Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/07/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 07:50 AM 7/16/96 -0400, you wrote: > As to the lessening of quality in M cameras. Frankly, I don't see >that. As great as the M3 is or was, one would be hard put to say that it is >better in any meaningful way than the M6. Any comments abut price ought to >be viewed in the context of inflation over the years. I really think that >the M6 is probably no more expensive than the M3 in 1953. I'm with you. I wouldn't own an M3 for love nor money after using an M6 for about a year now. I almost bought an M3. If silky smooth is more important than function, then by all means, buy the M3. The difference isn't important to me, and the M6 will be more functional for serious photogrpahers. (28mm lens without a finder - if you don't wear glasses). Arthur Kramer, who used to write for Modern Photography back when it was good (and even existed! <G>) has given a run down on the cost of buying a Leica based on how the price is proportinal to a month's salary for the average person. It turns out the Leica costs no more to buy now than it did when it was introduced in 1925. =================== Eric Welch Grants Pass (OR) Daily Courier NPPA Region 11 JIB chair (D)inner not ready: (A)bort (R)etry (P)izza.