John wrote: This so-called "enormous cost" is an illusion put about by people who think they cannot afford Leica.
REPLY: Illusion? The back alone cost $4500 at a time when similarly specced digital solution will likely cost $1000 or less. 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. John wrote: >Of course you can buy better back without changing >the body but why not buy a better body as well? 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.) REPLY: It is no inconsistency. I refered to the simple fact that hardly anyone would rather upgrade their current equipment to level X when brand new camera at that level can be had cheaper. How many owners of the eg. Canon D60 would have choosen to upgrade it to 1DS level and payed more than a brand new 1DS (or a D10 for that matter)? P�l
