[Leica] DMR mk II ?

[pwerner at bluewin.ch (pwerner@bluewin.ch)]

>All true, Doug. There is still a very valid question regarding price and

>value, if for no other reason than in this digital age we are not talking

>about a camera as a life-long investment, as we were with M or R.

Why not, why are we so obsessed with obsolesence that we always want
the newest, latest gadget. In the past this was perhaps necessary, 
digital cameras had not come to maturity and the latest model 
really brought an advance that reflected in the quality of the results.

IMHO, with the DMR and the new Hassys we have now come to a stage that 
delivers a quality that is excellent and I no longer see the need to change

the camera every (other) year.  

The DMR is perhaps not the best suited camera for crash- and burn- 
photo-journalists, nor for recording sport events, but neither 
is a Hassy or an Alpa. Yet nobody contests their quality.

I do not know if the same applies to the latest top of the line 
Canon and Nikon DSLRs. At least psycologically not, as they come 
out with new models every year and make us feel that if we do 
not upgrade to the newest, latest, we are not IN.

For those of us who look at the quality of an A3 (11x16)
or bigger print and are not satisfied with newspaper quality 
output, the DMR might well be considered a long time investment. 

BTW, I wonder why those crash- and burn- photographers who shoot
100 pictures at 3200 ISO to get a usable one are posting here at all.
Leica with its tradition of superior picture quality is not
and has never been the type of camera they need.

For those of us who want to achieve the best possible results, 
let us stop following the crowd and the camera makers who are 
relying on psychological obsolesence to sell more and more 
of their goods.

My wife's Mercedes is now 15 years old.  It still drives and looks 
like new. Same for my Audi.  Or do you prefer Detroit's cars 
and their business model?

Peter