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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |