[Leica] The M9 is a computer, not a clock

[passaro.vince at gmail.com (Vince Passaro)]

Lawrence,
I for one was not talking about production costs -- precision engineered
assembly is indeed much more expensive than digital. I was talking about
what it required to get the thing figured out and made. I suspect Mark
intended the same.
Vince

On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Lawrence Zeitlin <lrzeitlin at 
gmail.com>wrote:

> Mark writes:
>
> "I think if you cracked open an M9 it would not look too much like a M3.
>
> It's a computer not a clock.
>
> ***
>
> I had a conversation with a semi retired taxi driver in a McDonalds at 3 in
>
> the morning a few weeks ago he shot Leicas in the Korean war and printed in
>
> the darkroom for the Army."
>
>
> - - - - - - -
>
> I was told a number of years ago by a production engineer in the Leica
> Canada plant, that by far the most expensive sub assembly in the Leica body
> was the viewfinder/rangefinder and its associated cams. Essentially the
> same
> assembly is used in the digital Leicas. If you were a horologist you would
> appreciate the fact that precision mechanical clockwork is MUCH more
> expensive than electronic parts that perform a similar function. A digital
> Timex tells time better than a mechanical Rolex but costs 1/1000 as much.
>
>
> Do you remember the taxi driver's name? I shot Leicas in Korean war combat
> too as part of my duties with Conarc. Conarc, based at the US Armor Center
> in Ft. Knox was charged with specifying the requirements for tanks and
> other
> armored vehicles. Despite driving by the gold vault for months, I never got
> to see any of the gold. There is a rumor that it was all sold to the
> Saudis.
>
> Larry Z
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>