Re: Leicasophisms Re: [Leica] Did Leica miss the boat on the M7 viewfinder?

[SthRosner@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/5/02 7:10:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, dante@umich.edu 
writes:

> the only justification for having a Leica (a very expensive,
>  highly depreciable and relatively primitive instrument) is that it adds
>  something to your photography in some way: a lens with some palpable
>  characteristic, a size, weight or noise consideration, or a need for
>  absolute reliability. 

....excellent analysis, EXCEPT, depreciation. It may well no longer be as 
true as it once was, but given the persistent inflation western society has 
experienced since WWII, past history suggests the opposite. I bought a new M4 
in June 1967 for $288. I can sell that camera today for $1,500. When original 
M4 producion had ended in, I believe, 1972, I bought a new M4 in St. Croix 
for $298. Four years ago on consignment, Stan Tamarkin sold that camera, 
still new and unused in original box with all papers, for $4,200. Last year I 
sold a mint 1965 era 35/2 8-glass Summicron, mint in original box that cost 
$174. new, for $1,500. Admittedly, there is a collector market that distorts 
prices, but among the least depreciable manufactured goods in the world have 
been Leica cameras and lenses.

I would suggest, as an aside, that there is an impalpable characteristic of 
Leicas and Leica optics that Dante appears not to value - and that is 
certainly his prerogative - and that is the sense of quality that derives 
from the product. This has two aspects: one, that he should appreciate, is 
the very real tactile sense that translates into a different "feel" that 
characterizes Leitz and Leica equipment. Two, the intangible "aura," the sort 
of magical talismanic quality the Leicas have for some, but ny no means all, 
users.

Fin.

Seth        LaK 9  
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html