Hi, you can buy 1937 Leicas for this sort of price too - perhaps a little more, but not a huge amount - and like the Rolleiflexes you can also buy much more expensive ones.
Of course, part of the price of a Leica is in the name, and that's a great pity, but they really are very, very good cameras, which is one reason why they acquired such a name in the first place. It's difficult to answer the question 'why are Leicas so much more expensive?' because it raises the question 'more expensive than what?'. What can you compare them with to get a fair idea? None of the available-from-new RF cameras comes close to the build quality of Leicas. SLRs with comparable features and build quality aren't really available from new any more. High end film SLRs cost a similar price to Leica M6s and M7s, high end digital SLRs cost much more, and how many of these will still be in use in 50 years? Perhaps the answer to your question is: if this is the type of camera you want to use, then that's what you have to pay because there's no competition. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, August 21, 2002, 10:03:53 PM, you wrote: > My point was that I don't really understand the high price for Leica's. I > have a Rolleiflex Automat from 1937 (!) and it's still going strong. This > camera is 65 years old. You could buy a Rolleiflex for $100-150 depending on > the condition (of course there are more expensive ones, but that's another > question). Why is it that Leicas are so much more expensive. Even > considering the fact that a rangefinder is a very complicated device, the > difference shouldn't be that big IMO. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
