Pål Jensen wrote: > >John wrote: >> >>This so-called "enormous cost" is an illusion put >>about by people who think they cannot afford >>Leica. > > >Illusion? The back alone cost $4500 at a time >when similarly specced digital solution will >likely cost $1000 or less.
Pål, Quoting a projected price of $4500 now will make buyers very pleased when it sells for a much lower price. >On thing is the case for expensive >Leica lenses and bodies, another is >the point in buying a Leica branded >CCD at several magnitudes the cost >of competitive products. I profoundly disagree that Leica is expensive. The whole life cost of owning Leica gear is probably the lowest of any camera brand. Of course, applying a consumer-grade mindset to such finely engineered gear does make it *appear* expensive, but Leica owners don't need to change their gear every year and a half. >>That depends what you mean by "better". To suggest >>that the R9 lacks features compared with a Canon EOS >>something-or-other does not happily sit with the same >>person defending the Pentax MZ-S to the death against >>the features and better performance of the Nikon F100. >> >>(Such inconsistency greatly devalues your often excellent >>contributions to this List.) > > >It is no inconsistency. Maybe not in your eyes. ;-) John
