A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 8th 14, 09:37 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
philo[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 150
Default 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.
  #2  
Old May 8th 14, 04:42 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,246
Default New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in thisday and age?

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
  #3  
Old May 8th 14, 11:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
James Silverton[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 123
Default New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in thisday and age?

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.
  #4  
Old May 8th 14, 11:57 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,246
Default New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in thisday and age?

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
  #5  
Old May 9th 14, 12:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in this day and age?

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
  #6  
Old May 9th 14, 02:43 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
James Silverton[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 123
Default New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in thisday and age?

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.
  #7  
Old May 9th 14, 03:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in this day and age?

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.
  #8  
Old May 9th 14, 11:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in this day and age?

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
  #9  
Old May 10th 14, 03:04 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
James Silverton[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 123
Default New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in thisday and age?

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.
  #10  
Old May 11th 14, 09:27 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in thisday and age?

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]
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in this day and age? Eric Stevens Digital Photography 3 October 16th 14 12:30 AM
New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in this day and age? Oregonian Haruspex Digital Photography 0 May 8th 14 03:21 AM
New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in thisday and age? Mort[_3_] Digital Photography 2 May 8th 14 03:00 AM
Build quality? Charles Schuler Digital SLR Cameras 34 February 7th 07 12:31 AM
Ratings on build quality from Brit mag RichA Digital SLR Cameras 21 March 15th 05 10:49 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.