Leica M9, X1, etc. on DPReview.com...

[lefturn99]

I going to guess that it simply never occured to any of these reviewers that anyone contemplating a $7000 digital rangefinder would be unfamiliar with how rangefinder cameras work. Anyone who has used a rangefinder knows that they are exclusively manual focus and limited to 135mm or less (the M9 is actually limited to 90mm). You should also be aware that they are absolutely useless for macro and other close focus work if you are contemplating the M9. Finally, rangefinders only work with prime lenses. No zooms!

The lack of IS was worth a mention as this is not technically impossible in a rangefinder. In fact, I think I read at least one review of the M9 that did mention that there is no IS.

High ISO performance is probably something that will be reviewed once we get past the 'hands-on preview' stage and the reviewers get their own cameras to really test. It's unfair to discuss a camera's IQ in detail when all you have done is attend a press release, tour the factory and handle the camera for an hour.

From your overall tone I gather you consider the M9 a ridiculus overpriced toy. I'm no Leica fan and while I think the M9 is way more than I would be willing to pay, the feature set of the camera actually appeals to me a lot (and I'm a 1D Mark III user - so I like the bells & whistles too). For someone who wants a camera to take pictures of people in all kinds of situations and at close range and in low light a rangefinder is ideal. It is small and easy to carry. It is fast and accurate to use. It is silent in operation and unobtrusive. Finally, the large format and required primes can really deliver.

I would not go so far as to call it a ridiculous overpriced toy. I would call it an overpriced work of art that is extremely flawed for the mainstream photographer. I'm sure that suits the Leicaphiles just fine. They wouldn't want everyone to have one.

What I'm more concerned about is the lack of discussion of the missing functions. I'm willing to consider your premise that it was merely an oversight. The small group who have handled the camera were hand picked Leica fans (and I don't blame Leica for that ). However they are speaking to a 2009 audience, probably 98% of which have never shot a rangefinder before. A very high percentage have never shot with a non AF camera either. If they think it is not a problem, fine, explain to us unwashed why.

I guess the counter to my argument would be that the makers of the Arial Atom don't mention that it doesn't have A/C. Just had to get that out before someone hammers me with it.

[JeffreyG]

I would not go so far as to call it a ridiculous overpriced toy. I would call it an overpriced work of art that is extremely flawed for the mainstream photographer. I'm sure that suits the Leicaphiles just fine. They wouldn't want everyone to have one.

What I'm more concerned about is the lack of discussion of the missing functions. I'm willing to consider your premise that it was merely an oversight. The small group who have handled the camera were hand picked Leica fans (and I don't blame Leica for that ). However they are speaking to a 2009 audience, probably 98% of which have never shot a rangefinder before. A very high percentage have never shot with a non AF camera either. If they think it is not a problem, fine, explain to us unwashed why.

I guess the counter to my argument would be that the makers of the Arial Atom don't mention that it doesn't have A/C. Just had to get that out before someone hammers me with it.

You are right.....these reviews should probably start off with a decent explanation of what a rangefinder is and what it is good for. There are probably enough newer photographers that have never used one that the function seems an anachronism. I still have people who watch me use a dSLR and then tell me that composing with an LCD is better than peering through an optical viewfinder. I assume their lack of experience with an SLR clouds their understanding. People who have not used a rangefinder are probably similarly mystified.

I personally would love to have a rangefinder....and my 1D Mark III. I could use the 1D3 for all the stuff rangefinders suck at but I could leave that tank home and use the rangefinger for so many things that they are as good or better at.

But at $7000 with no lens and then the typical Leica lens prices.....well.....Let's just say that I could sell off the 5D, 35L, 85L, 50/1.4. and 135L and still not have a lens to go with my M9.

I'd really like to see a camera company with less cachet get into the rangefinder business. At the moment the nearest choices are the Olympus EP-1 and the Panasonic GL-1. Neither of these are rangefinders and people who really want a rangefinder (like me) will find them to be a poor compromise. They also each cost about $900 (with lens!) which is a bargain compared to the Leica in some ways....and not in others.

Beyond the $7000 Leica and the $900 micro 4:3 choices you are into the land of the tiny format digicams which have compromises too numerous to list. So....I hope this helps explain why people who want a small camera are excited about the Leica M9 even if the price is kind of nuts.

[sjones]

I would not go so far as to call it a ridiculous overpriced toy. I would call it an overpriced work of art that is extremely flawed for the mainstream photographer. I'm sure that suits the Leicaphiles just fine. They wouldn't want everyone to have one...

Lack of auto focus is not unique to Leicas but is largely typical of all rangefinders (including ones made by Canon and Nikon a few decades back), with the exception of the Contax G series. If a person prefers to shoot a rangefinder, then what one person might consider a flaw could be another person's benefit. Hard to point out a flaw if you don't believe that it is a flaw.

Good thing you don't consider rangefinders a toy, since an immeasurable wealth of some of the world's greatest photos were taken by photographers who happened to be using rangefinders.

The M9 is Leica's top end professional camera, and it comes in at about the same price as the Canon 1Ds Mk. III and the Nikon D3x, so I would not consider it any more overpriced than Canon's or Nikon's offerings.

[lefturn99]

I really have no problem with the camera. It is a boutique, niche piece that is probably better than anything else at what it does well. I just think the guys who were waxing so eloquently about the benefits of the lack of the anti-aliasing filter completely forgot to mention that the benefits are offset (to many, at least) by the lack of AF, IS, zoom lenses, and long lenses. In this day and age, those are not trivial things.

I also like the form factor. I'm looking at the Panny GF-1. But I want the modern conveniences.

[airfrogusmc]

I would not go so far as to call it a ridiculous overpriced toy. I would call it an overpriced work of art that is extremely flawed for the mainstream photographer. I'm sure that suits the Leicaphiles just fine. They wouldn't want everyone to have one.

What I'm more concerned about is the lack of discussion of the missing functions. I'm willing to consider your premise that it was merely an oversight. The small group who have handled the camera were hand picked Leica fans (and I don't blame Leica for that ). However they are speaking to a 2009 audience, probably 98% of which have never shot a rangefinder before. A very high percentage have never shot with a non AF camera either. If they think it is not a problem, fine, explain to us unwashed why.

I guess the counter to my argument would be that the makers of the Arial Atom don't mention that it doesn't have A/C. Just had to get that out before someone hammers me with it.

Missing functions ? For a good deal of photographers a lens, a shutter and an aperture is all you really need and all most photographers choosing Leica really want.

Maybe that 2% thats left is really whats right about photography in 09 and have their priorities in the right place. ;)

[airfrogusmc]

I really have no problem with the camera. It is a boutique, niche piece that is probably better than anything else at what it does well. I just think the guys who were waxing so eloquently about the benefits of the lack of the anti-aliasing filter completely forgot to mention that the benefits are offset (to many, at least) by the lack of AF, IS, zoom lenses, and long lenses. In this day and age, those are not trivial things.

I also like the form factor. I'm looking at the Panny GF-1. But I want the modern conveniences.
The lack of A/F IS and zooms are just some of many reasons some will pick the M9. And again as I've already mentioned there are MANY photographers that don't shoot sports or birds so anything longer than say 100mm is not important. But when you try to explain those things to those that want all the B&Ws well the old saying; if you have to ask...

[airfrogusmc]

Lack of auto focus is not unique to Leicas but is largely typical of all rangefinders (including ones made by Canon and Nikon a few decades back), with the exception of the Contax G series. If a person prefers to shoot a rangefinder, then what one person might consider a flaw could be another person's benefit. Hard to point out a flaw if you don't believe that it is a flaw.

Good thing you don't consider rangefinders a toy, since an immeasurable wealth of some of the world's greatest photos were taken by photographers who happened to be using rangefinders.

The M9 is Leica's top end professional camera, and it comes in at about the same price as the Canon 1Ds Mk. III and the Nikon D3x, so I would not consider it any more overpriced than Canon's or Nikon's offerings.

A good # of incredible medium format cameras are manual focus and I just can't remember ever seeing a Deardorff with AF.;)

[airfrogusmc]

You are right.....these reviews should probably start off with a decent explanation of what a rangefinder is and what it is good for. There are probably enough newer photographers that have never used one that the function seems an anachronism. I still have people who watch me use a dSLR and then tell me that composing with an LCD is better than peering through an optical viewfinder. I assume their lack of experience with an SLR clouds their understanding. People who have not used a rangefinder are probably similarly mystified.

I personally would love to have a rangefinder....and my 1D Mark III. I could use the 1D3 for all the stuff rangefinders suck at but I could leave that tank home and use the rangefinger for so many things that they are as good or better at.

But at $7000 with no lens and then the typical Leica lens prices.....well.....Let's just say that I could sell off the 5D, 35L, 85L, 50/1.4. and 135L and still not have a lens to go with my M9.

I'd really like to see a camera company with less cachet get into the rangefinder business. At the moment the nearest choices are the Olympus EP-1 and the Panasonic GL-1. Neither of these are rangefinders and people who really want a rangefinder (like me) will find them to be a poor compromise. They also each cost about $900 (with lens!) which is a bargain compared to the Leica in some ways....and not in others.

Beyond the $7000 Leica and the $900 micro 4:3 choices you are into the land of the tiny format digicams which have compromises too numerous to list. So....I hope this helps explain why people who want a small camera are excited about the Leica M9 even if the price is kind of nuts.

Funny how for some its no problem dropping 7K for a 1DsMkIII. I think thats kinda nuts. Thats why I never bought one and I have shot a good deal with the 1Ds series.

[Double Negative]

Missing functions ? For a good deal of photographers a lens, a shutter and an aperture is all you really need and all most photographers choosing Leica really want.

Maybe that 2% thats left is really whats right about photography in 09 and have their priorities in the right place. ;)

Exactly what I was going to say. There are three controls that really interest me. Aperture, shutter speed, focus and optionally - ISO. Everything else is secondary. I don't miss AF or IS when shooting a RF. I shoot it *because* it lacks these things some times! Hard to explain really. It's not for everyone - but for some, it's sweet.

So don't think of them as "missing functions." They're not missing. They're intentionally left out. ;)

Let's not forget that Hasselblads have just as many functions - missing or not.

[Jannie]

If I could afford it I'd buy an M9 and maybe one or two lenses. It would not replace what I have in any fashion but to be mostly used in the way of very fast people shooting, using hyperfocal focusing preset distances, using it as an exercise and execution of a different way of both seeing and shooting. Yes some of this could overlap but there was a time when I did shoot like this using a SLR film camera, where I would shoot very fast and be hardly noticed at all. You can get something different this way, it's another tool, from another time but many of those photographs are etched in our memories forever. I love photographing people and this is just another way of doing it. Also working with and feeling a Leica in your hands is something very special. As long as my glasses could see using the viewfinder well enough, I'd go for it if I could.

[ghaleon109]

I think you mean "M9." ;)

What accessories? RF shooters rarely, if ever, use a flash. Sure you'll likely add at least a lens or two to your kit... But keep in mind that the lenses are REALLY small. Case in point. My M8/Ikon kit. I can fit a camera with lens mounted, five other lenses, film, batteries, cleaning supplies, filters and a mini tripod with room left over for an iPod in a Think Tank Photo "Urban Disguise 20" bag. Now that's tiny. And LIGHT!

Just this past weekend I was shooting a wedding with a 1D2N, the trinity of zooms and a 35L, plus 580EX and batteries... There was nothing small, nor light about it. Though the Seven Million Dollar Home did its job, it's far too heavy to carry around for more than a few hours comfortably.

Indeed I did :oops:

I think I just need to do some research on RF's, I know hardly anything about them. The lenses do look quite smaller, as well as the body, which is nice indeed.

But I guess my question was just that I don't understand how going from a DLSR with a "kit" to a RF like the M9 is going to be as versitle, and allow you the same options as you would have had, had you kept your "kit."

I'm REALLY looking at shrinking my gear down, what I have now just isn't practical. The M9 looks amazing on paper, but my lack of knowledge about RF's and it's price puts it a bit out of my range at the moment :confused:

[Double Negative]

^ Okay, consider the source here and of course the fact that the lens on the left is a prime and the one on the right is a zoom... And the prime is also one of the smallest RF lenses available... Basically two extremes. But nevertheless, you can get an idea of the size differences between RF and SLR lenses.

From KR's site: (http://kenrockwell.com/tech/rangefinder-vs-slr.htm)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/images/21mm-f4/D3S_7705-460.jpg

If you want to shoot film, you can find absolute bargains in the RF world for both cameras and lenses. If you want to go digital, then you have to step up a bit. The cheapest is the Epson R-D1, followed by an M8, M8.2 and finally the M9. Bonus, you can use all your lenses on all of these bodies!

[airfrogusmc]

Indeed I did :oops:

I think I just need to do some research on RF's, I know hardly anything about them. The lenses do look quite smaller, as well as the body, which is nice indeed.

But I guess my question was just that I don't understand how going from a DLSR with a "kit" to a RF like the M9 is going to be as versitle, and allow you the same options as you would have had, had you kept your "kit."

I'm REALLY looking at shrinking my gear down, what I have now just isn't practical. The M9 looks amazing on paper, but my lack of knowledge about RF's and it's price puts it a bit out of my range at the moment :confused:

If you're thinking zooms and auto everything it won't be as versatile in that respect but there are a good many photographers that find shooting with range finders and one or two lenses just the opposite of limiting and think of them as even more versatile. Many of the great street photographers choose/chose to shoot with range finders like Leica.

And then theres the glass.

[airfrogusmc]

I just read what KR had to say about range finders and again got some thing right but when I read the part where they're for landscapes and static things I almost spit my coffee all over the keyboard. There are reasons the great street guys shot ACTION with range finders. Winogrand would set his lens (DoF scales on the lens) use the info from the film sheets Kodak use to put in every roll and shoot. Can't get any faster focus than that.

[lefturn99]

A good # of incredible medium format cameras are manual focus and I just can't remember ever seeing a Deardorff with AF.;)

Ok. If they are so great, how many of them are sold each year?

No one can win the "Old school vs. New school" argument. I'm unabashedly New school. I don't hang in the Leica forum. But I do read Michael Reichmann's articles on "Camera Porn" (his description). I am a customer of his. He did not ask me my preferences when I purchased tutorials from him. I think his audience is wider than strictly Leicaphiles and he should humor us lesser cretins by discussing these issues.

It's not a huge deal. I just noticed what I see as an inconsistency and mentioned it. Your mileage may vary.

[airfrogusmc]

Ok. If they are so great, how many of them are sold each year?

No one can win the "Old school vs. New school" argument. I'm unabashedly New school. I don't hang in the Leica forum. But I do read Michael Reichmann's articles on "Camera Porn" (his description). I am a customer of his. He did not ask me my preferences when I purchased tutorials from him. I think his audience is wider than strictly Leicaphiles and he should humor us lesser cretins by discussing these issues.

It's not a huge deal. I just noticed what I see as an inconsistency and mentioned it. Your mileage may vary.

Its a different philosophy that some will not understand (Plato's Cave). Look at the move to the new M9. There are very solid reasons why I like many others didn't move to the M8.

Apparently theres a demand. Double Neg posted this link in an earlier post in this thread.
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Leica_M9_Photographers_ditch_DSLR_cameras_news_289 093.html12
And thats the problem; it shouldn't be one against the other. Rangefinders like large format and medium format all have a place but its hard to tell the one size fits all crowd that.

The M9 is the perfect tool for some things and most of what I shoot it would certainly be a good fit.

[Double Negative]

Precisely... Arguing old school vs. new or one format/system against another is a losing battle. There is no ONE answer. Like everything else in photography, it's all a matter of compromises. Size, quality, cost, features, yada yada yada...

Just a tangent here - and as for RFs and street shooting, they're a natural for several reasons. They're very small and quiet - thus stealthy. You can see outside of your frame to anticipate action coming into your framed scene, or to get a better overview so that you can quickly frame your subject (more on this in a moment). The VF is very bright, everything is basically in focus. The method of street shooters is to use a fast film to ensure both a fast shutter speed and the ability to use a smaller aperture. You set the camera up to say, 1/125s and f/8 if not better (in the sense of faster shutter speed and smaller aperture). The lens is set to the hyperfocal distance. Wide angles are a favorite because they get more in the frame and have deeper DoF. In the close quarters of the street shooter, they're also more useful. When you see a scene, you simply raise the camera to your eye to quickly frame the shot, hit the shutter button - and back down to your side it goes.

[lefturn99]

The VF is very bright, everything is basically in focus. The method of street shooters is to use a fast film to ensure both a fast shutter speed and the ability to use a smaller aperture. You set the camera up to say, 1/125s and f/8 if not better (in the sense of faster shutter speed and smaller aperture). The lens is set to the hyperfocal distance. Wide angles are a favorite because they get more in the frame and have deeper DoF.

I was wondering about that. I couldn't figure out how you could manually focus if you couldn't see through the lens.

But wait! I've got it. Hold the camera 18 inches in front of you and twist the focusing ring while looking at the LCD. That would work.

Sorry.

[alt4852]

Apparently theres a demand. Double Neg posted this link in an earlier post in this thread.
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Leica_M9_Photographers_ditch_DSLR_cameras_news_289 093.html12
And thats the problem; it shouldn't be one against the other. Rangefinders like large format and medium format all have a place but its hard to tell the one size fits all crowd that.

i'd be careful using that particular article as a reference to demand though. like the 5Dmk2, the M9 has been highly anticipated. the article proves that they sold EIGHT cameras. it's not out of the ordinary to have more than eight people awaiting the release of a shiny new piece of equipment. when you compare that story to other product releases, i think it's rather easy to conclude that selling eight units in a short amount of time is very normal for something that has been anticipated for so long.

the reason why i don't like that article is the extreme bias it incorporates. it quotes the store owner's speculative claim that he could sell fifty in a day (honestly not something out of the ordinary for highly anticipated product in a flagship store that services a city of nearly 8 million people) as something worth mentioning.

then it goes on to boldly say that professionals are sick of carrying around so much heavy gear and are turning to the M9 as an alternative. really? they're able to surmise that conclusion from EIGHT customers? they mention people trading in 1Dsmk2's and D3's, but it really makes you wonder.. what true professional trades in their well-functioning equipment for a new body that is untested in the field and an unproven track record? surely there will be some gutsy few who are willing to risk it, but no high demand professional would take such a massive risk as to forfeit their functioning equipment just to put their hands on the shiny new camera that was just released. buy a M9 and transition your SLR gear over time, sure. sell your workhorse for a freshly-released camera body? doubtful.

the article then mentions another store that was flooded with orders and ran out of stock. i think i read somewhere that the UK received 15 M9's from leica. if no other store received stock, that means the other store owner only had seven cameras to sell to begin with. if he had twelve orders, that could easily be described as many more orders than available inventory.. and even that is a stretch because it sounds highly unlikely that leica would only release inventory to two stores in london for the entirety of the UK's customer base. just putting it out there. ;)

i don't know, maybe i'm just a bit skeptical, but i have a hard time believing there is an "exodus" or any significant movement towards the M9 as a significant force that compels professionals to sell their dSLRs. wedding and journalists need backups, and in order to keep the same level of workflow smoothness as they had with dSLRs, they'd need to buy either two M9's or a M9 and a M8/8.2. factor in the cost of two or three lenses.. you have a system that nets you two camera bodies and three lenses that will cost you roughly $20k.

professionals contrary to what is implied by some in this thread, are people who earn their living from photography. they do NOT value craftmanship over the bottom line for all intensive purposes.. or else they'd be a poor businessperson to begin with. if you have a $20k kit that is less versatile than a $8k kit that makes your clients happy, i don't think many will see how that makes any business sense. some might, but i'd say a very insignificant number.

i still say that most professionals who buy them will use the M9 as a supplement to their existing gear. it makes sense. hell, even i want a M9 for what my dSLRs can't do. implying that there is a significant movement that is abandoning dSLRs in the new age of digital rangefinders is misleading and misinformed. :p

[airfrogusmc]

I was wondering about that. I couldn't figure out how you could manually focus if you couldn't see through the lens.

But wait! I've got it. Hold the camera 18 inches in front of you and twist the focusing ring while looking at the LCD. That would work.

Sorry.

The focus on Leica range finders is also surprisingly accurate. I can tell ya you won't miss any shots because the lens in hunting. I don't think theres live view.

[alt4852]

Precisely... Arguing old school vs. new or one format/system against another is a losing battle. There is no ONE answer. Like everything else in photography, it's all a matter of compromises. Size, quality, cost, features, yada yada yada...

Just a tangent here - and as for RFs and street shooting, they're a natural for several reasons. They're very small and quiet - thus stealthy. You can see outside of your frame to anticipate action coming into your framed scene, or to get a better overview so that you can quickly frame your subject (more on this in a moment). The VF is very bright, everything is basically in focus. The method of street shooters is to use a fast film to ensure both a fast shutter speed and the ability to use a smaller aperture. You set the camera up to say, 1/125s and f/8 if not better (in the sense of faster shutter speed and smaller aperture). The lens is set to the hyperfocal distance. Wide angles are a favorite because they get more in the frame and have deeper DoF. In the close quarters of the street shooter, they're also more useful. When you see a scene, you simply raise the camera to your eye to quickly frame the shot, hit the shutter button - and back down to your side it goes.

ah, but street photography doesn't pay quite as well as weddings, corporate events, sports associations, press agencies, and portrait sessions. ;)

[airfrogusmc]

i'd be careful using that particular article as a reference to demand though. like the 5Dmk2, the M9 has been highly anticipated. the article proves that they sold EIGHT cameras. it's not out of the ordinary to have more than eight people awaiting the release of a shiny new piece of equipment. when you compare that story to other product releases, i think it's rather easy to conclude that selling eight units in a short amount of time is very normal for something that has been anticipated for so long.

the reason why i don't like that article is the extreme bias it incorporates. it quotes the store owner's speculative claim that he could sell fifty in a day (honestly not something out of the ordinary for highly anticipated product in a flagship store that services a city of nearly 8 million people) as something worth mentioning.

then it goes on to boldly say that professionals are sick of carrying around so much heavy gear and are turning to the M9 as an alternative. really? they're able to surmise that conclusion from EIGHT customers? they mention people trading in 1Dsmk2's and D3's, but it really makes you wonder.. what true professional trades in their well-functioning equipment for a new body that is untested in the field and an unproven track record? surely there will be some gutsy few who are willing to risk it, but no high demand professional would take such a massive risk as to forfeit their functioning equipment just to put their hands on the shiny new camera that was just released. buy a M9 and transition your SLR gear over time, sure. sell your workhorse for a freshly-released camera body? doubtful.

the article then mentions another store that was flooded with orders and ran out of stock. i think i read somewhere that the UK received 15 M9's from leica. if no other store received stock, that means the other store owner only had seven cameras to sell to begin with. if he had twelve orders, that could easily be described as many more orders than available inventory.. and even that is a stretch because it sounds highly unlikely that leica would only release inventory to two stores in london for the entirety of the UK's customer base. just putting it out there. ;)

i don't know, maybe i'm just a bit skeptical, but i have a hard time believing there is an "exodus" or any significant movement towards the M9 as a significant force that compels professionals to sell their dSLRs. wedding and journalists need backups, and in order to keep the same level of workflow smoothness as they had with dSLRs, they'd need to buy either two M9's or a M9 and a M8/8.2. factor in the cost of two or three lenses.. you have a system that nets you two camera bodies and three lenses that will cost you roughly $20k.

professionals contrary to what is implied by some in this thread, are people who earn their living from photography. they do NOT value craftmanship over the bottom line for all intensive purposes.. or else they'd be a poor businessperson to begin with. if you have a $20k kit that is less versatile than a $8k kit that makes your clients happy, i don't think many will see how that makes any business sense. some might, but i'd say a very insignificant number.

i still say that most professionals who buy them will use the M9 as a supplement to their existing gear. it makes sense. hell, even i want a M9 for what my dSLRs can't do. implying that there is a significant movement that is abandoning dSLRs in the new age of digital rangefinders is misleading and misinformed. :p

Theres a waiting list at Calumet.

As far as price goes on DSLR cameras and lenses I'm weighing in at a bit over 16,000 and I have 5Ds. I have been supporting my family with photography FULL TIME since 1986. I shot with Hasselblad and my old Canon F-1s never moved to the EOS series and you're right its about value but again long after most have gone trough several DSLRs chasing the new B&Ws I will still be cranking away with my M9 because I wont need to upgrade so its kind of like when I invested in my Hasselblads which were triple the cost of a 35mm system at the time; because I didn't keep chasing the upgrades I wound up saving money in the long run. So in some ways we do value craftsmanship anyway I do because there is value in it. ;)

[airfrogusmc]

Yeah but high end advertising and commercial work does, usually pays better than weddings and editorial, unless your like a very good friend of mine that starts at 16,000 per wedding oh and that was his M8 I posted earlier. He shoots weddings with it.;)

I certainly have never said that everyone was giving up there DSLRs for the M9 but I do think there is a sizable market with like minded photographers that are tired of the B&W marry-go round and looking for a good, simple, unobtrusive, quite camera. Keep and shoot what ever you want but my point is and will always be there are many more out there that agree with me and most that would buy an M9 aren't interested in the things that most DSLR fans are interested in otherwise the wouldn't be buying Leica.

[Double Negative]

The first Canon (actually a "Kwanon/Hansa Canon") was a Nikon, which was a copy of a Leica.

I'm just saying. :p

[alt4852]

Yeah but high end advertising and commercial work does, usually pays better than weddings and editorial, unless your like a very good friend of mine that starts at 16,000 per wedding oh and that was his M8 I posted earlier. He shoots weddings with it.;)

I certainly have never said that everyone was giving up there DSLRs for the M9 but I do think there is a sizable market with like minded photographers that are tired of the B&W marry-go round and looking for a good, simple, unobtrusive, quite camera. Keep and shoot what ever you want but my point is and will always be there are many more out there that agree with me and most that would buy an M9 aren't interested in the things that most DSLR fans are interested in otherwise the wouldn't be buying Leica.

true. i just can't help but think that people who are puting down $7,000 for the M9 right now at launch are more rabid leica fans rather than working professionals. if i was singing the 1Dmk4's praises before i even set a finger on one, i'd be rightfully labeled as a brand fanboy. it doesn't matter what features are on it or lack thereof, i just find it interesting that people are so quick to laud the M9 as the coming of a new age and philosophy in digital photography when nobody has actually used one for any professional work yet. i'm fairly confident that it will be amazing, but isn't it a bit early to evangelize it's success? :p

[Double Negative]

She also uses Canons, but Annie Liebowitz' main rigs are Leicas... Just to site one example.

No one is saying the M9 itself is the second coming. More so the heart of the beast. The fact that a digital rangefinder is available that's true to its roots; "full frame." The holy grail of 35mm DSLRs as well until not that long ago. But in the M world it was long considered "impossible..."

[alt4852]

The first Canon (actually a "Kwanon/Hansa Canon") was a Nikon, which was a copy of a Leica.

I'm just saying. :p

all cars trace their heritage back to a ford, but that doesn't mean i'm trading in my toyota anytime soon for a F-150. ;)

i'm just saying. :p

[lefturn99]

She also uses Canons, but Annie Liebowitz' main rigs are Leicas... Just to site one example.

I doubt the Leicas are the reason she went broke but I'm not sure that's a great example.

[alt4852]

She also uses Canons, but Annie Liebowitz' main rigs are Leicas... Just to site one example.

No one is saying the M9 itself is the second coming. More so the heart of the beast. The fact that a digital rangefinder is available that's true to its roots; "full frame." The holy grail of 35mm DSLRs as well until not that long ago. But in the M world it was long considered "impossible..."

exactly. most professionals i trust will use a cocktail of bodies and lenses that specialize in their respective tasks. that's why i was so perplexed by all of the talk a few pages back about how people were ditching their dSLRs in anticipation of a M9 purchase.

annie leibovitz uses nikon too if i recall correctly. she used a 1-series with a 24-70L and pocketwizard multimax's for her shoot with the queen of england if memory serves me right. it doesn't really prove anything.. just that she knows how to diversify her equipment to get the best results for the given task. ;)

[airfrogusmc]

all cars trace their heritage back to a ford, but that doesn't mean i'm trading in my toyota anytime soon for a F-150. ;)

i'm just saying. :p

Yep I never said that either in fact I said I would probably keep at least one DLSR. To many people always think in terms of either or.

[airfrogusmc]

true. i just can't help but think that people who are puting down $7,000 for the M9 right now at launch are more rabid leica fans rather than working professionals. if i was singing the 1Dmk4's praises before i even set a finger on one, i'd be rightfully labeled as a brand fanboy. it doesn't matter what features are on it or lack thereof, i just find it interesting that people are so quick to laud the M9 as the coming of a new age and philosophy in digital photography when nobody has actually used one for any professional work yet. i'm fairly confident that it will be amazing, but isn't it a bit early to evangelize it's success? :p

So does that mean someone that would drop 8 grand for 1Ds Mk III is just a rabid Canon fan? Why is so so hard to believe there are photographers, WORKING pros, full time, that shoot other things besides weddings and might prefer something other than the same ole same ole because it fits their vision and style better?

And one thing i know for sure is 18mp and FF with that wonderful M glass is really more than enough camera for me and I doubt I will upgrade it before it dies. How many chasing all the latest and greatest can say that. There are those that I read here that had the original 5D up graded to the new 5DII and complained that the focus points suck and the FPS weren't near enough and can't wait until the next generation. If you buy the M9 your not buying it for any of those reasons, so no need to really upgrade anyway for me there wouldn't be.

[airfrogusmc]

I doubt the Leicas are the reason she went broke but I'm not sure that's a great example.

Also RBs/RZs.

[alt4852]

Yep I never said that either in fact I said I would probably keep at least one DLSR. To many people always think in terms of either or.

airfrog, we're not the only two people in this thread. ;) every time you mention that i'm implying something that you haven't said, i'm quoting and responding to someone else in this thread. in this case, i'm just referencing the odd person or two that mentioned that they have plans to switch to leica or people like GV who mention that they have no intention of owning a SLR ever again.

i'm not saying they're in the wrong, since they can and should do whatever they want, but i don't think the sentiment really applies to most professional photographers because it's not really a sensible business decision.

[Rainyday]

She also uses Canons, but Annie Liebowitz' main rigs are Leicas... Just to site one example.

No one is saying the M9 itself is the second coming. More so the heart of the beast. The fact that a digital rangefinder is available that's true to its roots; "full frame." The holy grail of 35mm DSLRs as well until not that long ago. But in the M world it was long considered "impossible..."

Annie Leibovitz is hardly a role model for professional photography, seeing as she's struggling to keep a roof over her head right now.

[alt4852]

So does that mean someone that would drop 8 grand for 1Ds Mk III is just a rabid Canon fan? Why is so so hard to believe there are photographers, WORKING pros, full time, that shoot other things besides weddings and might prefer something other than the same ole same ole because it fits their vision and style better?

And one thing i know for sure is 18mp and FF with that wonderful M glass is really more than enough camera for me and I doubt I will upgrade it before it dies. How many chasing all the latest and greatest can say that. There are those that I read here that had the original 5D up graded to the new 5DII and complained that the focus points suck and the FPS weren't near enough and can't wait until the next generation. If you buy the M9 your not buying it for any of those reasons, so no need to really upgrade anyway for me there wouldn't be.

i suppose my rabid fan comment was a bit misworded, but what i meant to say was that working professionals are not prone to trading in their working tools and switch an entire system to be the first in the store to buy a new unproven camera whilst putting their business on the line hoping that leica did not make any mistakes. most of the photographers who were blindsided by the failure of the 1Dmk3's autofocus system were able to fall back on their 1Dmk2N's to finish their jobs. anyone who is willing to switch platforms at the drop of a hat without a product that has a proven track record sounds reckless and unprofessional. that's all. M8 users noticed the problem of a much needed filter in the new camera, and canon and nikon both have track records of making mistakes at launch. my question was just asking what kind of professional trades in a D3 or a pair of 1Dsmk2's for a M9 like that? i understand what you've been saying about different styles, but switching systems while selling your old platform on the spot makes me raise an eyebrow. that's all. :confused:

[JeffreyG]

Annie Leibovitz is hardly a role model for professional photography, seeing as she's struggling to keep a roof over her head right now.

Her problems are related to her business/financial acumen though....not her photography skills. It would be a mistake to suggest she knows nothing about photography because she is bad with money.

[airfrogusmc]

Annie Leibovitz is hardly a role model for professional photography, seeing as she's struggling to keep a roof over her head right now.

Theres a few pros right now feeling the crunch;)

[Gentleman Villain]

i'm just referencing the odd person or two that mentioned that they have plans to switch to leica or people like GV who mention that they have no intention of owning a SLR ever again.

i'm not saying they're in the wrong, since they can and should do whatever they want, but i don't think the sentiment really applies to most professional photographers because it's not really a sensible business decision.

Oh yeah, anybody would be correct to call me an odd person in comparison to the mainstream. The best businessmen never follow the crowd. Currently, the photography industry is over-populated with DSLR shooters and strobist wannabes. There is an army of photographers coming up that have access to low cost strobe systems and DSLRs. They all learn technique from viewing the same online sources. Basically, they are an army of clones.

There are only 3 ways that a photographer is going to be able to consistently work in this type of clone environment. First, he can price himself lower than all of the other DSLR strobist shooters clones (which could end up pretty low, even free of charge)... Two, he can perform sexual favors to attract clients...or Three, he can create a unique look that is totally different from the immediate competition and charge a fortune.

I'm too ugly to be successful at #2...so my choice is # 3

The best thing about Leica is that hardly anybody uses it for commercial photography. Most commercial shooters are working with DSLRs or large format with digital backs. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Leica shooters are street photographers (pedestrian hobbyists) and the few that make a living with Leica are usually involved in reportage or weddings. Commercial use of Leica is wide open and relatively free of immediate competition.

I would imagine that Allen is attracted to Leica because he's essentially a commercial industrial photographer. Industrial photography is heavily influenced by reportage. Leica is the ultimate reportage camera, so it fits in perfectly with industrial photography. Fortunately for Allen, most modern industrial shooters are DSLR strobist clones. A switch to Leica can help him differentiate his look from the immediate and upcoming competition while at the same time staying true to the reportage roots of industrial photography.

[alt4852]

Oh yeah, anybody would be correct to call me an odd person in comparison to the mainstream. The best businessmen never follow the crowd. Currently, the photography industry is over-populated with DSLR shooters and strobist wannabes. There is an army of photographers coming up that have access to low cost strobe systems and DSLRs. They all learn technique from viewing the same online sources. Basically, they are an army of clones.

i think that's an unfair assessment considering that's the way it is with most any industry. bakers all make bread in nearly the identical way, florists all arrange flowers in ways that they're taught in aesthetics class, and cobblers all re-sole and repair shoes according to procedure.

The best thing about Leica is that hardly anybody uses it for commercial photography. Most commercial shooters are working with DSLRs or large format with digital backs. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Leica shooters are street photographers (pedestrian hobbyists) and the few that make a living with Leica are usually involved in reportage or weddings. Commercial use of Leica is wide open and relatively free of immediate competition.

it's a bit naive to think that using a different brand or style of camera will make your images unique though. the reason why medium format is used in commercial photography is mainly because lighting is well controlled, the advantages of seeing outside a frame and a quiet shutter or using a small camera are all negligent, and medium format offers files that can be made into billboards with much less up-sampling than 35mm files today.

if the advantages of a leica rangefinder don't transfer to studio photography, i think that might be the reason there is little competition in that regard. being small, light, discreet, and quiet don't really count for much in commercial shoots.

I would imagine that Allen is attracted to Leica because he's essentially a commercial industrial photographer. Industrial photography is heavily influenced by reportage. Leica is the ultimate reportage camera, so it fits in perfectly with industrial photography. Fortunately for Allen, most modern industrial shooters are DSLR strobist clones. A switch to Leica can help him differentiate his look from the immediate and upcoming competition while at the same time staying true to the reportage roots of industrial photography.

from what i've gathered, he has done rather well for himself by being a "clone" DSLR user so far. he currently has fantastic work that he's posted all around the forums (dig around in the 35L and 200L threads) and needless to say, his strobe work is very diffferent despite his use of clone equipment.

i think rangefinder photography is a focus on a different photographic experience, and less so the focus on different photos. when i use my rangefinder, i do feel more in tune with the scene around me, but there is nothing that i take with my rangefinder that is not possible with my SLR (film or otherwise). i like rangefinders for the means of getting the image as it's more enjoyable for me when i'm on the street, but i think you're drifting into gearhead territory if you truely believe that having a leica will make your photos look significantly different. i think a skilled SLR photographer can make photos that look and feel identical to the results out of a rangefinder. it's a matter of skill, not brand or variation of method that creates images. rangefinders just makes for a different and dare i say more immersed experience when you're shooting.

[Double Negative]

...it's a bit naive to think that using a different brand or style of camera will make your images unique though. the reason why medium format is used in commercial photography is mainly because lighting is well controlled, the advantages of seeing outside a frame and a quiet shutter or using a small camera are all negligent, and medium format offers files that can be made into billboards with much less up-sampling than 35mm files today...

I wouldn't say that. A lot of pros and wedding photographers are not necessarily "going back to" but are utilizing film again for their work. With everyone shooting digital these days, film gives you a different character than the plasticky digital stuff everyone is used to these days.

Then there's the different formats. I think you're mixing up MF and RF a little, there. Medium format is traditionally used because of the high quality of the large negatives and ability to crop as necessary. Of course, MF digital has come a long way as well and the quality argument applies just as well today. There is a large market of pros, especially in the studio - that use MF.

It's the photographer that can work with multiple mediums and formats that is the most versatile and has the broadest range of style to differentiate themselves from the Clone Army. To pigeonhole yourself into one camera, format, medium or whatever - is really just limiting yourself. Especially since used goods in the film market are so very affordable now. Case in point, I shoot more film these days than I ever have. I regularly rotate amongst Canon, Hasselblad, Mamiya and Leica/Zeiss cameras. No reason not to!

[alt4852]

I wouldn't say that. A lot of pros and wedding photographers are not necessarily "going back to" but are utilizing film again for their work. With everyone shooting digital these days, film gives you a different character than the plasticky digital stuff everyone is used to these days.

yea, i'm not really arguing with that, but it seems counterproductive to the point of the discussion about how the M9 will produce a different look than what other digital cameras are churning out. if you want to advocate film, i think that's a different discussion. ;)

Then there's the different formats. I think you're mixing up MF and RF a little, there. Medium format is traditionally used because of the high quality of the large negatives and ability to crop as necessary. Of course, MF digital has come a long way as well and the quality argument applies just as well today. There is a large market of pros, especially in the studio - that use MF.

actually, that was exactly what i was saying. GV was alluding to the fact that there's a market for commercial photographers who use 35mm rangefinders. i don't think there's really a case for that just because nobody else does it. it's less practical because medium format IS more suited for that task. commercial and studio photography don't play to a M's strengths.

It's the photographer that can work with multiple mediums and formats that is the most versatile and has the broadest range of style to differentiate themselves from the Clone Army. To pigeonhole yourself into one camera, format, medium or whatever - is really just limiting yourself. Especially since used goods in the film market are so very affordable now. Case in point, I shoot more film these days than I ever have. I regularly rotate amongst Canon, Hasselblad, Mamiya and Leica/Zeiss cameras. No reason not to!

precisely! :D

[Double Negative]

^ True, the film vs. digital debate is a different story for a different day. :p

RFs are not typically studio cameras, absolutely. Not that they wouldn't work if you understand their limits, but it wouldn't be my first choice.

But outside the studio, for many genres, I'd choose an RF over an SLR any day. There's no getting around the fact that an RF system is far lighter and smaller. Then there are the lenses. They are far better than typical SLR lenses and are among the best in the world. Combine that with a lack of AA filter on digital RFs and you have a serious jump in IQ. The digital M cameras are capable of producing some absolutely stunning images in this regard. I'd gladly pit one against even the best DSLR...

[airfrogusmc]

A good deal of my work is annual reports, environmental portraits for advertising, corporate events and functions and for those type of things the M9 is about perfect.

[CAL Imagery]

Its a different philosophy that some will not understand (Plato's Cave). Look at the move to the new M9. There are very solid reasons why I like many others didn't move to the M8.
What I got out of the Allegory of the Cave, was that Plato said politicians are by definition not qualified for their job.

[airfrogusmc]

I think the real message in Platos cave is that if you haven't ventured outside it theres a world you don't know.;)

[alt4852]

I think the real message in Platos cave is that if you haven't ventured outside it theres a world you don't know.;)

..and if you go back, you might be murdered by your peers? :lol:

[Double Negative]

^ Heh, nice. :D

[airfrogusmc]

..and if you go back, you might be murdered by your peers? :lol:

Thats funny I didn't read that in Platos Cave;)

[Gentleman Villain]

from what i've gathered, he has done rather well for himself by being a "clone" DSLR user so far. he currently has fantastic work that he's posted all around the forums (dig around in the 35L and 200L threads) and needless to say, his strobe work is very diffferent despite his use of clone equipment.

Allen's my bud (although I wouldn't blame him for being embarassed of me sometimes) :) I was giving him a compliment by saying that his instincts are exactly right and leading him in the best direction against his competitors.

The rest of it about bakers and everything, you're a nice kid...but we're not get very far talking to each other.

[Gentleman Villain]

^ Heh, nice. :D

or murdered by the clones :-)

[airfrogusmc]

Allen's my bud (although I wouldn't blame him for being embarassed of me sometimes) :) I was giving him a compliment by saying that his instincts are exactly right and leading him in the best direction against his competitors.

The rest of it about bakers and everything, you're a nice kid...but we're not get very far talking to each other.

I would never be embarrassed by you GV. You are one of the more interesting and knowledgeable folks 'round these here parts and I don't think the M9 is a step backwards but a step towards what a good deal of photographers are really interested in. A photographers camera and yes its just another tool but a tool that won't need to be upgraded as quickly as those cameras by those photographers that need the latest and greatest bells and whistles.

[CAL Imagery]

I think the real message in Platos cave is that if you haven't ventured outside it theres a world you don't know.;)
Yes, yes. That's fine and dandy for the entire allegory, but I liked my quote more. :cool: