New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in this dayand age?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 3, 2014.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build quality would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras for 10 years, in the SLR days,but does it make sense now or just expensive?

    http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701
     
    RichA, May 3, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Mort Guest

    Re: New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in thisday and age?

    RichA wrote:
    > Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build quality would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras for 10 years, in the SLR days, but does it make sense now or just expensive?
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701
    >


    Ah, but a Seiko watch keeps more accurate time than a Rolex, and indeed
    costs less as well.

    Mort Linder
     
    Mort, May 4, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    Re: New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in this day and age?

    In article <jig9v.434183$>, says...
    >
    > RichA wrote:
    > > Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build quality would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras for 10 years, in the SLR days, but does it make sense now or just expensive?
    > >
    > > http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701
    > >

    >
    > Ah, but a Seiko watch keeps more accurate time than a Rolex, and indeed
    > costs less as well.


    Depending on the Seiko and the Rolex. A Seiko quartz will keep better
    time than any mechanical Rolex but whether their standard line will beat
    a chronometer-certified Oysterquartz is questionable. Of course the
    Oysterquartz was discontinued when the Swiss tightened up the standards
    for quartz chronometers in 2001 and Seiko does have a high-end line that
    is intended to outperform Swiss chronometers, so a Grand Seiko Quartz
    should beat any Rolex but Grand Seikos aren't cheap.
     
    J. Clarke, May 4, 2014
    #3
  4. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Re: New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in this day and age?

    On Sat, 3 May 2014 23:08:45 -0400, "J. Clarke" <>
    wrote:

    >In article <jig9v.434183$>, says...
    >>
    >> RichA wrote:
    >> > Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build quality would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras for 10 years, in the SLR days, but does it make sense now or just expensive?
    >> >
    >> > http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701
    >> >

    >>
    >> Ah, but a Seiko watch keeps more accurate time than a Rolex, and indeed
    >> costs less as well.

    >
    >Depending on the Seiko and the Rolex. A Seiko quartz will keep better
    >time than any mechanical Rolex but whether their standard line will beat
    >a chronometer-certified Oysterquartz is questionable. Of course the
    >Oysterquartz was discontinued when the Swiss tightened up the standards
    >for quartz chronometers in 2001 and Seiko does have a high-end line that
    >is intended to outperform Swiss chronometers, so a Grand Seiko Quartz
    >should beat any Rolex but Grand Seikos aren't cheap.


    My Rolex keeps good enough time...when it's running. The problem is I
    take it off when I do yard work or something, don't put it back on for
    a day or two, and it's stopped running. It's self-winding, but
    doesn't self-wind when not worn.

    No big deal, though. If I set it a few minutes off, it doesn't affect
    my day. I can't think of anything I do where a few minutes off in
    time makes a difference.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
     
    Tony Cooper, May 4, 2014
    #4
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Re: New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in thisday and age?

    On Saturday, May 3, 2014 4:45:28 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Sat, 3 May 2014 00:32:43 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build quality would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras for 10 years, in the SLR days, but does it make sense now or just expensive?

    >
    > >

    >
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701

    >
    >
    >
    > While thew build quality is undoubtedly good, I can't see anything
    >
    > exceptional about it that can't be explained by design, styling and
    >
    > manufacturing finish.
    >
    >
    >
    > As for Seiko, here is one which literally beats Rolex on it's own
    >
    > ground. http://www.grand-seiko.com/
    >
    >
    >
    > 5,700 Euro for the cheap stainless steel version.
    >


    That's only because Seiko, and even TIMEX, has jumped on the "wind it" watch band-wagon and released watches with prices they never have in the past.
     
    RichA, May 4, 2014
    #5
  6. Re: New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in this day and age?

    On 2014-05-04 17:59:23 +0000, RichA said:

    > On Saturday, May 3, 2014 4:45:28 AM UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >> On Sat, 3 May 2014 00:32:43 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is
    >>> like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build quality
    >>> would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras for 10 years,
    >>> in the SLR days, but does it make sense now or just expensive?

    >>
    >>>

    >>
    >>> http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> While thew build quality is undoubtedly good, I can't see anything
    >>
    >> exceptional about it that can't be explained by design, styling and
    >>
    >> manufacturing finish.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> As for Seiko, here is one which literally beats Rolex on it's own
    >>
    >> ground. http://www.grand-seiko.com/
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> 5,700 Euro for the cheap stainless steel version.
    >>

    >
    > That's only because Seiko, and even TIMEX, has jumped on the "wind it"
    > watch band-wagon and released watches with prices they never have in
    > the past.


    Actually Seiko never stopped producing excellent quality mechanical
    timepieces. The Spring Drive Sonnerie was about $30,000 when you could
    get it. 88 jewel movement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoi8MsvAtYk
     
    Oregonian Haruspex, May 8, 2014
    #6
  7. Re: New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in this day and age?

    On 2014-05-04 04:26:28 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

    > On Sat, 3 May 2014 23:08:45 -0400, "J. Clarke" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> In article <jig9v.434183$>, says...
    >>>
    >>> RichA wrote:
    >>>> Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is
    >>>> like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build quality
    >>>> would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras for 10 years,
    >>>> in the SLR days, but does it make sense now or just expensive?
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Ah, but a Seiko watch keeps more accurate time than a Rolex, and indeed
    >>> costs less as well.

    >>
    >> Depending on the Seiko and the Rolex. A Seiko quartz will keep better
    >> time than any mechanical Rolex but whether their standard line will beat
    >> a chronometer-certified Oysterquartz is questionable. Of course the
    >> Oysterquartz was discontinued when the Swiss tightened up the standards
    >> for quartz chronometers in 2001 and Seiko does have a high-end line that
    >> is intended to outperform Swiss chronometers, so a Grand Seiko Quartz
    >> should beat any Rolex but Grand Seikos aren't cheap.

    >
    > My Rolex keeps good enough time...when it's running. The problem is I
    > take it off when I do yard work or something, don't put it back on for
    > a day or two, and it's stopped running. It's self-winding, but
    > doesn't self-wind when not worn.
    >
    > No big deal, though. If I set it a few minutes off, it doesn't affect
    > my day. I can't think of anything I do where a few minutes off in
    > time makes a difference.


    There are electric auto-winders that rotate and keep your watch wound
    if you want them. I feel like this has become alt.horology!
     
    Oregonian Haruspex, May 8, 2014
    #7
  8. Re: New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in this day and age?

    On 2014-05-03 07:32:43 +0000, RichA said:

    > Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is
    > like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build quality
    > would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras for 10 years,
    > in the SLR days, but does it make sense now or just expensive?
    > http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701


    10 to 1 it's a Panasonic with a Leica-designed lens. Build quality is
    probably really good and it's good to see more compact cameras with big
    sensors..
     
    Oregonian Haruspex, May 8, 2014
    #8
  9. RichA

    philo  Guest

    Re: New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in thisday and age?

    On 05/03/2014 02:32 AM, RichA wrote:
    > Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build quality would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras for 10 years, in the SLR days, but does it make sense now or just expensive?
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701
    >




    Of course a Seiko watch keeps time just as well as a Rolex.


    Some people might be impressed with a Rolex or a Leica

    but when I see people waste money I kind of think they are dumb...even
    if they are quite wealthy.
     
    philo , May 8, 2014
    #9
  10. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in thisday and age?

    On 5/8/2014 4:37 AM, philo wrote:
    > On 05/03/2014 02:32 AM, RichA wrote:
    >> Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is
    >> like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build quality
    >> would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras for 10 years,
    >> in the SLR days, but does it make sense now or just expensive?
    >>
    >> http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    > Of course a Seiko watch keeps time just as well as a Rolex.
    >
    >
    > Some people might be impressed with a Rolex or a Leica
    >
    > but when I see people waste money I kind of think they are dumb...even
    > if they are quite wealthy.


    If it makes them feel better, and they won't starve, I see no harm.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 8, 2014
    #10
  11. Re: New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in thisday and age?

    On 5/8/2014 11:42 AM, PeterN wrote:
    > On 5/8/2014 4:37 AM, philo wrote:
    >> On 05/03/2014 02:32 AM, RichA wrote:
    >>> Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is
    >>> like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build quality
    >>> would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras for 10 years,
    >>> in the SLR days, but does it make sense now or just expensive?
    >>>
    >>> http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Of course a Seiko watch keeps time just as well as a Rolex.
    >>
    >>
    >> Some people might be impressed with a Rolex or a Leica
    >>
    >> but when I see people waste money I kind of think they are dumb...even
    >> if they are quite wealthy.

    >
    > If it makes them feel better, and they won't starve, I see no harm.
    >

    A Rolex watch or even a Seiko may look beautiful inside but it's really
    an anachronism. My solar powered Casio, synchronized daily with Fort
    Collins, keeps better time. I'm also not fond of beautiful watches that
    are unreadable quickly and have unnecessary displays like the phases of
    the moon. Why on earth would anyone want to have that information? Louis
    Sullivan said "Form follows function" and a watch that does not obey
    that is perverse, in my opinion.

    --
    Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
     
    James Silverton, May 8, 2014
    #11
  12. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Re: New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in thisday and age?

    On 5/8/2014 6:02 PM, James Silverton wrote:
    > On 5/8/2014 11:42 AM, PeterN wrote:
    >> On 5/8/2014 4:37 AM, philo wrote:
    >>> On 05/03/2014 02:32 AM, RichA wrote:
    >>>> Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is
    >>>> like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build quality
    >>>> would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras for 10 years,
    >>>> in the SLR days, but does it make sense now or just expensive?
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Of course a Seiko watch keeps time just as well as a Rolex.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Some people might be impressed with a Rolex or a Leica
    >>>
    >>> but when I see people waste money I kind of think they are dumb...even
    >>> if they are quite wealthy.

    >>
    >> If it makes them feel better, and they won't starve, I see no harm.
    >>

    > A Rolex watch or even a Seiko may look beautiful inside but it's really
    > an anachronism. My solar powered Casio, synchronized daily with Fort
    > Collins, keeps better time. I'm also not fond of beautiful watches that
    > are unreadable quickly and have unnecessary displays like the phases of
    > the moon. Why on earth would anyone want to have that information? Louis
    > Sullivan said "Form follows function" and a watch that does not obey
    > that is perverse, in my opinion.
    >


    I don't own one either. I rarely wear a watch, but if anyone wants to
    wear one, I'm kewl with that.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, May 8, 2014
    #12
  13. Re: New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in thisday and age?

    On 5/8/2014 7:05 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Thu, 08 May 2014 18:02:03 -0400, James Silverton
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 5/8/2014 11:42 AM, PeterN wrote:
    >>> On 5/8/2014 4:37 AM, philo wrote:
    >>>> On 05/03/2014 02:32 AM, RichA wrote:
    >>>>> Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is
    >>>>> like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build quality
    >>>>> would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras for 10 years,
    >>>>> in the SLR days, but does it make sense now or just expensive?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Of course a Seiko watch keeps time just as well as a Rolex.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Some people might be impressed with a Rolex or a Leica
    >>>>
    >>>> but when I see people waste money I kind of think they are dumb...even
    >>>> if they are quite wealthy.
    >>>
    >>> If it makes them feel better, and they won't starve, I see no harm.
    >>>

    >> A Rolex watch or even a Seiko may look beautiful inside but it's really
    >> an anachronism. My solar powered Casio, synchronized daily with Fort
    >> Collins, keeps better time. I'm also not fond of beautiful watches that
    >> are unreadable quickly and have unnecessary displays like the phases of
    >> the moon. Why on earth would anyone want to have that information? Louis
    >> Sullivan said "Form follows function" and a watch that does not obey
    >> that is perverse, in my opinion.

    >
    >
    > Not much use to most of the world:
    >
    > http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...s-added-to-premier-g-shock-line-71161982.html
    > or http://tinyurl.com/nfvc97y
    > "Signal reception is possible within a radius of about 2,000 miles
    > from the Fort Collins transmitter."
    >

    There are other time signal transmitters; in Germany and Japan to my
    knowledge and watches can be made to receive those signals too.

    --
    Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
     
    James Silverton, May 9, 2014
    #13
  14. RichA

    nospam Guest

    Re: New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in this day and age?

    In article <lkim17$j42$>, James Silverton
    <> wrote:

    > >> A Rolex watch or even a Seiko may look beautiful inside but it's really
    > >> an anachronism. My solar powered Casio, synchronized daily with Fort
    > >> Collins, keeps better time. I'm also not fond of beautiful watches that
    > >> are unreadable quickly and have unnecessary displays like the phases of
    > >> the moon. Why on earth would anyone want to have that information? Louis
    > >> Sullivan said "Form follows function" and a watch that does not obey
    > >> that is perverse, in my opinion.

    > >
    > > Not much use to most of the world:
    > >
    > > http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/casios-new-atomic-solar-and-tough-so
    > > lar-powered-watches-added-to-premier-g-shock-line-71161982.html
    > > or http://tinyurl.com/nfvc97y
    > > "Signal reception is possible within a radius of about 2,000 miles
    > > from the Fort Collins transmitter."
    > >

    > There are other time signal transmitters; in Germany and Japan to my
    > knowledge and watches can be made to receive those signals too.


    any cdma based cellular tower will suffice, since it requires
    microsecond accuracy for it to function.
     
    nospam, May 9, 2014
    #14
  15. Re: New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in thisday and age?

    On 5/9/2014 6:47 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Fri, 09 May 2014 09:43:15 -0400, James Silverton
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 5/8/2014 7:05 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 08 May 2014 18:02:03 -0400, James Silverton
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 5/8/2014 11:42 AM, PeterN wrote:
    >>>>> On 5/8/2014 4:37 AM, philo wrote:
    >>>>>> On 05/03/2014 02:32 AM, RichA wrote:
    >>>>>>> Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is
    >>>>>>> like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build quality
    >>>>>>> would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras for 10 years,
    >>>>>>> in the SLR days, but does it make sense now or just expensive?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Of course a Seiko watch keeps time just as well as a Rolex.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Some people might be impressed with a Rolex or a Leica
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> but when I see people waste money I kind of think they are dumb...even
    >>>>>> if they are quite wealthy.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If it makes them feel better, and they won't starve, I see no harm.
    >>>>>
    >>>> A Rolex watch or even a Seiko may look beautiful inside but it's really
    >>>> an anachronism. My solar powered Casio, synchronized daily with Fort
    >>>> Collins, keeps better time. I'm also not fond of beautiful watches that
    >>>> are unreadable quickly and have unnecessary displays like the phases of
    >>>> the moon. Why on earth would anyone want to have that information? Louis
    >>>> Sullivan said "Form follows function" and a watch that does not obey
    >>>> that is perverse, in my opinion.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Not much use to most of the world:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...s-added-to-premier-g-shock-line-71161982.html
    >>> or http://tinyurl.com/nfvc97y
    >>> "Signal reception is possible within a radius of about 2,000 miles
    >>> from the Fort Collins transmitter."
    >>>

    >> There are other time signal transmitters; in Germany and Japan to my
    >> knowledge and watches can be made to receive those signals too.

    >
    > That's still not a lot of the world unless the watch can work off WWVH
    > (Hawaii). Then you start to get closer to that claim.
    >

    The whole of the EU, Japan and the US and most of Canada is a fair
    proportion of the world in the market for a watch. A transmitter
    somewhere in Brazil or Argentina is missing.

    --
    Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
     
    James Silverton, May 10, 2014
    #15
  16. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    Re: New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in thisday and age?

    In article <lkffoa$6jl$>, philo  wrote:

    > > RichA:
    > > Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon
    > > is like comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch. This kind of build
    > > quality would have been a great benefit when people kept cameras
    > > for 10 years, in the SLR days, but does it make sense now or just
    > > expensive?

    >
    > > http://www.dpreview.com/products/leica/slrs/leica_t701

    >
    > Of course a Seiko watch keeps time just as well as a Rolex.


    > Some people might be impressed with a Rolex or a Leica


    > but when I see people waste money I kind of think they are
    > dumb...even if they are quite wealthy.


    Don't care about watches, but Leica's are expensive for a reason. Are they
    a bit over the top expensive? Well, maybe, but their lens range is just
    about the best you can find in the world outside of high end medium format
    lenses.




    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, May 11, 2014
    #16
  17. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    Re: New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in this day and age?

    On Sat, 3 May 2014 00:32:43 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    : Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is like
    : comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch.

    I'm not sure that analogy enhances your point. My Seiko runs just fine and
    keeps nearly perfect time. I can't remember when I bought it; but I believe my
    son was still in college, and he's now 46 years old.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, May 25, 2014
    #17
  18. RichA

    Sandman Guest

    Re: New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in thisday and age?

    In article <>, Robert Coe wrote:

    > : Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon
    > is like : comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch.


    > I'm not sure that analogy enhances your point. My Seiko runs just
    > fine and keeps nearly perfect time. I can't remember when I bought
    > it; but I believe my son was still in college, and he's now 46 years
    > old.


    In that case, the analogy works just fine. A Nikon camera, like a Seiko
    watch, runs just fine and takes nearly perfect photos, but quality-wise,
    it's no Leica, nor is the Seiko a Rolex.

    While some may argue (for days and weeks) that a Leica takes better photos
    than a Nikon, the thing that differs is just build quality, the elegance
    that is a Leica. The same much would describe a really high end watch as
    well.

    (Of course, there are some really REALLY nice lenses available for a Leica,
    which helps take great pictures).




    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, May 26, 2014
    #18
  19. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    Re: New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in thisday and age?

    On Sunday, 25 May 2014 23:35:13 UTC+1, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Sat, 3 May 2014 00:32:43 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    >
    > : Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is like
    >
    > : comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch.
    >
    >
    >
    > I'm not sure that analogy enhances your point.


    I've never thopught of Rolex as being a top watch anyway well not as a time piece in it's own right.
    Yes it's expensive with gold and diamonds but as far as watch movements go I don;t think they are better timekeepers than other more reasonabley priced watches. I'd prefer a Harrison H4 to a rolex anyday, unless I was looking for bling.


    >My Seiko runs just fine and
    > keeps nearly perfect time. I can't remember when I bought it; but I believe my
    > son was still in college, and he's now 46 years old.
    >
    >
    >
    > Bob



    I don't even wear a watch any more.
     
    Whisky-dave, May 27, 2014
    #19
  20. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    Re: New Leica T. Is this build-quality counter-productive in this day and age?

    On Tue, 27 May 2014 03:42:08 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave <>
    wrote:
    : On Sunday, 25 May 2014 23:35:13 UTC+1, Robert Coe wrote:
    : > On Sat, 3 May 2014 00:32:43 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    : >
    : > : Leica's are built beautifully, comparing them to even a top Nikon is like
    : >
    : > : comparing a Rolex to a Seiko watch.
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : > I'm not sure that analogy enhances your point.
    :
    : I've never thopught of Rolex as being a top watch anyway well not as a time piece in it's own right.
    : Yes it's expensive with gold and diamonds but as far as watch movements go I don;t think they are better timekeepers than other more reasonabley priced watches. I'd prefer a Harrison H4 to a rolex anyday, unless I was looking for bling.
    :
    :
    : >My Seiko runs just fine and
    : > keeps nearly perfect time. I can't remember when I bought it; but I believe my
    : > son was still in college, and he's now 46 years old.
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : > Bob
    :
    :
    : I don't even wear a watch any more.

    I carry two cell phones, but a wristwatch is more convenient.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 9, 2014
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. news.bwsys.net

    build independent product key? (Age of Mythology)

    news.bwsys.net, Apr 21, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    24,780
  2. vvcd
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,336
  3. John Navas

    Is Lumix Leica real Leica?

    John Navas, Nov 17, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    645
    Dennis Pogson
    Nov 18, 2007
  4. TJ
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,765
    Tony Polson
    Dec 23, 2007
  5. jimmy

    To build or not to build

    jimmy, Feb 23, 2009, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    559
Loading...

Share This Page