Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/02/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]- -----Original Message----- From: Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net> >JeffS wrote: >> Mark, IMO, no one in their right mind pays such a hefty premium for their >> gear unless they feel that there's some extra value to be had! It's Leica >> Camera's job to give us a compelling reason for buying brand-new gear once >> in awhile, >Leica is coming out with El Exquisito unbeatable quality lenses at much >more affordable prices than a half decade back, I got the 35 Summicron >ASPH this year; the Hefty premium perhaps being it cost thrice what a >nikon would the extra value to be had being It is a lens whose image >quality is unbettered and could with arguments be said to be thrice >better than the nikon. And half the size with no mirror bounce and so >on. Is there another compelling reason for getting the lens that I >didn't know that I should have been aware of? Well, yeah, you've just admitted that you've purchased new Leica gear because it had some relevance to you :-) I do think you took my use of the word "relevant" to mean "like everyone else", and this is emphatically not what I meant. The Contax G1 and G2 aren't really what I'm looking for--I much prefer Leica's magic frameline finder, depth of field scales (very important to me!) and optical focus confirmation. The G has some fairly obvious advantages too, but maybe not enough to prompt a switch at this time, and there's no way I need to own both at the same time. Rebranded products from other makers invite direct comparisons, and there has to be a perceived advantage in going with Leica's version, else they are irrelevant, or at best, it's a draw. In the case of the Digilux, I thought Leica did a nice reworking of the cosmetics, but I have yet to hear of anyone saying that it took better pictures than the Fuji MX-700; better to the tune of $100. And the new Pradovits? I'll be eager to hear how they compare to Kodak's Ektapro originals. Jeff PS: In a previous message, you aluded to the "film vs digital" issue again, which I had avoided in this discussion. Nevertheless, here's my opinion on the matter: As long as the manufacturing and processing of film is good business, we've got nothing to worry about. So far, my mom and sisters still buy film, and none have shown any desire to deal with the fussiness that today's digital cameras impose. Maybe things would be a little different if they could drop off their filled flash cards off to be printed (faster, cheaper and at least as nicely as film) by someone else. If cheap enough, the flash card could even be a one-shot deal-call it your "negatives". I figure they use maybe 5x rolls of 24-exposure film on a 3 week vacation, which probably comes out to 5x 16-megabyte flash cards. Price these at oh, $7/ea, take a Kodak DC260, strip it of the cables and software (remember, they are taking the cards in to be "processed"), drop the price to below $300, and oh yes, remember that the $10 worth of lithium batteries it uses should still be going pretty strong after those 5 rolls !