[rollei_list] Re: The Cost of the Contarex
- From: Ardeshir Mehta <ardeshir@xxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 23:20:33 -0400
On 26-May-05, at 10:50 PM, Marc James Small wrote:
> Sure, the Contarex offered a lot more, but the working pro went for
> the dependable and less-expensive camera. In addition, Nikon
> offered bullet-proof service for pros. If you had a shoot in
> Laramie, Wyoming, and needed a certain lens for that shoot, well,
> Nikon would lend you one, and all you had to do was to visit the
> nearest Nikon dealer and, voila!, your lens would be on hand. If
> your camera was giving you fits, they would lend you another to see
> you through. Zeiss Ikon -- and Rollei and Leitz -- regarded this as
> so much coddling but it is why the US professional market shifted
> from Zeiss Ikon and Rolleiflex and Leica gear in the 1950's to
> Nikon and Canon in the 1960's.
>
> Leitz and Zeiss Ikon owned the scientific community and to a large
> degree, Leica and Zeiss still do so today, as they will whump up
> any optical goody you desire at a stiff premium which your grant
> provider pays. But, for the general market, the Germans lost it
> when they quit serviicing the professional photographer.
>
> Marc
Service, service, service. That's the equivalent in the business
field for "location, location, location" in the field of real estate.
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
