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

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


Ah, but a Seiko watch keeps more accurate time than a Rolex, and indeed
costs less as well.

Mort Linder

In article , says...

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


Ah, but a Seiko watch keeps more accurate time than a Rolex, and indeed
costs less as well.

Depending on the Seiko and the Rolex. A Seiko quartz will keep better
time than any mechanical Rolex but whether their standard line will beat
a chronometer-certified Oysterquartz is questionable. Of course the
Oysterquartz was discontinued when the Swiss tightened up the standards
for quartz chronometers in 2001 and Seiko does have a high-end line that
is intended to outperform Swiss chronometers, so a Grand Seiko Quartz
should beat any Rolex but Grand Seikos aren't cheap.

On 2014-05-04 04:26:28 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Sat, 3 May 2014 23:08:45 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article , says...

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


Ah, but a Seiko watch keeps more accurate time than a Rolex, and indeed
costs less as well.

Depending on the Seiko and the Rolex. A Seiko quartz will keep better
time than any mechanical Rolex but whether their standard line will beat
a chronometer-certified Oysterquartz is questionable. Of course the
Oysterquartz was discontinued when the Swiss tightened up the standards
for quartz chronometers in 2001 and Seiko does have a high-end line that
is intended to outperform Swiss chronometers, so a Grand Seiko Quartz
should beat any Rolex but Grand Seikos aren't cheap.

My Rolex keeps good enough time...when it's running. The problem is I
take it off when I do yard work or something, don't put it back on for
a day or two, and it's stopped running. It's self-winding, but
doesn't self-wind when not worn.

No big deal, though. If I set it a few minutes off, it doesn't affect
my day. I can't think of anything I do where a few minutes off in
time makes a difference.

There are electric auto-winders that rotate and keep your watch wound
if you want them. I feel like this has become alt.horology!