RE: [Leica] A little less off-topic (Mechanical Watches vs Mechan ical Cameras)

[Paul Chefurka <Paul_Chefurka@pmc-sierra.com>]

When I got a decent job, I started lusting after a Rolex, till I found our a
bit about their qualities.  So now I own a stainless-steel Tag that gives me
accuracy of 2 seconds a month, doesn't complain about getting banged around,
and can go swimming or into the shower without worry.  Looks kinda nice,
too.

I've heard people call Leicas the Rolexes of the camera world, but I've
never thought that was a fair analogy.  For me, the main way to measure the
worth of any product is its fitness for its intended purpose.  Other
considerations (looks, heritage, the material the gears are made of) are
strictly secondary.  From this measure, Rolexes are total anachronisms.
Their timekeeping ability is pathetic (relatively speaking), they're
fragile, and as you point out, the circumstances in which they show
significant advantages will never be enountered by the majority of owners.
As timepieces they have no advantages over good quartz watch, especially one
with an equivalently sealed stainless steel body.  Their main purpose for
existence is to advertise the status of their owner, which they are very
good at due to the Rolex/status connection established through marketing.

Leicas are a different kettle of fish.  They have real advantages over SLR's
and P&S's - quietness, simplicity, great lenses, and they may even foster a
different visual aesthetic - all the stuff we discuss here ad nauseam.
Where they are most emphatically not Rolexes is in their usefulness as a
status signal.  As far as I can tell, nobody outside of a minority of
photographers even knows what a Leica is , much less cares what makes it
special.  It's just another camera.  Which, as far as I'm concerned, is just
fine.

The only things I can think of that Rolex and Leica have in common are:
they're produced in countries that speak German, they don't require
batteries (at least for their primary function), and they're expensive.

Paul Chefurka

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stewart, Alistair [mailto:AStewart@gigaweb.com]
> 
> BD,
> 
> absolutely right. I've worn my GMT Master for around 16 years 
> - despite
> regular servicing, it keeps lousy time, and will do so a long way
> underwater, at the North Pole, etc. Shame I never go there 
> when I need to
> know roughly what the time is.
> 
> My various quartz-controlled timepieces keep very accurate 
> time, have less
> service outage time (i.e. replacing a battery is quicker than 
> getting my GMT
> serviced), don't stop when dropped (yes folks, Rolexes do), 
> and are better
> warrantied than brand R.
> 
> They probably won't become heirlooms, but are also probably a 
> lot less toll
> on the planet to produce than brand R.
> 
> Gotta love those engineers. If only they'd stick to engineering...
> 
> Alistair
>