New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in thisday and age?

On 05/03/2014 02:32 AM, RichA wrote:
Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build quality would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras for 10 years, in the SLR days, but does it make sense now or just expensive?

http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701




Of course a Seiko watch keeps time just as well as a Rolex.


Some people might be impressed with a Rolex or a Leica

but when I see people waste money I kind of think they are dumb...even
if they are quite wealthy.

On 5/8/2014 4:37 AM, philo wrote:
On 05/03/2014 02:32 AM, RichA wrote:
Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is
like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build quality
would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras for 10 years,
in the SLR days, but does it make sense now or just expensive?

http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701




Of course a Seiko watch keeps time just as well as a Rolex.


Some people might be impressed with a Rolex or a Leica

but when I see people waste money I kind of think they are dumb...even
if they are quite wealthy.

If it makes them feel better, and they won't starve, I see no harm.

--
PeterN

On 5/8/2014 11:42 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 5/8/2014 4:37 AM, philo wrote:
On 05/03/2014 02:32 AM, RichA wrote:
Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is
like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build quality
would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras for 10 years,
in the SLR days, but does it make sense now or just expensive?

http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701




Of course a Seiko watch keeps time just as well as a Rolex.


Some people might be impressed with a Rolex or a Leica

but when I see people waste money I kind of think they are dumb...even
if they are quite wealthy.

If it makes them feel better, and they won't starve, I see no harm.

A Rolex watch or even a Seiko may look beautiful inside but it's really
an anachronism. My solar powered Casio, synchronized daily with Fort
Collins, keeps better time. I'm also not fond of beautiful watches that
are unreadable quickly and have unnecessary displays like the phases of
the moon. Why on earth would anyone want to have that information? Louis
Sullivan said "Form follows function" and a watch that does not obey
that is perverse, in my opinion.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

On 5/8/2014 6:02 PM, James Silverton wrote:
On 5/8/2014 11:42 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 5/8/2014 4:37 AM, philo wrote:
On 05/03/2014 02:32 AM, RichA wrote:
Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is
like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build quality
would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras for 10 years,
in the SLR days, but does it make sense now or just expensive?

http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701




Of course a Seiko watch keeps time just as well as a Rolex.


Some people might be impressed with a Rolex or a Leica

but when I see people waste money I kind of think they are dumb...even
if they are quite wealthy.

If it makes them feel better, and they won't starve, I see no harm.

A Rolex watch or even a Seiko may look beautiful inside but it's really
an anachronism. My solar powered Casio, synchronized daily with Fort
Collins, keeps better time. I'm also not fond of beautiful watches that
are unreadable quickly and have unnecessary displays like the phases of
the moon. Why on earth would anyone want to have that information? Louis
Sullivan said "Form follows function" and a watch that does not obey
that is perverse, in my opinion.


I don't own one either. I rarely wear a watch, but if anyone wants to
wear one, I'm kewl with that.

--
PeterN

On Thu, 08 May 2014 18:02:03 -0400, James Silverton
wrote:

On 5/8/2014 11:42 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 5/8/2014 4:37 AM, philo wrote:
On 05/03/2014 02:32 AM, RichA wrote:
Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is
like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build quality
would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras for 10 years,
in the SLR days, but does it make sense now or just expensive?

http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701




Of course a Seiko watch keeps time just as well as a Rolex.


Some people might be impressed with a Rolex or a Leica

but when I see people waste money I kind of think they are dumb...even
if they are quite wealthy.

If it makes them feel better, and they won't starve, I see no harm.

A Rolex watch or even a Seiko may look beautiful inside but it's really
an anachronism. My solar powered Casio, synchronized daily with Fort
Collins, keeps better time. I'm also not fond of beautiful watches that
are unreadable quickly and have unnecessary displays like the phases of
the moon. Why on earth would anyone want to have that information? Louis
Sullivan said "Form follows function" and a watch that does not obey
that is perverse, in my opinion.


Not much use to most of the world:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...-71161982.html
or http://tinyurl.com/nfvc97y
"Signal reception is possible within a radius of about 2,000 miles
from the Fort Collins transmitter."
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 5/8/2014 7:05 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 08 May 2014 18:02:03 -0400, James Silverton
wrote:

On 5/8/2014 11:42 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 5/8/2014 4:37 AM, philo wrote:
On 05/03/2014 02:32 AM, RichA wrote:
Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is
like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build quality
would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras for 10 years,
in the SLR days, but does it make sense now or just expensive?

http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701




Of course a Seiko watch keeps time just as well as a Rolex.


Some people might be impressed with a Rolex or a Leica

but when I see people waste money I kind of think they are dumb...even
if they are quite wealthy.

If it makes them feel better, and they won't starve, I see no harm.

A Rolex watch or even a Seiko may look beautiful inside but it's really
an anachronism. My solar powered Casio, synchronized daily with Fort
Collins, keeps better time. I'm also not fond of beautiful watches that
are unreadable quickly and have unnecessary displays like the phases of
the moon. Why on earth would anyone want to have that information? Louis
Sullivan said "Form follows function" and a watch that does not obey
that is perverse, in my opinion.


Not much use to most of the world:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...-71161982.html
or http://tinyurl.com/nfvc97y
"Signal reception is possible within a radius of about 2,000 miles
from the Fort Collins transmitter."

There are other time signal transmitters; in Germany and Japan to my
knowledge and watches can be made to receive those signals too.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

In article , James Silverton
wrote:

A Rolex watch or even a Seiko may look beautiful inside but it's really
an anachronism. My solar powered Casio, synchronized daily with Fort
Collins, keeps better time. I'm also not fond of beautiful watches that
are unreadable quickly and have unnecessary displays like the phases of
the moon. Why on earth would anyone want to have that information? Louis
Sullivan said "Form follows function" and a watch that does not obey
that is perverse, in my opinion.

Not much use to most of the world:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...r-and-tough-so
lar-powered-watches-added-to-premier-g-shock-line-71161982.html
or http://tinyurl.com/nfvc97y
"Signal reception is possible within a radius of about 2,000 miles
from the Fort Collins transmitter."

There are other time signal transmitters; in Germany and Japan to my
knowledge and watches can be made to receive those signals too.

any cdma based cellular tower will suffice, since it requires
microsecond accuracy for it to function.

On Fri, 09 May 2014 09:43:15 -0400, James Silverton
wrote:

On 5/8/2014 7:05 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 08 May 2014 18:02:03 -0400, James Silverton
wrote:

On 5/8/2014 11:42 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 5/8/2014 4:37 AM, philo wrote:
On 05/03/2014 02:32 AM, RichA wrote:
Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is
like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build quality
would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras for 10 years,
in the SLR days, but does it make sense now or just expensive?

http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701




Of course a Seiko watch keeps time just as well as a Rolex.


Some people might be impressed with a Rolex or a Leica

but when I see people waste money I kind of think they are dumb...even
if they are quite wealthy.

If it makes them feel better, and they won't starve, I see no harm.

A Rolex watch or even a Seiko may look beautiful inside but it's really
an anachronism. My solar powered Casio, synchronized daily with Fort
Collins, keeps better time. I'm also not fond of beautiful watches that
are unreadable quickly and have unnecessary displays like the phases of
the moon. Why on earth would anyone want to have that information? Louis
Sullivan said "Form follows function" and a watch that does not obey
that is perverse, in my opinion.


Not much use to most of the world:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...-71161982.html
or http://tinyurl.com/nfvc97y
"Signal reception is possible within a radius of about 2,000 miles
from the Fort Collins transmitter."

There are other time signal transmitters; in Germany and Japan to my
knowledge and watches can be made to receive those signals too.

That's still not a lot of the world unless the watch can work off WWVH
(Hawaii). Then you start to get closer to that claim.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 5/9/2014 6:47 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 09 May 2014 09:43:15 -0400, James Silverton
wrote:

On 5/8/2014 7:05 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 08 May 2014 18:02:03 -0400, James Silverton
wrote:

On 5/8/2014 11:42 AM, PeterN wrote:
On 5/8/2014 4:37 AM, philo wrote:
On 05/03/2014 02:32 AM, RichA wrote:
Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is
like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build quality
would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras for 10 years,
in the SLR days, but does it make sense now or just expensive?

http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701




Of course a Seiko watch keeps time just as well as a Rolex.


Some people might be impressed with a Rolex or a Leica

but when I see people waste money I kind of think they are dumb...even
if they are quite wealthy.

If it makes them feel better, and they won't starve, I see no harm.

A Rolex watch or even a Seiko may look beautiful inside but it's really
an anachronism. My solar powered Casio, synchronized daily with Fort
Collins, keeps better time. I'm also not fond of beautiful watches that
are unreadable quickly and have unnecessary displays like the phases of
the moon. Why on earth would anyone want to have that information? Louis
Sullivan said "Form follows function" and a watch that does not obey
that is perverse, in my opinion.


Not much use to most of the world:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...-71161982.html
or http://tinyurl.com/nfvc97y
"Signal reception is possible within a radius of about 2,000 miles
from the Fort Collins transmitter."

There are other time signal transmitters; in Germany and Japan to my
knowledge and watches can be made to receive those signals too.

That's still not a lot of the world unless the watch can work off WWVH
(Hawaii). Then you start to get closer to that claim.

The whole of the EU, Japan and the US and most of Canada is a fair
proportion of the world in the market for a watch. A transmitter
somewhere in Brazil or Argentina is missing.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

In article , philo* wrote:

RichA:
Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon
is like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build
quality would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras
for 10 years, in the SLR days, but does it make sense now or just
expensive?

http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701

Of course a Seiko watch keeps time just as well as a Rolex.

Some people might be impressed with a Rolex or a Leica

but when I see people waste money I kind of think they are
dumb...even if they are quite wealthy.

Don't care about watches, but Leica's are expensive for a reason. Are they
a bit over the top expensive? Well, maybe, but their lens range is just
about the best you can find in the world outside of high end medium format
lenses.




--
Sandman[.net]