kevin m said:
The M Leica is a damned nice camera to use, but to continue your analogy, it's no Aston Martin. And Canons, Nikons, etc., are certainly not Corollas in comparison. The Leica does not offer - as does the Aston Martin - a huge and obvious performance advantage across the board compared to other cars. The quantifiable advantages are small and limited, the others largely imaginary.
The oft-used car/camera analogy breaks down (as all analogies do) because cars are not tools used to produce an end product like cameras are.
Any vehicle that is capable of performing its function simply gets you from point A to point B at a certain speed in a certain amount of time. However, I agree with your overall perspective. High-end 35mm consumer gear is a clear case of diminishing returns relative to incremental performance gains over competent much less expensive alternatives.
Prints made with $90 Konica Auto S3, $40 Electro CC's 1.8/35 lens, or (literally) $2.39 Lynx 14e (plus $40 CLA/repair), or old $150 Kiev 4/m with interchangeable lenses (I "bet" - don't own a Kiev 4), if scattered on a table, would be indestinguishable, generally speaking, from pictures taken with any Leica to anyone including professionals. There is a leap from cheap/Godawful to "decent", certainly. The leap from "decent" - however, to the very top of the line simply isn't worth the price. And, as a value proposition, high-end 35mm photographic gear, in a word, "sucks".
Example, Hassleblad-made MF Distagon fisheye costs $7389. A used Russian Arsat in Pentacon 6 mount cost me $130. What's the better lens? The Hassleblad, I'm sure. Is it 49 times better (7389/130)? Doubful. I've used the Arsat. It doesn't suck:
FWIW, Photosig users rate the Arsat fisheye at 4.67 of 5
Representative Review Snip,
Photography Experience
21+ years, Outdoor
Summary
This lens is so sharp it looks like the image was chiseled out on the film. I photograph old buildings, bridges, and mountain scenes. On a brick or stone building every rock or brick literally jumps off the image.
http://photosig.pcphotoreview.com/c...es/medium-format/kiev/PRD_135875_3113crx.aspx
Now, I know this thread isn't about MF fisheye lenses but I use it to illustrate a point. One lens costs seven grand from an exhaulted camera/lens company. The other - a "lowly" Russian lens
not widely known to Westerners, without a decades old PR effort to develop their reputation..., and you probably have to look at the differences in prints between the two under a loupe. (Yes, the Hassy fisheye has superior resolution in the lower left corner, as seen here in this 7000X magnified crop blah, blah, blah... Rolls eyes/puh-lease...)
The biggest quality gains - obvious to anyone, is jumping from 135 to larger formats. The tiny differences amongst lenses within a format - especially small format, are often - frankly, silly.
Sorry for preaching, I'm just trying to save some souls from the 7th and lowest level of Photographer hell:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm
In the final analysis, this whole matter is more an issue of the 4 "P's" of product positioning:
Product
Price
Placement
Promotion
Than lens performance.
