Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/02/19

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

Subject: [Leica] Re: The Elusive Digilux 3 (NOT DLlux3)
From: rsphotoimages at comcast.net (Bob Shaw)
Date: Mon Feb 19 07:30:37 2007
References: <5f1be6b50702182254g3a539e4y7728164b9685889f@mail.gmail.com>

David:

You been reading my mind?

Scary.  Very scary of you.

Cheers,

Bob



On Feb 18, 2007, at 22:54, David Keenan wrote:

> better firmware

That's a laugh. The firmware issues of the M8 is pretty strong evidence 
that
Leica ain't so good at writing code.

Frankly, I doubt that it (the firmware) is any different then what is 
in the
Lumix. Why would it be? Why would Panasonic agree to market a camera 
with
"inferior" firmware. Ridiculous.

I have strongly considered buying the Panasonic. And I just might soon
enough -- but I think anyone who likes the idea of this type of camera 
and
opts for the (much) more expensive Leica version instead is, well, a 
little
bit daft.

The ONLY reason I see if a preference for chrome over black. If someone
feels that strongly about having a chrome camera then what the hey? But 
the
lenses are black... Doesn't a complete black kit make more sense -- and 
flat
out just look better?

Maybe it is brand loyality. Okay, fine. And a three-year warranty. Who
cares? The camera will be obsolete far sooner then that.

Why a chrome version of a camera with a little red dot on it is worth a
$800+ premium over the same camera in black is beyond me.

Maybe the theory of "the camera as jewelry" comes into play yet again...

Dave.

_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


Replies: Reply from telyt at telus.net (David Young) ([Leica] Re: The Elusive Digilux 3 (NOT DLlux3))
In reply to: Message from ausdlk at gmail.com (David Keenan) ([Leica] Re: The Elusive Digilux 3 (NOT DLlux3))