three thousand dollars is a lot of money, no matter > how you cut it! While you're at it, and as we all know, you can buy a G2 > with *three* fantastic lenses, lenses so good that shake from your heart > beat will render pointless any objective difference in resolution from the > best M lenses, for *less* than the price of one M6? Boggles my mind, just a > little bit. > > Still, I love my Leica stuff, I'm glad I have it, and I want more. Time to > check into a clinic! come come now, if the $$$$ are so important, get the Contax gear and subscribe to the CUG. Leica gear is not expensive because so much of it can be obtained second hand, and the M6 in particular is a camera for life. If it lasts 3 cameras, it can cost twice as much and still be a bargain. Leica do not charge over the odds, they keep costs down, but costs are high, the quality is high and the prices reflect that. You only have to search the archives to find horror at any attempt by Leica to cut the cost of production to realise that they are in a no win situation. But then, how is it possible that for similar quality we have to pay more? For me $$$$ are important and cost is due, of course, to the product quality but besides to the efficiency in producing something. Are someone charging anything more that I do not know? Or are they inefficient producing these goods? Excuse my rational approaching. Kind regards. Félix