True, and in some cases the manufacturers failed in doing this. One camera comes to mind, the Konica IIIM (M=3DMeter). 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. >=20 > The fact that some concerns, most notably ALPA, Zeiss Ikon, and Leitz, > ignored economic realities does not mean that they still didn't try to ke= ep > production costs down. All three of these concerns simply poured money o= 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 prop-up= s. >=20 > Had ALPA really attempted to produce a camera without "compromise", they > never would have cranked out their first production model. Swiss bankers > are tighter than you can imagine and the coldness of their hearts would > make even a long-term inmate of the Soviet Gulags shiver. >=20 > Marc >=20 > msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx=3D20 > Cha robh b=3DE0s fir gun ghr=3DE0s fir! >=20 >=20 --=20 Peter K =D3=BF=D5=AC