Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/03/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Mar 30, 2012, at 3:56 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote: > I just wonder how much apologizing I have to do when I doubt a camera which > cost 1000 usd and is a smaller format than an M9 gets compared to an M9 as > if its going to be a better camera or something. I have to buy the camera > first? No need to apologize for "doubting" Mark. I found the "comparison test" simply meaningless. Both examples appeared sub par to my eyes. And I quite agree with you that if I had an M9 I'd have no further need for any "relatively small" digital camera. In fact I feel the same way about my M8. Someone would have to show me something quite "special" to compete with the size, weight and capability of the M8. > I just don't feel like Leica needs to defend itself against cameras which > were never meant to compete with it in the first place. I quite agree. Though the "photo world" loves to compare any thing that is about the size of an M9 to the M9 - makes for great headlines - "Is camera X, Y or Z the M9 Beater?" > The price reflects materials and production tolerances. > Quality control. True - and again - agreed. Though a Timex does keep time very well; as does my does my 10 year old Motorola flip phone; and my iPad. And my '93 Saturn gets me from point A to point B extremely economically. Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist