Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/12/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Well, the fact that the sensor isnt as "good" as others out there wouldnt stop from somone like, say me, from buying an M8. I still think its the perfect camera for me. I just don't agree with how much they're charging for it. I understand the M8 is hand-built and the RF mechanism is expensive, but I am a firm believer that it could have been a lot better under different guidance. I may be young, but I'm well enough versed in electronics to differentiate between good and bad electronic components! The M8 has been out since 2006. So has the D80. Each camera has 10.1 megapixels, decent noise per ISO, but the price was very different. Now, Nikon has a d90 with noise handling that exceeds other cameras, but the M8.2 has the same sensor. I think when you pay such a premium, you are warranted in at least a marginal sensor upgrade. Man. I just realized I'm talking to a bunch of people who own M8s...don't be offended! Your camera is still amazing. I wish I had one mself, as stated previously. I'm just comparing between then and now. -Yama PS Sonny Carter wrote: > I usta be an expert when I was your age too. > > > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Yama Nawabi <mknawabi.lug@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> Au contraire! The technology used in the M8 relative to other cameras is >> rubbish. What Dante meant is that you are charging a lot for an engine >> that >> is old. I agree with him, but you guys can argue all you want! >> >> -Yama >> >> >> Seth Rosner wrote: >> >> >>> Dante, with great respect, you utterly disqualify your comment and reveal >>> your lack of knowledge of product by equating the Leica M8 to an >>> (obsolete) >>> Honda Civic. What rubbish. >>> >>> Seth >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dante Stella" <dstella1@ameritech.net >>> >>> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org> >>> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 7:07 PM >>> Subject: Re: [Leica] un-believable >>> >>> >>> I don't even think Leica is even in the same class the US auto >>> >>>> industry - which has as good technology as anyone's but has been >>>> struggling mightily with product mix and cost-effective production. >>>> More importantly, the prices are not out of scale. Leica, on the >>>> other hand, doesn't even have the technology - and unless you believe >>>> that having Germans assemble it is worth a ton of money,* the prices >>>> are way out of line. The equivalent of an M8 in the automotive world >>>> would be building a 1997 Civic and selling it today for $60,000. >>>> >>>> Dante >>>> >>>> *Assuming Solms and not Portugal does the work. >>>> >>>> On Dec 19, 2008, at 6:53 PM, Philip Forrest wrote: >>>> >>>> I don't think it's unbelievable, I think it's hilarious for the >>>> >>>>> cult-ish status symbol. I love Leica's products (the ones I own) but I >>>>> also think that they, like the US auto industry, are desperate due to >>>>> lack of innovation and foresight. My M4 will be working long after >>>>> Leica is gone and my lenses will as well. I'm happy with that for now. >>>>> Phil Forrest >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >>> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.19/1857 - Release Date: >>> 12/19/2008 10:09 AM >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> > > > >