[rollei_list] Re: Economics Are Not Always Practiced (Thank God) (was:"I prefer simplicity and ease of use...")
- From: "Roger M. Wiser" <wiserr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:29:59 -0500
I agree on eBay 3 have sold fron $123 to $185 and one for sale 3 days to go
at $31, reserve not met.
R
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 3:45 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Economics Are Not Always Practiced (Thank God)
(was:"I prefer simplicity and ease of use...")
> Jerry,=20
>
> If you find a IIIA with the 50mm F1.8 lens for $20 please let me know.
> The IIIM sells for $150 - $250 in the used market. We can make a
> killing.
> Youi may be confusing the S2 with the IIIA.
>
> Peter K
>
> On 4/15/05, Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Peter,
>>=20
>> The Konica IIIA and it's Yashica equivalent, (Lynx) usually sell for
>> $20, routinely at local camera shows.
>>=20
>> Jerry
>>=20
>> "Peter K." wrote:
>>=20
>> > True, and in some cases the manufacturers failed in doing this. One
>> > camera comes to mind, the Konica IIIM (M=3D3DMeter). I own one of these
>> > and IMO among the best made rangefinder cameras period. It has what
>> > was a very accurate parallax compensating viewfinder where the entire
>> > frame actually shifts and changes size over the range of the focus. It
>> > also has a superb fixed Planar-type 50mm F1.8 (also had the option of
>> > a 48mm F2) and had the option of half-frame.
>> > This camera had retail price in 1957 of around $US300. Needless to say
>> > they did not sell many. There is a IIIA sans meter that sold a bit
>> > better, but just not as collectible as the IIIM. It was eventually
>> > replaced with a lower cost model that yielded profits. If anyone can
>> > find a IIIM with half frame adapter and working meter you have a real
>> > fine and collectible.
>> >
>> > Peter K
>> >
>> > On 4/13/05, Marc James Small <msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > At 07:40 PM 4/13/05 -0600, Douglas Shea wrote:
>> > > >By all appearances the economists were not consulted by Alpa during
>> > > >=
> its
>> > > >heyday -- I have never detected any evidence of compromise.
>> > >=3D20
>> > > The fact that some concerns, most notably ALPA, Zeiss Ikon, and
>> > > Leitz=
> ,
>> > > ignored economic realities does not mean that they still didn't try
>> > > t=
> o ke=3D
>> > ep
>> > > production costs down. All three of these concerns simply poured
>> > > mon=
> ey o=3D
>> > ut
>> > > of every orifice over the last decades of their existence or, in the
>> > > =
> case
>> > > of Leitz, until it managed to enter into a series of rather rocky
>> > > pro=
> p-up=3D
>> > s.
>> > >=3D20
>> > > Had ALPA really attempted to produce a camera without "compromise",
>> > > t=
> hey
>> > > never would have cranked out their first production model. Swiss
>> > > ban=
> kers
>> > > are tighter than you can imagine and the coldness of their hearts
>> > > wou=
> ld
>> > > make even a long-term inmate of the Soviet Gulags shiver.
>> > >=3D20
>> > > Marc
>> > >=3D20
>> > > msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx=3D3D20
>> > > Cha robh b=3D3DE0s fir gun ghr=3D3DE0s fir!
>> > >=3D20
>> > >=3D20
>> >
>> > --=3D20
>> > Peter K
>> > =3DD3=3DBF=3DD5=3DAC
>>=20
>>=20
>
>
> --=20
> Peter K
> =D3=BF=D5=AC
>
Other related posts:
