Hmmmm, aside from the fact that you not only did what you accused
me of doing, (reading only the parts of a post that supported my
point of view), you went further and deleted from my post those
parts that made your post somewhat meaningless: (restore quote)

In article <4eep47$895@news.halcyon.com>, aubin@halcyon.com says...(..)

>I'll preface this by saying that I do not YET own a Leica, but I WILL >own an M6 and lenses when I can save the pennies.
> (most of a long and interesting post deleted) But I still have a
>pang in my heart when I handle real quality equipment, and I still have >an urge to rush out and start a whole new set of photographic >explorations.

You make some good points about quality, and good "feeling" equipment
being an aid for some people in making new (and serious) photographs.
I certainly photograph much more when I have just bought a new lens
and am eager to see what I can do with it (though, I recognize that
for many people, the equipment has little appeal or meaning - like
an average screw driver or hammer for the average carpenter, it is
"just" a tool). And I do have some attachment for my better feeling
older Nikon gear, and relatively little for the newer "plastic"
stuff. And, for you, Leica may represent "quality" on all its levels.
Having tried a couple of Leicas and a few lenses, my impression is
that, while the "feel" of the rf Leica gear is pretty well unmatched
- in terms of usefulness, for me it is vastly over-rated, particularly
when considering the price (somewhat like Cadillac cars and McIntosh
audio gear - more like expensive carriage-trade posessions than
state-of-the-art user gear). I find the Leica VF darn-near impossible
to use, because it gives a dull-looking odd-colored preview of my photo
(the "feel"thing..), with framing that is hard for me to see with
my glasses (and which is hopelessly inaccurate, anyway), and with a
rf that is nearly meaningless to this user of bright, accurate, sharp
Nikon ground-glass viewing and focusing screens and VF's. Lenses that
lock focus when you approach infinity are a pain in the neck. Cameras
that do their best to avoid being loaded don't amuse me either. Lenses
whose selection of focal-lengths is limited to a very moderate range,
and whose focus range is too restrictive also do not amuse me. And
lenses that require the use of separate VF's for viewing and focusing -
well, uh, this borders on the silly, IM(NS)HO. And lenses which do not
seem very good at wide apertures, but have those apertures (what for,
if they are not very good - certainly not for focusing ease, as in an
SLR) with prices that are multiples of equal or better lenses made by
other manufacturers...... Etc., etc., etc.
(Don't get me going on the Leicaflex line, I may never stop spewing
comments about a cobbled-together line of Minolta-Leitz-Sigma-Schneider
based stuff, also selling for exhorbitant prices [usually multiples of
the original versions of the same equipment].) IM(NS)HO, Leica is
a good example of the power of image over reality. (So as to spread
the insults, I will include as other examples the "Zeiss" Yashica
"Contax" and "Zeiss" Yashica lenses, and Canon, which with superb
salesmanship, has parlayed the truth about some good cameras and
lenses into the impression in many a mind that the very much lesser
quality equipment that occupies much of the line is of equal quality.)
I should end this (before the bricks start flying), by saying that I
would choose a Leica rf for those occasions when it is not only
appropriate, but the only game in town: when silence is necessary or
desireable - and there are many such occasions. And, what I find
desireable (or detestable) in a camera is basically irrelevant for
anyone else - choose for yourself what you prefer to use! (But, maybe,
one could question whether one is buying the image, or the reality -
or the "feel", or the "useability" [if they are exclusive] of a camera
system.)
Hope This Helps

It always seems odd to me that we have become so immersed// in
consuming that anyone who asks what should be a basically relevant
question to the process of acquisition, which is, "Am I getting
good value for my money?", is attacked. Yes, scams annoy me, and
I don't like to see people taken in and fleeced of their money,
whether it is by dishonest individuals, by corporations with
huge advertising budgets, or by the insidiousnous of the status
symbol.
If I see situations that appear to be bordering on a scam (in terms
of poor usefulness for the price), I feel that it is at
least worth raising the question of values. Would anyone claim
that a Rolls-Royce will get you around a mountain curve
significantly faster and more safely than a Ford, or that a $5000
Rolex will keep much better time than a $25 Timex watch, or that
$6000 of McIntosh audio equipment will sound noticeably better than
a 15 year old $100 Technics receiver, or that a two million dollar
house will shelter you any better from the weather than a sixty
thousand dollar house (or $150/month room), or that a $5000 (small)
Leica outfit will take noticeably better pictures than a similar,
but FAR cheaper Nikon (or old Pentax, Minolta, Canon, etc.) camera
outfit? If not, then what is the value of owning
these things (that image building has taught us that
we want, usefulness considerations aside), other than as status
symbols, perhaps? As I said in my earlier post, it is up to you
to decide for yourself what you want, and can afford - I am just
asking people to think a bit about what it is they are buying
(usefulness vs. image) - and to not try to justify a
purchase dishonestly if someone comes along and asks basic
questions about values (and maybe suggests that there may be
better uses for money than satisfying ego needs....). I do -
Hope This Helps