[Leica] ten years behind

[DouglasMSharp at netscape.net (Douglas M. Sharp)]

Kit,
I really don't see that the "exclusivity"  you mention  would have 
damaged the name or reputation of Leica in the case
of lenses for other brands. Carl Zeiss have proved this with their 
alternative high quality lens range for Yashica/Contax,
Rollei 35mm and  in MF with Hasselblad and Rollei.
 I didn't mean to say that  Leica should produce a cheap range of 
lenses, perish the thought,
rather that they should make their lens quality available  for other 
marque  users. Which photographer wouldn't like to say
" I've got the best of both worlds" a Nikon F5,Contax RTS III, Canon, 
Minolta or whatever takes your fancy, with Leica optics.
Quality does have its price, no question about it.
Douglas


Kit McChesney schrieb:

>With all due respect, has it not occurred to anyone that perhaps Leica never
>desired to be a mass-market, high-volume brand? The cache of the
>brand--which is in a large measure an emotional intangible--lies in the
>exclusivity of it, just as with any other luxury brand. To Walmartize it
>would be to defeat the purpose. In that arena, they'd have gone out of
>business long ago, since they would have had to create products that were
>commodity items, and we know what a nasty word "commodity" is these days. It
>ranks up there with that other word, "outsource!" 
>
>Kit (kitmc@acmefoto.com)
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: lug-bounces+kitmc=acmefoto.com@leica-users.org
>[mailto:lug-bounces+kitmc=acmefoto.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Douglas
>M. Sharp
>Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 9:25 AM
>To: Leica Users Group
>Subject: [Leica] ten years behind
>
>Leica, built for the future with yesterdays technology !
>
>On the state of the art as represented by Leica cameras I can only agree 
>with Ted, but wasn't Leica always the world leader in
>high quality optics ? If they hadn't been so pig-headed with their 
>philosophy of "Leica lenses only for Leica cameras" they
>could have made a fortune producing for other mounts. After all the 
>camera body is only a box for holding the film
>and partly governing the amount of light which reaches it, it's the lens 
>(the German word "Objektiv" is a lot more descriptive)
>that does the real work of getting the quality of image  that the 
>photographer wants. This was admirably proved by the Bessa L,
>a lens with a camera on it.
>
>Douglas
>BTW  I personally hate the design of the R8 and R9, they may be 
>ergonomically designed but they look awful.
>
>  
>
>>Ted Grant wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>B. D. said:
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>>>>The bottom line is that most PEOPLE don't know that Leica ever 
>>>>>>>existed,
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>
>>>>or exists. Since at least the 1970s Leica has been a boutique brand 
>>>>in a
>>>>WalMart world.....<<<
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Leica were ten years behind all other SLR manufactures and to date 
>>>haven't
>>>caught up, let alone in the digital manufacturing of a digital 
>>>camera. Yep
>>>the digi back is coming? So are twelve blue moons in the southern 
>>>sky! If it
>>>works as they claim that's great, yes some folks will buy it, but at 
>>>what
>>>cost? It isn't like buying an amazing piece of Leica created glass.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>ted
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>  
>

-- 
Ihre bevorzugten Shops, hilfreiche Einkaufs-Hilfen und gro?artige 
Geschenk Ideen. Erleben Sie das Vergn?gen online einzukaufen mit 
Shop@Netscape! http://shopping.netscape.de/shopping/