Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/10/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jim Brick wrote: > > The following statement does not make sense to me??? > > >> I bought the Leica *because* it is a Leica, as much as I bought it > >> because of its qualities as a camera. Sometimes, I'd just like a little > >> more camera and a little less Leica for my money. > > More gadgets? Less quality? Less serviceability? > > What does "less Leica" mean? > I was, half-humorously, referring to the history, identity, aura, magic, je-ne-sais-quoi, that surrounds Leica equipment. The "myth", if you will (and I don't mean that in a derogatory manner). When we buy Leica equipment, we pay for this too: This is partly why Leica equipment commands premium price. How do I know? Because if we didn't, you'd presumably see other camera manufacturers bringing out M6-spec rangefinders and charging $2000+ for them. This legacy is good. I like it. I bought Leica gear *because* of it. But at the same time, I think it gets in the way of progress and product development/refinement. I'm not flaming Leica or aficionados of Leica gear (of which I consider myself a newbie one). I'm just pointing out the flip side of the medallion. Sometimes we pretend as though it doesn't exist. M. - -- Martin V. Howard, Application Systems Laboratory, | Dept. of Comp. & Info. Sci., Linkoping University, | Just "DOHH" it! SE-581 83 Linkoping, Sweden. Tel +46 13 282 421, +----------------+ Fax +46 13 142 231; marho@ida.liu.se; www.ida.liu.se/~marho