Winsor Crosby wrote:
> Leica has licensed their name and some of their design to other
> makers since the Leica/Minolta CL in 1973. Nothing new here. Probably
> most of the Leica variants are sold in Japan because they like the
> marque and also like small cameras. No one really confuses those
> bread and butter cameras with Leicas, well maybe some do. And who
> knows how much input the German design team provided? Sometimes great
> actors do television, for the money to support the art they really
> want to do.
>
> It really is about design and fabrications standards. Canada was the
> second great site for that "legendary German craftsmanship" back in
> the 60's, and then Portugal.
Wasn't Portugal, at least, more a manufacturing and assembly move (cost of
labor issue,) not a design transfer?
> Your logic seems to be that if something
> is made in Japan it should not be more expensive than other Japanese
> products.
I can't speak for Allan here, Winsor, but I think you're assuming opinions not
in evidence.
I think he's simply saying Leica is no longer a traditional "German camera"
product, with all the cachet that used to bring with it.
> But other things also influence the price as others have
> noted. Otherwise there would be no difference between a Bentley and
> an Austin because they were both built in England.
Now that's a bit of a logic stretch right there, isn't it?
I'd rather not get into a discussion of British auto manufacturers on this
list, if you don't mind <grin> but in truth, Japan has been exceptionally
conscientious to become one of the world's standards when it comes to
absolutely top quality optical and mechanical products.
The old days of 'Made in Japan' means 'cheap' are long, long gone, and good
riddance.
I think eh implication was that while Germany produced excellence in optical
and mechanical products, in it's day, it was in a large part manual labor.
Highly skilled workers wreaking excellence from the mundane! By hand!
Japan, on the other hand, recognized early on that it was paramount to bring
those sorts of skills to production quantities, without losing the quality.
Germany had lost that capability. Fine optical manufacturing had moved to
Japan, for whatever reasons...
> I would be willing
> to wager that the Kodak sensor mated to the first ever offset
> microlens filter cost millions and millions, for a low production
> camera.
No argument here.
There's no doubt in my mind that the Kodak sensor is a top quality, very
expensive product to have designed and brought to production at all!
That it's a low production quantity item makes it even worse.
Unless it sells in some sort of reasonable numbers in the near future, it will
end up costing them too much to recoup expenditures, and future production
will be questionable.
If I understand how all of that works, that is...
Just my 2¢ - keith whaley
> I was not aware that Leica lenses were made in Japan except the ones
> licensed by Panasonic attached to Panasonic cameras with Leica
> nameplates. I admit I have not followed the Leica adventures closely
> for a few years. Thank goodness they have replaced the crap
> electronics they had. VW and Audi should do the same. Which lenses
> are made in Japan?
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, CA
> USA
> On Sep 16, 2006, at 7:52 PM, AllanDan wrote:
>
>> I'm unable to follow the logic Leica uses to charge premium prices for
>> it's equipment at this late date. In its mechanical days, it touted
>> its mechanical excellence and fine glass, but today most, if not all,
>> of its electronics and glass come from Japan. Will we every see a Leica
>> box printed "Made in Japan"
>>
>> Allan
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|