Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/08/23

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Digilux?
From: "Sonny Carter" <sonc@sonc.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 12:15:06 -0700
References: <70.313953d9.2c78dbd8@aol.com>

Larry, there's a lot of that going on in the world today.  If you buy a
Mazda truck, it will probably be built by Ford in Mexico with a German
engine, and maybe a French Tranny.   If you buy an Isuzu pickup truck, rest
assured it was made by some us rednecks in Louisiana.

Leica has been having  P&S cameras made by Japanese companies (mostly
Panasonic)  for some years, and elements of the R cameras and some lenses
were made in Japan by various manufacturers.

I guess there's no answer your question of to what extent does Solms have to
be involved to call it a Leica is purely hypothetical.  There are some who
say if it wasn't made in Wetzlar it is not a true Leica, but they would be
discounting lots of nice Canadian made equipment.

If we follow your line, some Noctiluxes were made by General Motors, because
for a while they were the owners of the Midland plant where the light-sucker
was made.

'tis a hard question with probably no answer, but I do consider my Lika
Leica, Leica quality

Sonny
(who lived in Wetzlar, visited Solms, but has no actual Leica-made parts in
his construction.)
http://www.sonc.com





- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: <LRZeitlin@aol.com>
To: <leica-users-digest@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 8:01 AM
Subject: [Leica] Digilux?


> Question:
>
> I know of at least four different cameras, made by two manufacturers,
bearing
> the name Leica Digilux. One series, the Fuji made Digiluxes, were simply
the
> cosmetically altered Fuji Finepix 1700, 1700 Zoom, and 4800 cameras. The
other
> is the Panasonic DC5 variation. With the Fuji cameras, Leica didn't even
> claim responsibility for the lens. All they contributed was an expensive
brochure
> and the red Leica dot. Even the manual was printed in Japan. Leica claims
to
> have a hand in designing the Panasonic version but their touch seems very
light
> indeed.
>
> How much of an influence does Leica have to have in the design of a camera
to
> be truly regarded as a Leica? Does it make the lens? Does it make the
body?
> Does it simply lease the rights to the name? If the red dot falls off my
(Fuji)
> Leica Digilux Zoom, is it still a Leica?
>
> This is a question worthy of Philosophy 101. You know, like the famous
broken
> knife problem. If a knife blade breaks and you replace the blade, then the
> handle breaks and you replace the handle, is it the same knife?
>
> Larry Z
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

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

Replies: Reply from "animal" <s.jessurun95@chello.nl> ([Leica] re aim)
Reply from Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@pacbell.net> (Re: [Leica] Digilux?)
Reply from Mark Rabiner <mark@rabinergroup.com> (Re: [Leica] Digilux?)
In reply to: Message from LRZeitlin@aol.com ([Leica] Digilux?)