[rollei_list] Re: Not My Definition of a Thoroughbred (Re: Nikon vs. Leica)
- From: "Douglas Shea" <dshea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:13:57 -0600
Which Leica are we discussing here, the "R" or the "M?" With all due
respect, having used a vast array of Nikon and various Leica "R" cameras I'd
stop way short of calling the "R" a thoroughbred. I would also not refer to
any of the Nikon FM/FE series cameras as "workhorses" either. As for build
quality and expected durability I'd put the "R" and the FM2 in the same
league; rather light duty cameras and a notch or two below any of the Nikon
F series, especially from the F2 onwards. I'm sure that Leica enjoys seeing
the "thoroughbred" reference -- it reinforces their belief in their own
advertising hype. Only two SLR's come to my mind as thoroughbreds: the
second and third generation Alpa cameras and the Contarex.
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nick Roberts
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 9:53 AM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Nikon vs. Leica (was: Query: Mechancial Cameras)
Thor is absolutely right to describe the FM2 as a
workhorse. It's precisely that, not a thoroughbred
like a Leica. Just a perfectly good tool.
Nick
Other related posts:
