"jeremy" wrote in message news:LRfQg.26$Kh.1@trnddc05...

"Rich" wrote in message
ups.com...

Kinon O'Cann wrote:
This question has been asked many, many times, and long before the first
digital camera was produced. Leica builds a premium quality camera for a
small but dedicated group of shooters. The materials used and quality of
construction is absolutely unmatched. Simply put, Leicas aren't for
everyone. In the end, the decision is simple: it's up to you whether or
not
it's worth the money. Best lenses on the planet, too.


At about 650 grams, it costs $352 per oz. 1 oz of silver costs $12.00.
So, it costs less to mine and process and refine the equivalent amount
of silver
out of 29 tons of rock than the Leica is worth. The Leica, by weight
is about
1/2 the price of gold. Then again, something NASA might send into
orbit that size
might cost a few million $'s. A 16 meg medical grade CCD (if they
exist) would probably cost about $100,000. It's all relative.


There comes a point where the cost of the equipment is too high to justify
actually *using it.*

Even Erwin Puts has recently acknowledged that photographers, except for a
small band of dedicated ones, long ago abandoned the precision rangefinder
in favor of Japanese SLRs.

I've read about several informal "blind" tests where the participants were
unable to determine which camera took which photograph. Bob Monaghan did
one such test. So how much is Leica's legendary (or should I say,
"mythical") margin of superiority worth? Is there any photo taken with
Leica equipment that couldn't have been taken with a Nikon or even a
Minolta?

Probably not, but one still might justify owning a Leica based on
reliability, if one were accustomed to traveling to sufficiently remote
locations in order to take one's pictures. But for most of us "city" types,
spending $10 grand for an outfit when one can get just as good pictures with
$2 grand or less is a complete waste of money that could be increasing in
value if put into the right investments........