Re: [Leica] f*** the gauntlet!

[Guy Bennett <guybnt@idt.net>]

bob,

it sounds like you're arguing against yourself: you complain that the
prices are high, then justify your buying a leica because the price is
right. you don't feel a 24mm lens should cost $2,000., then conclude by
saying that though prices are high, camera users don't have to like it. our
discussion is degenerating to the sort of specious nonsense up with which
w. churchill would not put.

leica cameras are expensive. for some, perhaps, prohibitively so. those who
cannot or do not wish to invest so much in a camera system (and leica is
certainly not the most expensive - have you considered the price of
hasselblad lenses lately?) are free to spend their money on another brand
of camera. those who do go with leica should spend less time griping about
its deficiencies (high price, lack of automation, substandard parts, to
quote just a few of the recent/eternal bitches heard on the lug) and more
time out using the camera they love to hate. or perhaps they should trade
it in on something that would please them more.

guy

>In a message dated 1/19/00 11:18:32 AM, guybnt@idt.net writes:
>
>>if the above is true, i ask again, why go with leica when there are other
>>well made, perfectly functional rangefinder cameras currently available?
>>leica prices are certainly steep, as you say, but that hasn't kept us from
>>buying leica cameras and lenses, overpriced though they may be. the fact
>>that we are willing to put out a fair amount of cash for these items
>>indicates - however much we complain about it - that to us they are indeed
>>'worth it.' otherwise, why not go with voigtlander, cosina, contax, konica
>>or whomever.
>
>Fair question. My answer is that for the USER the Leica is the best choice.
>The first reason -- odd as this may sound -- is price. A used M4-p is CHEAPER
>than a new Konica. There is also a greater availability of bodies and lenses
>-- particularly USED bodies and lenses -- not to mention repair facilities.
>This means choices. None of the upstarts offer the 90 percent that a
>40-year-old M3 offers, for example. Also, just because I'm a bottom feeder
>does not mean I don't want quality. The 24mm ASPH is an outstanding lens and
>one that there simply is no replacement available for from most of the
>others. Also the others don't offer a 90mm f 2.0 or many other optics that
>Leica does offer. Most importantly though, the Leica M camera is the best
>handling/most practical of the bunch as far as I can tell. For a shooter,
>it's the right tool.
>
>So why am I bitching about price? I'm NOT. I merely said the prices are a
>little hard to justify based solely on quality. I don't think that there is
>anyone who can argue that a 24mm lens SHOULD cost $2,000. It shouldn't and if
>you believe it should then you are drunk on the elixar of Leica mystique.
>However, I'm a reasonably smart boy. I understand that given Leica's
>production level prices are going to be high. SOME of that price is justified
>by quality (maybe half to 2/3) but the rest of it has more to do with
>production and market factors. Again, I'm not bitching. Using a Leica is
>worthwhile to me. It's becoming important actually. So I'm WILLING to bear
>the cost. That doesn't mean I have to like it.
>
>I'll repeat the statement -- the costs are a little hard to justify. That
>statement is not intended to criticize Leica. It's merely a recognition of
>the realities of life.
>
>Bob  (mama didn't raise a boy who cottons to $40 lens caps) McEowen
>
>Bob