On 28/08/06, Douglas Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear All, > > Looks like I provoked some interesting responses with > my Leica posts :-). > > I am the type of person who from time to time likes > to, ahem, "stir the pot". It is always fascinating to > see what happens when people rush to the defense of > their camera equipment!
Har, that wasn't stirring the pot, that was friendly discourse, you ain't seen nothing yet, (keep an eye on Bill :-) > --- Digital Image Studio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > << If you've owned both you'd know that they aren't > the same league of camera in build or use >> > > I've owned neither. I could afford a Bessa if I wanted > one but I am not terribly fond of rangefinders anyhow. > I cannot afford a Leica, period. Maybe if I had a lot > of money I would like one as a curiosity but that is > about it. The Bessa is was great for anyone who wanted a more automated second body or a cheap way into Leica mount RF cameras. However having had Bessa for a very short time I'm glad I didn't own it, even though it's essentially functionally the same (as is a Fiat Bambino and a Ferrari) the feel to use was quite different. > I do not doubt that the Leica is much better but > really, six or seven times better? It just seems a bit > excessive to me. What are you considering other than price when making the comparison? The fact is that the Leica bodies are essentially a precision hand built instrument of limited production. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
