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

[NickSimcheck]

http://dpreview.com/

As of 21 seconds ago!

[J_TULLAR]

Sweet !!! But what I find interesting is the samples they posted just doesnt have the leica look to them... Leica film cameras will still be better in my eyes. The noise from film and the look they achieve is like nothing else. Im saving for a used M6 TTL currently.

[AngryCorgi]

X1 = US$2,000
M9 = US$7,000

Leica's pricing has always been less-than-competitive, but that's just ridiculous.

[J_TULLAR]

quite pricey indeed.

[Meista]

X1 = US$2,000
M9 = US$7,000

Leica's pricing has always been less-than-competitive, but that's just ridiculous.

$2,000 for an aps-c cam with a non-interchangeable 24mm lens ??
that's ridiculous...

[tkbslc]

EP1 w/ 17mm f2.8 = $900
Sigma DP2 = $600
Sony A850 w/ 35 f2.8 = $2300

The lens is going to have to be REALLY good, or they just hope to sell to Leica snobs.

[J_TULLAR]

well leica lenses are top notch....

[tkbslc]

well leica lenses are top notch....

I don't know if I beleive the fixed retractable lens on the X1 is really as good as a Summicron 35mm M series primes, but I am sure it is pretty good.

Kinda makes me wonder if Canon came out with a fixed lens "L" compact priced over $1k. Would people buy it because it is an L product even though it is still a fixed lens compact? I dunno.

[AngryCorgi]

EP1 w/ 17mm f2.8 = $900
Sigma DP2 = $600
Sony A850 w/ 35 f2.8 = $2300

The lens is going to have to be REALLY good, or they just hope to sell to Leica snobs.

I agree. I think Leica is banking on the snob approach. Even if the lens is really good, my D90 + sigma 24/2.8 is very good too, yet it cost me <$900 total.

[Double Negative]

Yay! Go Leica. :)

I'll stick with my M8 for now, though.

[Rainyday]

First off, I agree the prices are absurd to the point of being obscene. Honestly, do they know there is a recession on? :shock:

Second, the M9 is freakin' ugleeee and the X1 is also a double bagger. (Ask a military guy to explain that one)

I was very, very disappointed. Perhaps someday I'll have a D-Lux but if the M9 and the X1 is the future of Leica, well...forget it. :rolleyes:

[davidfig]

X1 = US$2,000
M9 = US$7,000

Leica's pricing has always been less-than-competitive, but that's just ridiculous.

Doesn't Leica have deep discounts for students?

[J_TULLAR]

First off, I agree the prices are absurd to the point of being obscene. Honestly, do they know there is a recession on? :shock:

Second, the M9 is freakin' ugleeee and the X1 is also a double bagger. (Ask a military guy to explain that one)

I was very, very disappointed. Perhaps someday I'll have a D-Lux but if the M9 and the X1 is the future of Leica, well...forget it. :rolleyes:

ROFL I wouldnt say its a double bagger... but its no M6 :p

[KenjiS]

EP1 w/ 17mm f2.8 = $900
Sigma DP2 = $600
Sony A850 w/ 35 f2.8 = $2300

The lens is going to have to be REALLY good, or they just hope to sell to Leica snobs.

Agreed...

You forgot the GF1 + 20mm f/1.7, Thats about $900 as well and id take that [That way you get a leica lens! :) ok its not -quite- as wide but 40mm is closeish..]

Seriously WTF? I expected the M9 to cost $7k but the X1...WTF? $2000 for a fixed lens compact?

[Tee Why]

I think they have a timeless classic look. I wish more cameras can look so simple and nice. But of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The M9 is a fantasy camera that I won't even consider getting but the X1 points to an interesting approach for Canon.

Stick a fixed 24-60 f2.8-4 IS zoom on a G10 Style body but include that ring at the base of the lens like the s90 for a manual zoom (make it red though), maybe some silver metal accents a la Leica, a 12MP or even a 15MP APS-C CMOS sensor, include the optical viewfiner like in the G11 (make it nice though). And delete the tilt out LCD screen (would like mine simpler and thinner). Keep the price about $799 or better yet $749 and I'd bet they'd have a winner.

[KenjiS]

I think they have a timeless classic look. I wish more cameras can look so simple and nice. But of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The M9 is a fantasy camera that I won't even consider getting but the X1 points to an interesting approach for Canon.

Stick a fixed 24-60 f2.8-4 zoom on a G10 Style body but include that ring at the base of the lens like the s90 for a manual zoom, maybe some silver metal accents a la Leica, a 12MP or even a 15MP APS-C CMOS sensor, include the optical viewfiner like in the G11 (make it nice though). And delete the tilt out LCD screen (would like mine simpler and thinner). Keep the price about $799 or better yet $749 and I'd bet they'd have a winner.

I agree, i like the simplicity of the X1, Minimalistic appraoch with only what you need there..

Thats not a bad idea, However i ponder if it would really -sell- that much..

[Tee Why]

Don't be a dream killer dude. Let me fantasize about my small, fast, digi rang finder camera dude. :)

As for the price, I think it's a possiblity. The Panasonic LX3 with similar features on a smaller sensor sells for $499 and Canon seems to have produced the s90 which seems to be their version for $429. Seeing as the Olympus E-P1 sells for $799, I'd say Canon should match or beat that. Canon is now coming very late to the game (if they do at all), as Sigma, then Oly, then Panasonic, now Leica, and soon to be Samsung, have beat them to the market. If you are coming in late, then you'd better beat them at a price point or a feature point or both. Canon is not a Leica and I'd doubt they can get away with charging a 100% mark up for a name if Olympus can sell theirs for $799 or less when the price drops due to competition.

[KenjiS]

Don't be a dream killer dude. Let me fantasize about my small, fast, digi rang finder camera dude. :)

As for the price, I think it's a possiblity. The Panasonic LX3 with similar features on a smaller sensor sells for $499 and Canon seems to have produced the s90 which seems to be their version for $429. Seeing as the Olympus E-P1 sells for $799, I'd say Canon should match or beat that. Canon is now coming very late to the game (if they do at all), as Sigma, then Oly, then Panasonic, now Leica, and soon to be Samsung, have beat them to the market. If you are coming in late, then you'd better beat them at a price point or a feature point or both. Canon is not a Leica and I'd doubt they can get away with charging a 100% mark up for a name if Olympus can sell theirs for $799 or less when the price drops due to competition.

You forgot Sony is also rumored to be working on something, The a230 is actually pretty small as well, if you stuck the 35mm f/2.8 on that body you'd have a pretty kicknig little SLR for under $800..

But anyways, I dunno...if Canon did I agree, we'd see a very kicking camera..and they DID have the Pro1 from years ago [Which was an 8-megapixel compact with a L lens...] which was very highly regarded

[wickerprints]

Leica simply does not care what the consumer actually wants. $2000 for a non-interchangeable fixed lens system that uses digital technology that will become obsolete in 3 years? I don't care how perfect the glass is, that is a huge waste of money. One of the justifications that Leica fans constantly love to bring up is that Leica gear is built like a tank and backward compatible so that you can still use $$$$ lenses from 40 years ago.

Well, let's see what they say now, with the X1. How does any of its design specs justify that price? You can't use it with anything else. And eventually the electronics will fail and the lens will be useless.

It's obvious that Leica produced this dud because they want to compete with the E-P1 and Panasonic cameras, but are too pus*y to make something that could compete with their M series. The result is they have no clue how to do it other than by relying on their brand reputation. The only people who would buy this camera are the fanboys and rich people who want a status symbol, the same folks who buy diamond-encrusted cellphones.

[wickerprints]

At least I can respect the M9 for its specifications. Wouldn't buy one, but I can respect it, unlike the X1 which just seems like expensive junk.

[Tee Why]

You mean like this fanboy? Who writes today, I assume without having actually used the camera.
"The LEICA M9 is the smallest, lightest, highest-quality digital camera ever created by the hand of Man, and it's less expensive than the Nikon D3X. Need I say any more?

The LEICA M9 is the most important digital camera ever created for the creative travel, nature and landscape photographer.

The M9 offers the highest quality obtainable in digital capture due to its superior optics, and when one considers that it is smaller and lighter than any other full-frame digital camera, the choice is obvious for those who deserve the best. "
Here is the link.
:)
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm
And he is a proponent of gear not mattering to photography.
he he he.

[wickerprints]

KR makes me want to puke.

Oh, and did anyone notice how he uses "Oriental" to refer to cameras made by companies like Nikon/Canon? Apparently, here we have a Caucasian man using a culturally insensitive term without knowledge of its historical context. KR is a first class idiot.

[AngryCorgi]

KR is a first class idiot.

That is correct.

[Tee Why]

I think I hijacked this post a bit too much. But in all reality, I think I like the X1. It just seems too expensive imo.

I do hope something like this comes out of Canon or Nikon. I think I'm gonna look at the Sigma DP2 again. I hear the AF is slow though.

For now, my much cheaper Olympus E420 with the kit lens will have to serve as my small camera to carry around.

[KenjiS]

KR makes me want to puke.

Oh, and did anyone notice how he uses "Oriental" to refer to cameras made by companies like Nikon/Canon? Apparently, here we have a Caucasian man using a culturally insensitive term without knowledge of its historical context. KR is a first class idiot.

Indeed, I rather dislike him because on one hand, he bitches about gear not mattering, tells people to buy very old lenses or use the 18-200 VR, and then on the other lauds over shooting film on a leica..

The one thing i hate is there is one local camera store talking about him like he's a god and the best source of photography information on the internet :/

[Depth]

I'd love to own a M9, but the price is too high for me. But I do have this Leica M6 to shoot on. :D

[lonelyjew]

I didn't understand Leica until someone made the simple analogy comparing Leica to a luxury watch manufacturer like Rolex. Rolex makes quality watches but much much cheaper watches can tell time just as well and are just as durable. Leicas are for camera lovers who are willing to pay top dollar for a luxury camera.

[KenjiS]

I didn't understand Leica until someone made the simple analogy comparing Leica to a luxury watch manufacturer like Rolex. Rolex makes quality watches but much much cheaper watches can tell time just as well and are just as durable. Leicas are for camera lovers who are willing to pay top dollar for a luxury camera.

Well i wouldnt go that far

Leica's optics ARE that good and their cameras ARE that reliable, They're also rather unassuming to be honest, unless you're a camera person you really wont know a leica from a simple point and shoot...

The reason a lot of people choose them is they want something unassuming, These are photographers who go to 3rd world countries and such wherein theft rates are very high....

They're a luxury-priced item, But its not just the looks really...

As for reliability, the biggest love about the old M-series was simply you didnt need a battery, it all worked if you ran out of power, something which can happen in said remote areas of the world...No other new cameras could do that really...

of course the digital ones, this isnt true...but ah well :)

I handled an R-series SLR once, one of the later ones and i will say that thing with the power winder FELT like it could go through a war and come back...

Theres few other cameras I've held that felt that robust

[JeffCanon]

I'd love to own a M9, but the price is too high for me. But I do have this Leica M6 to shoot on. :D

me too, i hope epson brings out a 3th gen of the r-d1 in the next few years with more mpixs and a ff maybe then i can afford one

[airfrogusmc]

First off, I agree the prices are absurd to the point of being obscene. Honestly, do they know there is a recession on? :shock:

Second, the M9 is freakin' ugleeee and the X1 is also a double bagger. (Ask a military guy to explain that one)

I was very, very disappointed. Perhaps someday I'll have a D-Lux but if the M9 and the X1 is the future of Leica, well...forget it. :rolleyes:

Yeah but in the right hands the M9 can take incredible photographs and ain't that what matters? Yeah a full frame sensor and Leica M glass that pretty much is an world optical standard YEAH forget it. I'll probably get one next year though.

[foxesamu]

Sony A850 w/ 35 f2.8 = $2300
!!!

That, or D700 + 35/2 = $2700
5D2 + 35/2 = $3000

You get so much more camera for so little extra (relatively).

[KenjiS]

!!!

That, or D700 + 35/2 = $2700
5D2 + 35/2 = $3000

You get so much more camera for so little extra (relatively).

or a 5D classic with a 35 f/2 for $1800 :)

[foxesamu]

You mean like this fanboy? Who writes today, I assume without having actually used the camera.
"The LEICA M9 is the smallest, lightest, highest-quality digital camera ever created by the hand of Man, and it's less expensive than the Nikon D3X. Need I say any more?

The LEICA M9 is the most important digital camera ever created for the creative travel, nature and landscape photographer.

The M9 offers the highest quality obtainable in digital capture due to its superior optics, and when one considers that it is smaller and lighter than any other full-frame digital camera, the choice is obvious for those who deserve the best. "
Here is the link.
:)
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm
And he is a proponent of gear not mattering to photography.
he he he.
Except, he's wrong, the D3x is like $2,000 less...

[foxesamu]

or a 5D classic with a 35 f/2 for $1800 :)
That too!

[KenjiS]

Except, he's wrong, the D3x is like $2,000 less...

The D3X is $7500...

[airfrogusmc]

!!!

That, or D700 + 35/2 = $2700
5D2 + 35/2 = $3000

You get so much more camera for so little extra (relatively).

But the Leica will still be crank'n away long after the 5D and the D700 are in landfills. And the fact that a company like Leica has gone through the trouble of building a tank of a camera that an Leica M-3 owner can still use all his great old Leica glass says something about the company that makes the M9. So you are comparing a long term investment in a system and a company that ain't gonna bail on ya like some of these camera companies that have a useable shelf life mentality. So if I get the Leica talk to me in ten years when you've bought 3 more 4 upgrades and the guy with the M9 is still good so you've wound up spending a good deal more.

[Blue S2]

There is a site that has already posted a comparison of the Leica M9 to the D3X, 1Ds3, and the Sony...and personally I think the Leica blows them all away. The definition and color are well beyond. The sensor doesn't have a Moire filter so the Leica glass can be fully exploited. And they DO make good glass. That's what they are known for. The M9 is a digital solution for using some of the best glass in the world. But there is a price. Those who like the Zonda or the Bugatti are willing to pay when a basic Ferrari just won't do. Yes, they all perform...but the top offers something the rest just can't offer.

[sjones]

1. Either digital or film, a rangefinder is not an SLR; they both present a different user experience. Comparisons between the two, depending on the user's respective needs, are thus often irrelevant.

2. The lack of certain features in one does not wholly negate the validity of its existence, especially since one person's preferred feature can be another's bane. I want a depth-of-field scale on all my lenses, as well as an aperture ring, but I am not about to broadly disparage modern lenses that lack these features.

3. The stunted digital shelf life is something that affects all digital cameras. If someone is happy with their Leica X1, and it serves their purposes, then comparisons to other cameras are arbitrary at best. If, at the end of three to five years, the X1 owner wants to upgrade and dish out another US$2,000, so what. How many folks who have spent US$2,000 on a DSLR (not including lens!) will also upgrade to an equally expensive camera in three to five years? Remember, the comparison centers on the user's satisfaction, not the cameras. That some people feel their cameras are obsolete after three to five years is more of an indictment against digital than any particularly camera company. Frankly, as long as the machine is still kicking, I can certainly understand why someone might stick with a Canon 5D for the next decade or two. They produce beautiful photographs now, how in the hell is that going to change 20 years from now?

4. Leica as a piece of jewelry. Certianly, Leica itself has played upon its luxury status, releasing limited edition Hermes cameras and such. And yes, you wonder how many celebrities toting about Leicas remember to take the lens cap off. But let's not have this one aspect characterize the camera as a whole, as the company unquestionably makes (or at least made) exceptionally high quality cameras that were remarkably functional in the worst of conditions (See Robert Capa & Larry Burrows for a start). The fact of the matter is that if someone has an M9 hanging around their neck and another person a Canon 1Ds Mk III with a 300mm L lens attached; who is going to draw more attention in a crowd, whether at Walmart or Tiffanys? And I don't even want to hear any crap of unimaginable proportions that Canon owners would never use their big, ostentatious white lenses to show off, possibly even to pose as a "pro." Most people don't even know what a Leica is, let alone care, but present a big lens, and the Neanderthal drool floods the floor.

5. Is Leica overpriced? Well, they make excellent lenses, but are they worth more than their Zeiss or Voigtlander M-mount counterparts? I don't know; and I don't care. I can't afford the Lecia, so I won't worry about it. Apparently, other people can afford the lenses, or the M9, and that's cool, because I am happy with what I am using.

6. Currently, I am using a Leica iiif manufactured in 1954; all original parts, including the shutter curtain. I reckon if I want, I can use it for another 50 years---never has another camera felt so damn good in the hands, and never have I enjoyed using a camera as much as this one, and all for a price under most entry level DSLRs.

[Double Negative]

If you can't appreciate what the M9 (and other M cameras) represents, then stick with SLRs. ;)

Not everyone can (or wants to) drag around a DSLR behemoth all the time. Sometimes size and simplicity are the overriding factors.

When you have run out of crap to pack into an SLR and feel the need to add video... It's time to maybe take a step back and re-evaluate what's important. Instead of fueling a senseless feature race to move more cameras and spur on upgradeitis how about improving the TOOL it's supposed to be?

I love my Canon gear, don't get me wrong. It suits several needs. But not all, and that's where a simple, solid, SMALL, high-quality camera system comes in.

And I hate to say it, but even the M8 with good Leica or Zeiss glass can put a Canon DSLR and L glass to shame when it comes to image quality (granted not in high ISO situations). It would really behoove Canon to do something about their overly aggressive AA filters that soften images so dramatically. So what if a little moiré creeps in now and then.

[AngryCorgi]

Amazon claims the X1 lens is stabilized. Can anyone confirm this? I did not read that on the press-release, but I may have missed it.

[Double Negative]

^ It is not.

[jms_uk]

Yeah but in the right hands the M9 can take incredible photographs and ain't that what matters?
But, surely, in the right hands 'any' camera can take incredible photographs and ain't that what matters?

:)

[airfrogusmc]

But, surely, in the right hands 'any' camera can take incredible photographs and ain't that what matters?

:)

The way a camera looks shouldn't matter and thats what I was responding to. A cameras appearance is irrelative. Does it perform. And believe me, this camera both fits in your hands right and performs. The M series just does some things better than a DSLR. The proper tool for the job;)

[alt4852]

As for reliability, the biggest love about the old M-series was simply you didnt need a battery, it all worked if you ran out of power, something which can happen in said remote areas of the world...No other new cameras could do that really...

my canon F-1N can still take photos without a battery. ;)

[J_TULLAR]

The way a camera looks shouldn't matter and thats what I was responding to. A cameras appearance is irrelative. Does it perform. And believe me, this camera both fits in your hands right and performs. The M series just does some things better than a DSLR. The proper tool for the job;)

iso 3200 is amazing on the m9 but I think people are disappointed in the x1 to be honest... I know I am.

[tkbslc]

my canon F-1N can still take photos without a battery. ;)

You can get a Olympus Trip35 rengefinder on ebay that even meters without a battery. I think they run about $30-40 for one in great shape. Uses the same film as a Leica. :)

[Double Negative]

iso 3200 is amazing on the m9 but I think people are disappointed in the x1 to be honest... I know I am.

But... It only goes to 2,500. ;)

The people complaining about the X1 are mostly those outside of its demographic. It's positioned between the P&S crowd and budding amateurs. An introduction to the M system of sorts (thus the somewhat familiar layout). Think of it as a gateway drug... :p

As for the M system in general, there's a reason that it has remained unchanged since the mid-50's. Sure, it has evolved. But the basics are all still there, mostly intact. It's a real "shooter's camera" with nothing superfluous. It's the bauhaus of camera design.

[J_TULLAR]

But... It only goes to 2,500. ;)

The people complaining about the X1 are mostly those outside of its demographic. It's positioned between the P&S crowd and budding amateurs. An introduction to the M system of sorts (thus the somewhat familiar layout). Think of it as a gateway drug... :p

As for the M system in general, there's a reason that it has remained unchanged since the mid-50's. Sure, it has evolved. But the basics are all still there, mostly intact. It's a real "shooter's camera" with nothing superfluous. It's the bauhaus of camera design.

woops i meant 1600 lol. I think the crown and coke is screwing with me hehehe:p

[Double Negative]

woops i meant 1600 lol. I think the crown and coke is screwing with me hehehe:p

Understood... :D

The M9 is definitely a stop - if not two - better than the M8 in the noise department.

[Blue S2]

No AA filter makes a big difference. Then again, Canon lenses, especially wide angles probably won't live up to that scrutiny.

Reichman published wide agnle photos at f2 and there is no vignetting or curvature present from the m9. No AA filter really brings the images to life as well.

My 5DII is way worse about AA softening than the original 5D. My 5D with 24-105 vignettes heavily and the quality of the lens in the corners is trash on the 5DII. Does anyone see it in a print...not really. (aside from the vignette)

I can certainly say that 35mm is my favorite and most used focal length. A 5DII and 35L with hood is certainly not compact, and not light weight either. An M9 with a 35 f/2 or even the f/1.4 would be my perfect camera. For most non "specialty" (macro, super telephoto sports, shift-based architecture) shooting, the M9 seems like my perfect camera ive always looked for. Its also a fraction of the size in comparison with the same style lens.

[Double Negative]

^ Well stated, and I totally agree.

I don't think it's such a clear matter of one vs. the other as some might view it. They're different tools, for different needs - and as such, definitely each have their place. I love RFs, but they don't do everything well - just as I love SLRs, but they're heavy, bulky and noisy. In a perfect world, I'd carry my Hassy around with a film or digital back and be done with it. But that just ain't happening. :p

[Blue S2]

I would be happy with a G11 honestly. However...it has no user connection. I enjoy a viewfinder, not a screen. I can't focus a G series or anything similar in the way I like to. Even the EP-1 and GF-1 give me the same issues.

Unfortunately the Leicas are the only camera that solves this in a compact package!

[palaima]

actually i agree with double negative. Leica is Leica, and what it does it does very good (of course in good hands), and i would love to have one, because it is simple, small and most of all, i love rangefinder focusing :) But simplicity is so expensive today...

[Double Negative]

I would be happy with a G11 honestly. However...it has no user connection. I enjoy a viewfinder, not a screen. I can't focus a G series or anything similar in the way I like to. Even the EP-1 and GF-1 give me the same issues.

Unfortunately the Leicas are the only camera that solves this in a compact package!

So true... I have a G9 but the lag and LCD just drive me nuts. The images are excellent, but it's really not my style and it's frustrating.

The nice thing about the M cameras is you don't have to sacrifice IQ for the size and like you said, has a real VF. The shutter release is also instantaneous.

[KenjiS]

my canon F-1N can still take photos without a battery. ;)

New cameras ;)

And with -all- shutter speeds? I know that Nikon had mechanical shutter speeds in the F3 but it wasnt exactly the easiest thing in the world to use...

I dont know much about MF Canons sadly..

[woos]

But the Leica will still be crank'n away long after the 5D and the D700 are in landfills.

The old film leicas sure. unfortunately if the M9 is anything like the M8 it is going to be quite fragile compared to a 1d or d700, etc....here's something for you:

http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.html

The image quality on the m8/m8.2 also had major issues. I'm sure the M9 will be better in that respect. It still isn't going to have the reliable image quality of a 5dmk2 or a d3 or something though. The leica lenses are nice (fun to use too, my friend at work has a buncha leica lenses, he used to shoot film until he just got an ep-1 with an M mount adapter)....but you do need to realize that they are simple prime lenses with no auto focus, etc. Much simpler to design than the stuff we are used too.

[Double Negative]

^ LOL... It was just a matter of time before that ol' chestnut surfaced again. :p

[airfrogusmc]

The old film leicas sure. unfortunately if the M9 is anything like the M8 it is going to be quite fragile compared to a 1d or d700, etc....here's something for you:

http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.html

The image quality on the m8/m8.2 also had major issues. I'm sure the M9 will be better in that respect. It still isn't going to have the reliable image quality of a 5dmk2 or a d3 or something though. The leica lenses are nice (fun to use too, my friend at work has a buncha leica lenses, he used to shoot film until he just got an ep-1 with an M mount adapter)....but you do need to realize that they are simple prime lenses with no auto focus, etc. Much simpler to design than the stuff we are used too.

Yeah aint that nice no auto focus and an all manual camera, no FPS ahhh now thats nice. And if the Leica couldn't take it the 5D sure couldn't. I've had both of mine in for repair and one is just now 4 years old and the other is just 2.

[alt4852]

Yeah aint that nice no auto focus and an all manual camera, no FPS ahhh now thats nice. And if the Leica couldn't take it the 5D sure couldn't. I've had both of mine in for repair and one is just now 4 years old and the other is just 2.

how about any photo requiring more than 135mm? ;)

[sjones]

how about any photo requiring more than 135mm? ;)
Good thing I've never needed anything over 50mm; appears I've got some room to spare.

[KenjiS]

how about any photo requiring more than 135mm? ;)

Actually 135mm lenses dont work with the M8 iirc ;)

So you're limited to 90mm maximum...

[airfrogusmc]

how about any photo requiring more than 135mm? ;)

Its not a sports camera;). Unless your shooting birds or sports how many photographs require anything longer than 135?;)

[KenjiS]

Its not a sports camera;). Unless your shooting birds or sports how many photographs require anything longer than 135?;)

I've seen portrait photographers use 200mm sometimes..

200mm was my go-to for a lot of stuff...

[airfrogusmc]

I've seen portrait photographers use 200mm sometimes..

200mm was my go-to for a lot of stuff...

I shoot portraits sometimes with a 200 but I could still get killer portraits without a 200. In fact I didn't have anything longer than an 85 until last year (by design) and did get killer portraits without it. If you want to take portraits with a 200 then this is not your camera. I like the fact it has 18mp is FF and has NO VIDEO, NO AUTO FOCUS, NO FPS and is a manual camera and there is a market for this. In fact I think theres a waiting list. ;)

[alt4852]

I shoot portraits sometimes with a 200 but I could still get killer portraits without a 200. In fact I didn't have anything longer than an 85 until last year (by design) and did get killer portraits without it. If you want to take portraits with a 200 then this is not your camera. I like the fact it has 18mp is FF and has NO VIDEO, NO AUTO FOCUS, NO FPS and is a manual camera and there is a market for this. In fact I think theres a waiting list. ;)

as much as i have respect for leica's engineering genius, i think you're fantasizing about traits that no longer apply. i think the inclusion of electronic components severely limits the service life of any piece of equipment.

the longevity associated with the classic M's was largely in part to their excellent manufacturing, simplicity, and quality of design and materials. this no longer holds true for the digital M's. i suspect that they are no more resilient than canon or nikon's flagship cameras, if not less resilient. the M8 has a pretty well-documented history of bodies that fail, and they seem to be consistent with other professional digital cameras on the market. you of all people should know that it isn't the brand that decides how long something will last, but rather what it is physically comprised of (you and your marathon F-1's and all ;)).

electronics inevitably fail. from looking at M8 statistics, there is nothing to lead me to believe that the M9 will outlive a 1Dmk3 or a D3x. the classic M's could last decades with proper care, but i think the digital models, mechanical perfection no longer applies. it has joined the ranks of the ever-upgrading, ever-improving face of technology.

ps: i still stand to argue that video would not hamper a camera's durability.. especially if you choose not to even use it. ;)

[KenjiS]

as much as i have respect for leica's engineering genius, i think you're fantasizing about traits that no longer apply. i think the inclusion of electronic components severely limits the service life of any piece of equipment.

the longevity associated with the classic M's was largely in part to their excellent manufacturing, simplicity, and quality of design and materials. this no longer holds true for the digital M's. i suspect that they are no more resilient than canon or nikon's flagship cameras, if not less resilient. the M8 has a pretty well-documented history of bodies that fail, and they seem to be consistent with other professional digital cameras on the market. you of all people should know that it isn't the brand that decides how long something will last, but rather what it is physically comprised of (you and your marathon F-1's and all ;)).

electronics inevitably fail. from looking at M8 statistics, there is nothing to lead me to believe that the M9 will outlive a 1Dmk3 or a D3x. the classic M's could last decades with proper care, but i think the digital models, mechanical perfection no longer applies. it has joined the ranks of the ever-upgrading, ever-improving face of technology.

ps: i still stand to argue that video would not hamper a camera's durability.. especially if you choose not to even use it. ;)

Exactly, and electronics inherently will be outdated just about the time they launch..

Thus the M series HAS lost a bit of its charm and magic and perhaps even the justification for their high price given their obsolescence...and they're dependent on batteries now, which removes one thing people used to love about the M-series....

im not convinced that the M9 has better image quality than a 1Ds Mark III or a D3X thats all...or even better than a a900 5D Mark II or D700...

And video doesnt -hamper- a cameras durability at all! I dont get the hatred for including a feature if its not really hurting anything...;)

[airfrogusmc]

as much as i have respect for leica's engineering genius, i think you're fantasizing about traits that no longer apply. i think the inclusion of electronic components severely limits the service life of any piece of equipment.

the longevity associated with the classic M's was largely in part to their excellent manufacturing, simplicity, and quality of design and materials. this no longer holds true for the digital M's. i suspect that they are no more resilient than canon or nikon's flagship cameras, if not less resilient. the M8 has a pretty well-documented history of bodies that fail, and they seem to be consistent with other professional digital cameras on the market. you of all people should know that it isn't the brand that decides how long something will last, but rather what it is physically comprised of (you and your marathon F-1's and all ;)).

electronics inevitably fail. from looking at M8 statistics, there is nothing to lead me to believe that the M9 will outlive a 1Dmk3 or a D3x. the classic M's could last decades with proper care, but i think the digital models, mechanical perfection no longer applies. it has joined the ranks of the ever-upgrading, ever-improving face of technology.

ps: i still stand to argue that video would not hamper a camera's durability.. especially if you choose not to even use it. ;)

Everything else after the light tight box to hold light sensitive materials, a shutter, a lens to focus the image and an aperture are all bells and whistles. All the upgrades are just upgrading that.

One of the reasons the M9 was created was because of the problems with the M8. Look at all the problems Canon and Nikon had when they first got into the digital game. And still have had with new models.

In 10 years lets see what that used 1DIII is selling for and we'll see what the used M9 will be fetching. I gotta feeling, if HISTORY is any indication, which one will hold its value. ;)

But the bottom line is Leica took an approach that is much different to the useable shelf life approach many companies now take. Its an entirely different philosophy.

[airfrogusmc]

I doubt a FF 18MP sensor will be out dates anytime soon. The things that become out dated are the bells and whistles that the Leica is not real heavy on. And believe me thats by design. ;)

[airfrogusmc]

Exactly, and electronics inherently will be outdated just about the time they launch..

Thus the M series HAS lost a bit of its charm and magic and perhaps even the justification for their high price given their obsolescence...and they're dependent on batteries now, which removes one thing people used to love about the M-series....

im not convinced that the M9 has better image quality than a 1Ds Mark III or a D3X thats all...or even better than a a900 5D Mark II or D700...

And video doesnt -hamper- a cameras durability at all! I dont get the hatred for including a feature if its not really hurting anything...;)

M glass smokes even most of Canons better Ls as far as IQ goes. But if I don't want video I don't want it. Its that simple. I really don't want FPS and auto exposure. I don't shoot my 5Ds on anything but manual.

[alt4852]

Everything else after the light tight box to hold light sensitive materials, a shutter, a lens to focus the image and an aperture are all bells and whistles. All the upgrades are just upgrading that.

One of the reasons the M9 was created was because of the problems with the M8. Look at all the problems Canon and Nikon had when they first got into the digital game. And still have had with new models.

In 10 years lets see what that used 1DIII is selling for and we'll see what the used M9 will be fetching. I gotta feeling, if HISTORY is any indication, which one will hold its value. ;)

But the bottom line is Leica took an approach that is much different to the useable shelf life approach many companies now take. Its an entirely different philosophy.

if history is any indication, then we already have a pretty good answer. leica or not, the M9 is a digital camera, not a refined piece of mechanical art that is timeless in design.

---

the M8 was released in 2006 at an initial price of nearly $5000. it now retails for $4000, and can be bought used for roughly $2500.

the canon 1Dmk3 released a little under a year later at an initial price of $4000, and it now retails for $3700 and can be bought used for roughly $2800.

---

given the benefit of the doubt, i'm guessing when the 1Dmk3 catches up to the M8's age, the depreciation will probably look the same.

as i said before, i think the digital aspect that has been added to the equation changes the essence of what the M8 and the M9 are.. drawing them further away from their heritage and closer to what other high end digital cameras exist today as.

[airfrogusmc]

But you keep missing the point that its a FF 18MP camera without all the bells and whistles and its CLEARLY not the M8 which I had no interest in. So you keep on buying your bells and whistles up grades that the marketers tell you that you can't shoot without and I will choose not to. ;) And I got a pretty good felling I'm not alone in this thought process because of the long waiting list to buy the M9. ;)

[alt4852]

But you keep missing the point that its a FF 18MP camera without all the bells and whistles and its CLEARLY not the M8 which I had no interest in. So you keep on buying your bells and whistles up grades that the marketers tell you that you can't shoot without and I will choose not to. ;) And I got a pretty good felling I'm not alone in this thought process because of the long waiting list to buy the M9. ;)

no, i understand the idea of simplicity. i just don't see how the M9 will break the chains of technological development in the digital age and somehow be more timeless than any other high-end piece of digital equipment. i don't see how it can be an exception to a truth that we've seen held true in every other industry and market regardless of make or model.

ps airfrog: if you direct your attention to my signature, i think it's rather evident that i'm not chasing bells and whistles since practically all of my equipment is over 4 years old. if anything, you probably have more bells and whistles in your bag than i do. ;)

i think it was awfully presumptuous to say that because i don't think the M9 is a timeless work of art that will outlast all other digital cameras necessarily means that i am a technology chaser who buys every little thing that marketing says will make my photos better.

[airfrogusmc]

no, i understand the idea of simplicity. i just don't see how the M9 will break the chains of technological development in the digital age and somehow be more timeless than any other high-end piece of digital equipment. i don't see how it can be an exception to a truth that we've seen held true in every other industry and market regardless of make or model.

ps airfrog: if you direct your attention to my signature, i think it's rather evident that i'm not chasing bells and whistles since practically all of my equipment is over 4 years old. if anything, you probably have more bells and whistles in your bag than i do. ;)

i think it was awfully presumptuous to say that because i don't think the M9 is a timeless work of art that will outlast all other digital cameras necessarily means that i am a technology chaser who buys every little thing that marketing says will make my photos better.

Only time will tell if the M9 is a classic but what I do like about it is its void of all of those bells and whistles and is FF and has a 18MP which most argue is plenty.

So if there are no focus points to argue about and upgrade or theres no FPS that are "to slow" so you need to upgrade and no metering points to up grade why wouldn't this camera be a more long lasting option to a camera that will be out dated because of all of the fore-mentioned reason is a year or two?

And I don't recall mentioning you personally I was just referring to the market trends and the new bells and whistles mentality in general.

[tkbslc]

So if there are no focus points to argue about and upgrade or theres no FPS that are "to slow" so you need to upgrade and no metering points to up grade why wouldn't this camera be a more long lasting option to a camera that will be out dated because of all of the fore-mentioned reason is a year or two?
.

ISO noise. It looks worse than a 10D at ISO 1600 from the samples I have seen. Might be kinda rough migrating from anything recent Canon has made.

And it seems kinda silly to say I will never need to upgrade something because it is already so basic there is nothing to upgrade. I mean its logical, but kinda funny at the same time.

[airfrogusmc]

ISO noise. It looks worse than a 10D at ISO 1600 from the samples I have seen. Might be kinda rough migrating from anything recent Canon has made.

And it seems kinda silly to say I will never need to upgrade something because it is already so basic there is nothing to upgrade. I mean its logical, but kinda funny at the same time.

You've never shot with an M series Leica have you?

[alt4852]

Only time will tell if the M9 is a classic but what I do like about it is its void of all of those bells and whistles and is FF and has a 18MP which most argue is plenty.

So if there are no focus points to argue about and upgrade or theres no FPS that are "to slow" so you need to upgrade and no metering points to up grade why wouldn't this camera be a more long lasting option to a camera that will be out dated because of all of the fore-mentioned reason is a year or two?

And I don't recall mentioning you personally I was just referring to the market trends and the new bells and whistles mentality in general.

because electronics fail. it's the nature of the beast.

new advances like batteries that can last for years, the ability to shoot clean images at higher ISOs (rangefinder users are notorious for being addicted to low-light photography ;)) and the like will most likely spur leica to upgrade the M9 in three or four years. this is no different than the 1d-series upgrade cycle.

think about it, people are still using the 1Dmk2 heavily in professional applications. it is already five years old and it's still considered one of the best camera bodies for sports photography. that doesn't mean that the 1Dmk3 with it's week-long-of-heavy-use battery, it's amazing high ISO performance, etc won't eclipse it though. the 1Dmk2 is still an excellent camera as i'm assuming the M9 will be 5 years from now, but that doesn't change the fact that there will be technological advances that leica can not ignore over the course of five years.

nobody is disputing that the nearly decade old 1D classic can take great photographs and it may as well be all you need to shoot sports photography. you mention how the M9 will still be kicking when the 1D's are all in landfills.. but is that really a realistic projection? the 1D classics may still have another 5-10 years of service out of them, so the M9 will have to survive all technological advances along with natural deterioration of electronics for close to 20 years in order for your statement to hold true.

do you really think the M9 has the staying power to last 20 years in this day and age?

[airfrogusmc]

because electronics fail. it's the nature of the beast.

new advances like batteries that can last for years, the ability to shoot clean images at higher ISOs (rangefinder users are notorious for being addicted to low-light photography ;)) and the like will most likely spur leica to upgrade the M9 in three or four years. this is no different than the 1d-series upgrade cycle.

think about it, people are still using the 1Dmk2 heavily in professional applications. it is already five years old and it's still considered one of the best camera bodies for sports photography. that doesn't mean that the 1Dmk3 with it's week-long-of-heavy-use battery, it's amazing high ISO performance, etc will eclipse it though. the 1Dmk2 is still an excellent camera as i'm assuming the M9 will be 5 years from now, but that doesn't change the fact that there will be technological advances that leica can not ignore over the course of five years.

nobody is disputing that the nearly decade old 1D classic can take great photographs and it may as well be all you need to shoot sports photography. you mention how the M9 will still be kicking when the 1D's are all in landfills.. but is that really a realistic projection? the 1D classics may still have another 5-10 years of service out of them, so the M9 will have to survive all technological advances along with natural deterioration of electronics for close to 20 years in order for your statement to hold true.

do you really think the M9 has the staying power to last 20 years in this day and age?

I think it has more potential because its void of the bells and whistles that make others obsolete in a few years. Another thing the M9 has going for it is a time tested body design that has been changed when needed but not reinvented. Which means that if it ain't broke....

[wickerprints]

do you really think the M9 has the staying power to last 20 years in this day and age?

It won't, not because it'll die within 20 years (though it will), but because by then Leica will have come out with the M12 for $11,000, and it will be the new must-have technology for Leica fanboys everywhere, who will justify the cost by saying how it will last them forever.

[tkbslc]

You've never shot with an M series Leica have you?

Uh, no. What's that got to do with anything? So the ISO noise is suddenly OK once you realise you spent $15k for a camera kit?

[wickerprints]

I think it has more potential because its void of the bells and whistles that make others obsolete in a few years. Another thing the M9 has going for it is a time tested body design that has been changed when needed but not reinvented. Which means that if it ain't broke....

And if it ain't broke, then why did Leica even need to make an M9 to begin with, since the M8 (or any of its predecessors) weren't broken either?

[Gentleman Villain]

Only time will tell if the M9 is a classic but what I do like about it is its void of all of those bells and whistles and is FF and has a 18MP which most argue is plenty.


Yes, 18mp and FF is plenty

[sjones]

It won't, not because it'll die within 20 years (though it will), but because by then Leica will have come out with the M12 for $11,000, and it will be the new must-have technology for Leica fanboys everywhere, who will justify the cost by saying how it will last them forever.

You know, Leica fanboys are more apt to use a 20 or 30 year old camera than are Canon or Nikon fanboys, who will be, by the way, spending the same amount for their latest high-end DSLRs.

[alt4852]

I think it has more potential because its void of the bells and whistles that make others obsolete in a few years. Another thing the M9 has going for it is a time tested body design that has been changed when needed but not reinvented. Which means that if it ain't broke....

but the 1D classic is still very useful. just because canon releases a new body doesn't mean you have to buy it. what i'm trying to say is that the M9 intrinsically does not have any more staying power than a 1D-series. you say that it has more potential because there is not much to upgrade on it, but that approaches the concept from the upgrade perspective. i'm talking about raw service life. how long you can expect it to be useful. it's only logical since you would not find cameras in landfills unless they were no longer useful.

if you look at the cameras from the standpoint of being sole entities instead of pieces of an upgrade path, then i think it's easier to see why i think the M9 will be no more timeless than a 1D.

as for the body, it is relatively well-known that leica has catered to it's fan base with the digital M's. they resemble the old M's in shape and size, but the internal guts are quite different. i think the electronics imbedded into the body make it as suspectible to corrosion and aging as any other professional digital camera.

M's in the past lasted because the weakest link in it's function was a gear cog, or metal spring. digital M's have plenty of fragile circuitry as their weakest link, and are made of the same circuit material as any other electronic (see M8 failure rates). that's all i'm saying.

[sjones]

And if it ain't broke, then why did Leica even need to make an M9 to begin with, since the M8 (or any of its predecessors) weren't broken either?

Actually, they didn't, as I would take an M3 or M2 over any existing DSLR. Besides, Allen concedes to change, just not reinvention.

[airfrogusmc]

It won't, not because it'll die within 20 years (though it will), but because by then Leica will have come out with the M12 for $11,000, and it will be the new must-have technology for Leica fanboys everywhere, who will justify the cost by saying how it will last them forever.

The Leica philosophy is much different than most other makers. Theres some proof in this statement and all you have to do is look at what everyone else has done (historically). In fact most of the things(bells and whistles) that many Canon lover like are the reasons someone else will pick Leica.

Canon/Nikon changing mounts every so often so you have to reinvest in new glass.
Leica making sure the new M designs will except their old lenses. Maybe not good short term business but loved by the fan boys which for the most part are far more likely to have say a Deardorf and a Hasselblad than the Canon fan boys which are usually its Canon or nothing;) You see it daily 'round here. You'll get pretty much the same thing in the Nikon camp.

They are just tools and for some the M9 is a better choice and its usually for all the reasons like auto everything and video etc that most Canon lovers want that the M9 owners don't want. Oh and that GREAT Leica M glass.

[sjones]

...M's in the past lasted because the weakest link in it's function was a gear cog, or metal spring. digital M's have plenty of fragile circuitry as their weakest link, and are made of the same circuit material as any other electronic (see M8 failure rates). that's all i'm saying.

I generally agree with this, as electronics are inherently fragile. It will be interesting, however, if Leica offers a sensor upgrade path.

[wickerprints]

Actually, they didn't, as I would take an M3 or M2 over any existing DSLR. Besides, Allen concedes to change, just not reinvention.

Then why are you even on this forum? If that's what you want to shoot, then go ahead and leave the rest of us alone.

[airfrogusmc]

And if it ain't broke, then why did Leica even need to make an M9 to begin with, since the M8 (or any of its predecessors) weren't broken either?

The reason many didn't like the M8 was the fact that it wasn't FF and wasn't 18MPs. The body design of the M series is what I was talking about which is VERY solid and hasn't changed much because its a VERY GOOD design.

[sjones]

...Oh and that GREAT Leica M glass.

Actually, I would also note the exceptional M-mount lenses at below-L costs coming from Zeiss and Voigtlander.

[airfrogusmc]

Then why are you even on this forum? If that's what you want to shoot, then go ahead and leave the rest of us alone.


Why does this upset you so much. There are other Cameras besides Canon. And very good ones. I got an Idea. There are plenty of other threads that you will feel right at home in but the title of this one makes it Leica related so why don't you just not come in if it upsets you so much. I'm sure there must be a Canon thread around here somewhere :lol:.

[tkbslc]

Then why are you even on this forum? If that's what you want to shoot, then go ahead and leave the rest of us alone.

I don't think that was really called for.

[airfrogusmc]

Actually, I would also note the exceptional M-mount lenses at below-L costs coming from Zeiss and Voigtlander.

Yes you are right.

[alt4852]

They are just tools and for some the M9 is a better choice and its usually for all the reasons like auto everything and video etc that most Canon lovers want that the M9 owners don't want. Oh and that GREAT Leica M glass.

you're aware that the M9 has Av mode right? ;)

i'm all for simplicity of design and function, but my prediction based on history and common sense is that the M9 is a digital camera and by nature will be upgraded to maintain relevance with technology. leica does have a philosophy of minimalism and simplicity, but keep in mind two things:

1. the M-series went digital.
2. leica has slapped it's logo on panasonic cameras, most likely out of necessity to stay as a profitable company.

leica needs to make money, it WILL upgrade the M-series again. it's R-series and S-series have been market flops, and leica needs it's M-line because otherwise leica camera is depending solely on joint ventures with panasonic for income. the M-series is their crown jewel, and you can bet that they will try to profit from it and make users happy by offering capabilities that don't make it feel antiquated. who wants decade-old lithium ion technology that forces you to buy new batteries every couple of years? doesn't the worry of batteries interfere with the simplicity of photography and making pictures?

just food for thought. :D

[KenjiS]

leica needs to make money, it WILL upgrade the M-series again. it's R-series and S-series have been market flops

The S-series isnt really launched yet and it IS making noise..

The R-series was a flop yes, but i think that was more due to timing, if the R-series had launched before the Nikon F and gotten more attention people might have stuck to the established German makers and ignored the little Japanese companies ;)

-edit- and those Leica-designed Panasonic optics, while speaking of the "purity" of photography, have you seen the -uncorrected- shots from the Micro 4/3 Leicas?

Leica is using digital post processing to correct distortions now ;)

[airfrogusmc]

you're aware that the M9 has Av mode right? ;)

i'm all for simplicity of design and function, but my prediction based on history and common sense is that the M9 is a digital camera and by nature will be upgraded to maintain relevance with technology. leica does have a philosophy of minimalism and simplicity, but keep in mind two things:

1. the M-series went digital.
2. leica has slapped it's logo on panasonic cameras, most likely out of necessity to stay as a profitable company.

leica needs to make money, it WILL upgrade the M-series again. it's R-series and S-series have been market flops, and leica needs it's M-line because otherwise leica camera is depending solely on joint ventures with panasonic for income. the M-series is their crown jewel, and you can bet that they will try to profit from it and make users happy by offering capabilities that don't make it feel antiquated. who wants decade-old lithium ion technology that forces you to buy new batteries every couple of years? doesn't the worry of batteries interfere with the simplicity of photography and making pictures?

just food for thought. :D

Most of what you mentioned are valid in most digital cameras now days. But remember the M9 is still basically an manual focus manual no FPS camera and will not be prone to all of those market changes.

Technology in photography has been largely the bells and whistles that I've already mentioned. Its still a light tight box, light sensitive material, a lens, a shutter and an aperture. If you truly have learned how to use all of those things to their fullest potential then all the bells and whistles can keep changing but your knowledge remains.

Todays auto everything actually makes the M series very desirable for some. And Leica knows that. Its a philosophy thats at the very basis of what we do. It would be like an incredible DRIVERS sports car. Its not designed to be everything to everybody like some of the modern DSLRs are trying to be. Its not a sport camers though I'm sure that a good photographer, depending on the sport, could get great sports shots with it. Birding...I donno.

But its a great CANDID camera. And because its so basic its less prone to the constantly changing latest and greatest which has actually defined the M series for decades.

[sjones]

Then why are you even on this forum? If that's what you want to shoot, then go ahead and leave the rest of us alone.

Hey, I was here before you. If you have a problem with any of my logic, then counter it, but spitting out a "leave the rest of us alone" jab isn't really constructive, now is it.

And like Allen said, for the love of God, this is a discussion about Leica, so I do think I'm too far off topic.

Look, you've made it perfectly clear through several posts in various threads that you don't like Leica, and all I am doing is just giving a different viewpoint. I don't condone buying cameras for jewelry anymore than you do, but all sides are guilty. You've made some pretty damning, broad sweeping comments about the character of Leica owners, which could be amusing, except that these same comments could easily be directed at certain Canon and Nikon owners.

Let's get some perspective here. If you want to complain that Leica's are ludicrously overpriced, that's fine. But let's understand that 90 percent of the rest of the world feels that spending more than US$250 on a camera (with lens) is exorbitant and unnecessary. Most folks these days just assume that cameras are a given feature on their cell phone.

Besides, check out threads on POTN where someone complains about the price of L lenses; they get ripped to shreds.

[airfrogusmc]

The S-series isnt really launched yet and it IS making noise..

The R-series was a flop yes, but i think that was more due to timing, if the R-series had launched before the Nikon F and gotten more attention people might have stuck to the established German makers and ignored the little Japanese companies ;)

-edit- and those Leica-designed Panasonic optics, while speaking of the "purity" of photography, have you seen the -uncorrected- shots from the Micro 4/3 Leicas?

Leica is using digital post processing to correct distortions now ;)

Yeah and the M series in both the cameras and optics have been a standard for decades. And with the new commitment to the M looks like they will be for a few more years.
All the reasons that most like Canon will be the reason some go to Leica.

I've been in neurosurgery that have used Leica imaging optics and its pretty amazing.;)

[KenjiS]

Let's get some perspective here. If you want to complain that Leica's are ludicrously overpriced, that's fine. But let's understand that 90 percent of the rest of the world feels that spending more than US$250 on a camera (with lens) is exorbitant and unnecessary. Most folks these days just assume that cameras are a given feature on their cell phone.

Besides, check out threads on POTN where someone complains about the price of L lenses; they get ripped to shreds.

Tell me about it...I get that frequently and my 30D is far from the state of the art expensive camera it was 3 years ago...

Hey! I defend the prices ;) Personally i get annoyed when people think no L and over $300 is overpriced...Just because it doesnt have an L doesnt make it junk ;)

[NickSimcheck]

I don't understand what anybody hopes to gain by this debate.

It's not like a Leica user is going to say you know what, I'm switching cause all of a sudden what makes a Rangefinder useful doesn't have any meaning to me, I'm going to get an SLR.

Leica costs more then Canon, but Hasselblad costs more then Leica. Three completely different systems. And your point is?

People could say that we're crazy to spend $1,979 on a 85mm f/1.2L when you can get the 85mm f/1.8 for $439, but we do it because that very slight difference is what we demand.

Leica users demand a compact, well handling, simple, high quality TOOL for making photographs. Why deny them?

[airfrogusmc]

I don't understand what anybody hopes to gain by this debate.

It's not like a Leica user is going to say you know what, I'm switching cause all of a sudden what makes a Rangefinder useful doesn't have any meaning to me, I'm going to get an SLR.

Leica costs more then Canon, but Hasselblad costs more then Leica. Three completely different systems. And your point is?

People could say that we're crazy to spend $1,979 on a 85mm f/1.2L when you can get the 85mm f/1.8 for $439, but we do it because that very slight difference is what we demand.

Leica users demand a compact, well handling, simple, high quality TOOL for making photographs. Why deny them?

EXACTLY. But it seems it always has to be either or especially with the brand faithful. If your shooting landscapes theres noth'n like a view camera and the zone system. So proper tool for the job. One size in potoography doesn't fit all.

[Gentleman Villain]

Allen, I'm ready to switch to Leica :D Let's do it

[alt4852]

I don't understand what anybody hopes to gain by this debate.

It's not like a Leica user is going to say you know what, I'm switching cause all of a sudden what makes a Rangefinder useful doesn't have any meaning to me, I'm going to get an SLR.

Leica costs more then Canon, but Hasselblad costs more then Leica. Three completely different systems. And your point is?

People could say that we're crazy to spend $1,979 on a 85mm f/1.2L when you can get the 85mm f/1.8 for $439, but we do it because that very slight difference is what we demand.

Leica users demand a compact, well handling, simple, high quality TOOL for making photographs. Why deny them?

your statement gives me the impression that you haven't read the last three pages of this thread at all.

NOBODY is denying anyone anything. nobody is telling anyone else how to spend their money. nobody is criticizing leica's pricing system. nobody is arguing that SLRs are better than rangefinders. i honestly don't see where you even derived that conclusion from.

the main discussion for the last 50 posts or so was a discussion where a few of us argued airfrog's claim that the leica M9 will still be useful while other high end cameras will be in a landfill. we were just pointing out that a digital M is still in essence a digital camera and as proven by the M8, will most likely fail and get trashed at a relatively comparable rate as a 1-series for example.

i understand the merits of what leica is trying to do, but i simply don't personally believe there is any evidence supporting the idea that the M9 will outlast any other digital camera. that's all. i'm not forcing my purchase habits on others, trying to convince leica owners that they are dumb for wanting a digital rangefinder or what have you.

i really wish people would stop trying to read between the lines and argue points and topics that aren't even in contention.

[alt4852]

EXACTLY. But it seems it always has to be either or especially with the brand faithful. If your shooting landscapes theres noth'n like a view camera and the zone system. So proper tool for the job. One size in potoography doesn't fit all.

exactly.. missing the point? he missed the purpose of the "debate" entirely. :confused:

[airfrogusmc]

exactly.. missing the point? he missed the purpose of the "debate" entirely. :confused:

No actually I think he, the OP and understands it perfectly as does GV & sjones. ;) The bells and whistles are what make most of the masses jump to each new camera. What makes some cameras timeless and will keep photographers from jumping is the fact its not the latest and greatest but what really works and has what you need to do the job. ;)

[NickSimcheck]

the main discussion for the last 50 posts or so was a discussion where a few of us argued airfrog's claim that the leica M9 will still be useful while other high end cameras will be in a landfill.


Who said I was referring to the last 50 posts? :lol:

This thread started out with the tone that Leica is simply an overpriced glamorous name-tag... So I gave my input. If I wanted to comment on something you wrote, then I would have talked about that subject.

You know what they say, when you assume - what does it make out of you and me? ;)

[airfrogusmc]

Allen, I'm ready to switch to Leica :D Let's do it

I'm getting one.;)

[Gentleman Villain]

I'm getting one.;)

Seriously?! That would be excellent

I'm going to do it too...

[Gentleman Villain]

BTW...I just wanted to mention a few preliminary things about the M9 for those that are interested in purchasing. I could be wrong on this....but want to bring it up so that people are aware. I'm not a perfect technician, so please forgive me if I get a detail wrong...but the basica idea is there:

One of the biggest complaints that Leica users had with the M8 is that it was necessary to use IR filters over the lenses since there was no in-camera IR filter. IF a IR filter was not used, then certain synthetic black fabrics would shift to magenta. With the IR filter, there were no more color problems with synthetic black fabrics. HOwever, this created a cyan drift on the corners of the frame that would then have to be corrected with software.

The m9 has a built in IR filter. But the IR filter is not thick enough to filter all of the light that could cause a magenta color shift. So there are certain times that magenta color shifts will happen even when using the M9. This means that IR filters over the lens may still be necessary for shooting certain subjects in certain conditions (possibly certain synthetic fabrics under incandescent lighting) If an IR filter is added to the lens...then there may need to be certain software corrections made for cyan drift.

So basically, watch for the IR color issue with the M9. It appears to still be there to some degree although not anywhere as bad as with the M8. And, if IR filters are used over the lens then it might be necessary to correct for cyan drift.

LIke I said..I'm not a technical guy so my explanation might be off...but wanted to bring it up for anybody thinking about dropping 7 grand on an M9. There shouldn't be any surprises.

[airfrogusmc]

Seriously?! That would be excellent

I'm going to do it too...

Oh YEAH

I'm serious. It probably wont be until next year maybe May/June? I was going to go with a 5DII had one for a couple of weeks (CPS) liked it but this is the camera I've been waiting for. It won't be an over night switch either (gradual) but I'll get there.

[JeffreyG]

The M9 looks fantastic, but it's simply too much money for what I'm looking for. I think I'm going to get a Panasonic GF1.

OTOH I could keep the 1D Mark III with 17-40, 70-200 and 300/4 and sell off the 5D, 24-105, 35L, 50.1,4, 85L, 135L and get a Leica to use for most non-sports and tele applications.

[airfrogusmc]

BTW...I just wanted to mention a few preliminary things about the M9 for those that are interested in purchasing. I could be wrong on this....but want to bring it up so that people are aware. I'm not a perfect technician, so please forgive me if I get a detail wrong...but the basica idea is there:

One of the biggest complaints that Leica users had with the M8 is that it was necessary to use IR filters over the lenses since there was no in-camera IR filter. IF a IR filter was not used, then certain synthetic black fabrics would shift to magenta. With the IR filter, there were no more color problems with synthetic black fabrics. HOwever, this created a cyan drift on the corners of the frame that would then have to be corrected with software.

The m9 has a built in IR filter. But the IR filter is not thick enough to filter all of the light that could cause a magenta color shift. So there are certain times that magenta color shifts will happen even when using the M9. This means that IR filters over the lens may still be necessary for shooting certain subjects in certain conditions (possibly certain synthetic fabrics under incandescent lighting) If an IR filter is added to the lens...then there may need to be certain software corrections made for cyan drift.

So basically, watch for the IR color issue with the M9. It appears to still be there to some degree although not anywhere as bad as with the M8. And, if IR filters are used over the lens then it might be necessary to correct for cyan drift.

LIke I said..I'm not a technical guy so my explanation might be off...but wanted to bring it up for anybody thinking about dropping 7 grand on an M9. There shouldn't be any surprises.

This is a good friends M8.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y118/airfrogusmc/Cameras/IMG_4876.jpg

[Gentleman Villain]

Oh YEAH

I'm serious. It probably wont be until next year maybe May/June? I was going to go with a 5DII had one for a couple of weeks (CPS) liked it but this is the camera I've been waiting for. It won't be an over night switch either (gradual) but I'll get there.

Excellent!

Screw Dslrs :D

your friend's camera is very nice...the 21 2.8 is really sweet

[Gentleman Villain]

For those interested..dpreview just put up an IR test
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/leicam9/page8.asp

Looks pretty good according to them.

[airfrogusmc]

exactly.. missing the point? he missed the purpose of the "debate" entirely. :confused:

Heres the point I was trying to make. I looked back over all the posts and think I didn't state it as clearly as I could have. What drives me to move to Leica (besides the glass) is the fact that it doesn't have all those bells and whistles. Its a camera that I doubt unless theres a real change that would effect something like low light performance (drastically, which the new M9 seems to be all I would need based on what I have now and have tried) or some drastic improvement in resolution which FF 18MP is probably all I will ever need; things that most folks 'round here get worked up about like FPS, focus points etc are not an issue with this camera and most photographers that buy Leica those also wouldn't be issues for. So if theres not the issue of FPS, focus points, video, etc then why would a photographer that buys an M( need to upgrade? Those thing aren't important to him anyway. So while some keep chasing the latest and the greatest those that don't want all those Bs&Ws could be happy with Leica long after the ones that don't are on two their 3 or 4 upgraded body because a camera is a light tight box with a shutter a lens and an aperture and the computer is the photographers brain that has already programed the knowledge and the decisive moment.

[airfrogusmc]

Excellent!

Screw Dslrs :D

your friend's camera is very nice...the 21 2.8 is really sweet

Yeah its SWEET but all the things I didn't like about the M8 seem to have been addressed in the M9.;) FF, 18mps, decent low light performance.

[alt4852]

Who said I was referring to the last 50 posts? :lol:

This thread started out with the tone that Leica is simply an overpriced glamorous name-tag... So I gave my input. If I wanted to comment on something you wrote, then I would have talked about that subject.

You know what they say, when you assume - what does it make out of you and me? ;)

ok, i just took a quick stroll through the thread again, and there are maybe five posts at most that criticize the pricing and/or the purpose of a digital rangefinder. and in all seriousness, i still don't see where anyone is "denying" leica users from purchasing the new M. it's just not there.

secondly, i think it was a perfectly legit assumption that you were referring to the last 3-4 pages because that was the thing in this thread that was even close to a "debate". the first couple of pages was simply a couple of people expressing their individual views on the new model (most were in support, mind you), and they weren't even really responding to one another.. which disqualifies it as a debate let alone a dialogue at all.

i'm going to have to say once again: nobody is or ever was trying to discredit the idea of functional minimalism or trying to disuade each other from buying a new leica. that's why i said you missed the point of the discussion. you were responding to a stance that wasn't even being argued by anyone here.

Heres the point I was trying to make. I looked back over all the posts and think I didn't state it as clearly as I could have. What drives me to move to Leica (besides the glass) is the fact that it doesn't have all those bells and whistles. Its a camera that I doubt unless theres a real change that would effect something like low light performance (drastically, which the new M9 seems to be all I would need based on what I have now and have tried) or some drastic improvement in resolution which FF 18MP is probably all I will ever need; things that most folks 'round here get worked up about like FPS, focus points etc are not an issue with this camera and most photographers that buy Leica those also wouldn't be issues for. So if theres not the issue of FPS, focus points, video, etc then why would a photographer that buys an M( need to upgrade? Those thing aren't important to him anyway. So while some keep chasing the latest and the greatest those that don't want all those Bs&Ws could be happy with Leica long after the ones that don't are on two their 3 or 4 upgraded body because a camera is a light tight box with a shutter a lens and an aperture and the computer is the photographers brain that has already programed the knowledge and the decisive moment.

yea, i think it really simplifies the experience down quite a lot, but i think the thing that will make leica users upgrade just like all other digital cameras is that the camera will stop functioning sooner or later. it's just how electronics are. if you look around some leica forums, there are people out there whose M8's just shorted out and the repair bill wasn't worth the cost of fixing it. unlike the old M's where you could just replace a shutter assembly or a gear, the digital M's will have circuit boards that short out and processing chips that cease functioning. that's why i think the new M's will not mirror the timelessness of it's predecessors.

think about it this way: if the 1Ds classic bodies never failed due to electronic components giving to old age, they would probably still be one of the best camera bodies out there. they have all any studio photographer could need, relatively high resolution, durability, amazing AF, and consistent performance. isn't it like the leica in this sense? it has everything that you NEED, but clearly as a digital electronic, it simply doesn't have the staying power that purely mechanical devices have.

[airfrogusmc]

ok, i just took a quick stroll through the thread again, and there are maybe five posts at most that criticize the pricing and/or the purpose of a digital rangefinder. and in all seriousness, i still don't see where anyone is "denying" leica users from purchasing the new M. it's just not there.

secondly, i think it was a perfectly legit assumption that you were referring to the last 3-4 pages because that was the thing in this thread that was even close to a "debate". the first couple of pages was simply a couple of people expressing their individual views on the new model (most were in support, mind you), and they weren't even really responding to one another.. which disqualifies it as a debate let alone a dialogue at all.

i'm going to have to say once again: nobody is or ever was trying to discredit the idea of functional minimalism or trying to disuade each other from buying a new leica. that's why i said you missed the point of the discussion. you were responding to a stance that wasn't even being argued by anyone here.



yea, i think it really simplifies the experience down quite a lot, but i think the thing that will make leica users upgrade just like all other digital cameras is that the camera will stop functioning sooner or later. it's just how electronics are. if you look around some leica forums, there are people out there whose M8's just shorted out and the repair bill wasn't worth the cost of fixing it. unlike the old M's where you could just replace a shutter assembly or a gear, the digital M's will have circuit boards that short out and processing chips that cease functioning. that's why i think the new M's will not mirror the timelessness of it's predecessors.

think about it this way: if the 1Ds classic bodies never failed due to electronic components giving to old age, they would probably still be one of the best camera bodies out there. they have all any studio photographer could need, relatively high resolution, durability, amazing AF, and consistent performance. isn't it like the leica in this sense? it has everything that you NEED, but clearly as a digital electronic, it simply doesn't have the staying power that purely mechanical devices have.

I'm not saying they the ID series are not good cameras but long after the 1Ds (whatever) users have moved on the Leica M9 photogrpaher will only move on probably when the camera finally quits working. Most 1Ds (whatever) users will move with things like focus point updates, more FPS, etc which are totally irrelevant to most that would choose Leica.

[Double Negative]

I think a lot of people are totally missing the point.

M glass (be it Leica, Zeiss or VC) is basically as good as it gets. Mate those lenses to the smallest full frame camera available. Voila.

Are we getting it, yet?

[alt4852]

I'm not saying they the ID series are not good cameras but long after the 1Ds (whatever) users have moved on the Leica M9 photogrpaher will only move on probably when the camera finally quits working. Most 1Ds (whatever) users will move with things like focus point updates, more FPS, etc which are totally irrelevant to most that would choose Leica.

yea, i've just been trying to say that regardless of whether it's a 1Ds or a M9, they'll most likely quit working at around the same time.. which i'd estimate is the 10-20 year bracket. fact of life with circuitry. if we agree on that, i think we're gravy. :D

i understand what you're saying about how simplicity has less variables to upgrade. i'm not arguing it, although it's impossible to really know for sure. i'm rather confident that if clean ISO25600 were a norm in five years, leica users would ask for it. if it meant you could triple your shutter speed with minimal performance loss, i think only a few diehard users would voluntarily refuse to have that option. it's about getting the shot, not about conforming to the ISO3200 cap on film.

we of course can't know for sure what the future holds, but i'm willing to bet that it will be similar to what i described. i remember when the M8 came out and there was smiliar talk akin to what we're hearing from people who herald the M9 now. the M8 was supposed to be the new gold standard of photography in the digital age. a tool that bridged the gap between the modern technology of a digital sensor, and the timeless simplicity of the M-line. people insisted that this was all any photographer could ever want or need in a camera. simple controls, a body that could last forever, and a digital sensor to streamline workflow. fast forward to 2009 and we're hearing that the full frame sensor and 18mp is the new "last thing that was necessary to make this the ultimate camera". i look back on the performance record and the rate of failure of the M8's over time, and i can't help but think that their shelf life before they fail to function or get replaced isn't all that different from any other digital camera.

1-series cameras get updated every 3 years. i can only imagine that the M9.2 or M10 will come by 2012 or 2013, and leica users will most likely flock to it in similar numbers that people flock to a new 1-series. keep in mind that there are thousands who are perfectly happy with their 1Dmk2's right now just as there will be many happy M9 users, but it's only a matter of time before the realities of microchips and circuit boards kick in and that 1Dmk2, M9, or what have you won't turn on when you press the power button.

I think a lot of people are totally missing the point.

M glass (be it Leica, Zeiss or VC) is basically as good as it gets. Mate those lenses to the smallest full frame camera available. Voila.

Are we getting it, yet?

i don't think there's any debate about the fact that leitz makes better glass tha canon. we're talking about how well the M9 may hold to the test of time compared to any other well-spec'd, high quality camera. that's all. ;)

[airfrogusmc]

yea, i've just been trying to say that regardless of whether it's a 1Ds or a M9, they'll most likely quit working at around the same time.. which i'd estimate is the 10-20 year bracket. fact of life with circuitry. if we agree on that, i think we're gravy. :D

i understand what you're saying about how simplicity has less variables to upgrade. i'm not arguing it, although it's impossible to really know for sure. i'm rather confident that if clean ISO25600 were a norm in five years, leica users would ask for it. if it meant you could triple your shutter speed with minimal performance loss, i think only a few diehard users would voluntarily refuse to have that option. it's about getting the shot, not about conforming to the ISO3200 cap on film.

we of course can't know for sure what the future holds, but i'm willing to bet that it will be similar to what i described. i remember when the M8 came out and there was smiliar talk akin to what we're hearing from people who herald the M9 now. the M8 was supposed to be the new gold standard of photography in the digital age. a tool that bridged the gap between the modern technology of a digital sensor, and the timeless simplicity of the M-line. people insisted that this was all any photographer could ever want or need in a camera. simple controls, a body that could last forever, and a digital sensor to streamline workflow. fast forward to 2009 and we're hearing that the full frame sensor and 18mp is the new "last thing that was necessary to make this the ultimate camera". i look back on the performance record and the rate of failure of the M8's over time, and i can't help but think that their shelf life before they fail to function or get replaced isn't all that different from any other digital camera.

1-series cameras get updated every 3 years. i can only imagine that the M9.2 or M10 will come by 2012 or 2013, and leica users will most likely flock to it in similar numbers that people flock to a new 1-series. keep in mind that there are thousands who are perfectly happy with their 1Dmk2's right now just as there will be many happy M9 users, but it's only a matter of time before the realities of microchips and circuit boards kick in and that 1Dmk2, M9, or what have you won't turn on when you press the power button.



i don't think there's any debate about the fact that leitz makes better glass tha canon. we're talking about how well the M9 may hold to the test of time compared to any other well-spec'd, high quality camera. that's all. ;)

And you keep missing the point even if it is updated I probably won't update because 18mp in a FF camera is all I really need period. And again its the bells and whistle chasing that most photographers that would buy a Leica aren't chasing.

[alt4852]

And you keep missing the point even if it is updated I probably won't update because 18mp in a FF camera is all I really need period. And again its the bells and whistle chasing that most photographers that would buy a Leica aren't chasing.

ok, as long as we're on the same page with the equal deterioration rate point that i was making, i'm fine with what you're saying.

you mention that i missed your point, when in fact i've already addressed it earlier. let me restate it this way: i am using equipment that ranges from being four, to ten years old. i don't have to be a leica-toting photographer to not be swept up by new bells and whistle features. in fact, most of the professional photographers i know use some cocktail of 5D's and 1Dmk2/1Dmk2N's for their professional work. i understand that you won't update just for new features.. as many others won't either.

right now, my 12.9mp full frame 5D is all i need. i will most likely need to replace it within the next five years or so when they start to show signs of hardware failure. i expect that you will use your M9 for as many years as possible too, until it breaks on you. right?

[tkbslc]

And you keep missing the point even if it is updated I probably won't update because 18mp in a FF camera is all I really need period. And again its the bells and whistle chasing that most photographers that would buy a Leica aren't chasing.

Personally, I could not care less if someone wants a camera or does not want to use all the "bells and whistles". But I do think your arguments are a little off. If you have decided you don't want to pursue the endless upgrade cycle, then stop. Just continue to use what you have now until it breaks. Instead you are upgrading to a camera that you think will need less upgrading. That seems mildly ironic to me.

[airfrogusmc]

ok, as long as we're on the same page with the equal deterioration rate point that i was making, i'm fine with what you're saying.

you mention that i missed your point, when in fact i've already addressed it earlier. let me restate it this way: i am using equipment that ranges from being four, to ten years old. i don't have to be a leica-toting photographer to not be swept up by new bells and whistle features. in fact, most of the professional photographers i know use some cocktail of 5D's and 1Dmk2/1Dmk2N's for their professional work. i understand that you won't update just for new features.. as many others won't either.

right now, my 12.9mp full frame 5D is all i need. i will most likely need to replace it within the next five years or so when they start to show signs of hardware failure. i expect that you will use your M9 for as many years as possible too, until it breaks on you. right?

But we are not the norm. Most photographers here are constantly chasing the latest and greatest. I had my 500 C/Ms for 15 years because there was no reason upgrade,. Canon and Nikon make their $$$ on sellng you the fact you need to upgrade. Leica has been a company like Hasselblad that doesn't follow that philosophy and how do we know this? HISTORY . It would have been far more profitable for Leica to change the entire mounting system with a total redesign but instead they chose to painstakingly make a body that will except lenses that are 50 years old. Its a much different philosophy. Most makers like Canon have a useable shelf life marketing strategy and its all centered around constant upgrade to the bells and whistles because again the camera is still a light tight box, a shutter, a lens and an aperture and if your brain is making the exposure decisions then thats really all you need and a good meter.

[alt4852]

But we are not the norm. Most photographers here are constantly chasing the latest and greatest. I had my 500 C/Ms for 15 years because there was no reason upgrade,. Canon and Nikon make their $$$ on sellng you the fact you need to upgrade. Leica has been a company like Hasselblad that doesn't follow that philosophy and how do we know this? HISTORY . It would have been far more profitable for Leica to change the entire mounting system with a total redesign but instead they chose to painstakingly make a body that will except lenses that are 50 years old. Its a much different philosophy. Most makers like Canon have a useable shelf life marketing strategy and its all centered around constant upgrade to the bells and whistles because again the camera is still a light tight box, a shutter, a lens and an aperture and if your brain is making the exposure decisions then thats really all you need and a good meter.

canon and nikon make money by convincing their customers that they need to upgrade to have newer and more updated features.

leica makes money by convincing their customers that they need a heirloom camera and leitz glass to make beautiful photos (a canon P or a minolta rangefinder can do 90% of what a M4 does).. although i think the truth may lie closer to:

leica makes money by convincing collectors that they need to have the millenium edition, couch edition, hermes edition, gold-plated edition, platinum edition, titanium edition, 40th anniversary edition, royal wedding edition, white edition, safari edition, year of the rooster edition (i kid you not), thai jubilee edition, jaguar edition, etc etc.

pick your poison? ;)



airfrog: don't get me wrong though, i think the M9 is going to be a really great camera. if i had the money, i'd get one myself. i just don't think it's a fair criticism to say that leica and hasselblad's company philosophy is any more focused on photography than canon or nikon or any other camera manufacturer for that matter. they just make their money in different ways. i think if not for the masses of collectors and selling out their name to help sell panasonic cameras, leica would have never made it this long.

[Double Negative]

Leica caters to its customers, and why not - it'll make them money. They have hardcore (perhaps even "old school") PJs and other RF types that actually USE the cameras - and of course they have the trailer queen collecting crowd. They don't have the capacity to crank out millions of cameras and obviously sell to a much smaller niche. So every camera sold is more important than the mass-producers out there.

Leica and Hasselblad, etc. DO have a different philosophy however. They take a photography-first position and offer products that make no compromises or cheap-way outs. That's not to say Canon or Nikon for example, don't cater to pros. But they do balance to a certain degree, to the lower echelons such as semi-pro, amateurs and so on. So cost in most cases is a strong concern. Perhaps not so much with L lenses and 1D bodies, but in general...

Leica M cameras have remained essentially unchanged since the Ur Leica from 1913. Refined over the decades to the M7/MP/M9 of today. Leica invented the 35mm format with that first camera. So naturally you'll have a strong Leica contingent out there that for whatever reason, are fans.

Hasselblad was and is not interested in anything less than the pro market. You might even say studio shooters. But in any event, the cameras and lenses are built to the highest level available without concerns for cost (or weight, heh).

I guess the point of my rambling is there definitely IS a difference in philosophies amongst companies out there. Canon and Nikon have a huge product line and cater to everyone under the sun - and make their money by cranking out electronic widgets en masse. So the more "hot new features" (read: crap) they can get into the next version, the better. MUST... UP... GRADE... Leica knows the real shooters will have a camera for a lifetime. The collector' cameras obviously don't wear out... Hasselblad sells systems, not just *a* camera. Interchangeability is absolutely key. And when you've got the simple, robust design of say, a system V camera - what reason is there to upgrade? They made the changes necessary to compete, but the basic design has existed for decades, just like Leica.

[Double Negative]

...leica makes money by convincing their customers that they need a heirloom camera and leitz glass to make beautiful photos (a canon P or a minolta rangefinder can do 90% of what a M4 does)...

Well that's just it, isn't it? Leica caters to the folks that want that last 10%

[alt4852]

Leica caters to its customers, and why not - it'll make them money. They have hardcore (perhaps even "old school") PJs and other RF types that actually USE the cameras - and of course they have the trailer queen collecting crowd. They don't have the capacity to crank out millions of cameras and obviously sell to a much smaller niche. So every camera sold is more important than the mass-producers out there.

Leica and Hasselblad, etc. DO have a different philosophy however. They take a photography-first position and offer products that make no compromises or cheap-way outs. That's not to say Canon or Nikon for example, don't cater to pros. But they do balance to a certain degree, to the lower echelons such as semi-pro, amateurs and so on. So cost in most cases is a strong concern. Perhaps not so much with L lenses and 1D bodies, but in general...

Leica M cameras have remained essentially unchanged since the Ur Leica from 1913. Refined over the decades to the M7/MP/M9 of today. Leica invented the 35mm format with that first camera. So naturally you'll have a strong Leica contingent out there that for whatever reason, are fans.

Hasselblad was and is not interested in anything less than the pro market. You might even say studio shooters. But in any event, the cameras and lenses are built to the highest level available without concerns for cost (or weight, heh).

I guess the point of my rambling is there definitely IS a difference in philosophies amongst companies out there. Canon and Nikon have a huge product line and cater to everyone under the sun - and make their money by cranking out electronic widgets en masse. So the more "hot new features" (read: crap) they can get into the next version, the better. MUST... UP... GRADE... Leica knows the real shooters will have a camera for a lifetime. The collector' cameras obviously don't wear out... Hasselblad sells systems, not just *a* camera. Interchangeability is absolutely key. And when you've got the simple, robust design of say, a system V camera - what reason is there to upgrade? They made the changes necessary to compete, but the basic design has existed for decades, just like Leica.

i think your statement isn't exactly all that objective though. keep in mind that leica discontinued the M-series in 1976. it wasn't profitable to even bother with them anymore and leica brass figured the future was held in the R-series and the like. they DID compromise, by moving their factories to canada to build M4-P's and M6's. it isn't about spending whatever it takes to make the perfect product. they are a company and companies have balance sheets to fill out. if they're operating at a loss, you can bet that they will cut model lines and move production to stay afloat. i think anyone who says leica is more pure in the sense that they don't compromise is buying into the brand more than reality.

the hot new features that a few of you bemoan as crap are useful to other people.. just as the sky-high prices that some people say is not worth the money is very valuable to you.

i don't know when or where i became the one who is taking the stance against leica in this thread.. but i really think a few of you are being unreasonably inobjective. i think it's a bit ironic because i'm often the one who speaks in favor of the merits of having equipment that puts control into the operator's hands and mind while staying simple, efficient, and effective. i'm a pretty big fan of what leica has to offer and the idea of minimalism in the photographic process, but i urge the two of you to at least consider the big picture and realize that more features are just one way to satiate what people want. the cutting edge of technology is an idea that people pursue, just as much as having "mechanical perfection" is another idea that brands have been able to ingrain in our ideology and opinions.

Well that's just it, isn't it? Leica caters to the folks that want that last 10%

this wasn't a criticism. you said exactly what i was trying to say. canon and nikon cater to professionals who actually need bells and whistles to keep up with their work, and leica caters to people who want cameras that are built like swiss watches. i didn't mean to say it like a bad thing.. i was just pointing out the different markets and how the implied "convincing customers they need to upgrade" is unfair. people need the best AF as much as a leica user needs a camera that can be passed down through five generations.

[airfrogusmc]

Yes they do have different philosophies but are more in line with each other and quite different than the Nikon/Canon philosophies which are similar. Both Hasselblad and Leica pretty much cater to the professional market and are more specialized in their products that both Canon and Nikon which try to be everything to everyone. Thats why they have to always keep moving and updating.

I was talking to a good friend at Calumet and we were talking about the way pros spend a good deal of money in one shot but are way less prone to keep updating with every new update. That was a big reason Calumet closed their location in Bensonville and opened the new location in Oak Brook and changed their hours so the could cater more to the non pro market.

There are still a good deal of Deardorffs with leaf backs making commercial images of products. Hasselblads are still taking a lot of advertising and portraits and Leicas are still doing a lot of PJ, weddings, advertising and street work. And in some cases they are much better options than Canon or Nikon.

[alt4852]

Yes they do have different philosophies but are more in line with each other and quite different than the Nikon/Canon philosophies which are similar. Both Hasselblad and Leica pretty much cater to the professional market and are more specialized in their products that both Canon and Nikon which try to be everything to everyone. Thats why they have to always keep moving and updating.

I was talking to a good friend at Calumet and we were talking about the way pros spend a good deal of money in one shot but are way less prone to keep updating with every new update. That was a big reason Calumet closed their location in Bensonville and opened the new location in Oak Brook and changed their hours so the could cater more to the non pro market.

There are still a good deal of Deardorffs with leaf backs making commercial images of products. Hasselblads are still taking a lot of advertising and portraits and Leicas are still doing a lot of PJ, weddings, advertising and street work. And in some cases they are much better options than Canon or Nikon.

if you're up for reading it, i recall chris weeks' ode to leicas in his street photography work really interesting: http://www.deviantart.com/download/38038974/street_photography_for_the_purist.pdf

he has a three part movie sequel too, but i didn't enjoy it quite as much as the PDF: http://vimeo.com/6497905

i followed his street work long before i knew what he shot with so it really piqued my interest when i read about how strongly he defends the use of rangefinders for the craft. it's an interesting read. some say it's pretentious, but i'll leave that for you to decide. ;)

[airfrogusmc]

i think your statement isn't exactly all that objective though. keep in mind that leica discontinued the M-series in 1976. it wasn't profitable to even bother with them anymore and leica brass figured the future was held in the R-series and the like. they DID compromise, by moving their factories to canada to build M4-P's and M6's. it isn't about spending whatever it takes to make the perfect product. they are a company and companies have balance sheets to fill out. if they're operating at a loss, you can bet that they will cut model lines and move production to stay afloat. i think anyone who says leica is more pure in the sense that they don't compromise is buying into the brand more than reality.

the hot new features that a few of you bemoan as crap are useful to other people.. just as the sky-high prices that some people say is not worth the money is very valuable to you.

i don't know when or where i became the one who is taking the stance against leica in this thread.. but i really think a few of you are being unreasonably inobjective. i think it's a bit ironic because i'm often the one who speaks in favor of the merits of having equipment that puts control into the operator's hands and mind while staying simple, efficient, and effective. i'm a pretty big fan of what leica has to offer and the idea of minimalism in the photographic process, but i urge the two of you to at least consider the big picture and realize that more features are just one way to satiate what people want. the cutting edge of technology is an idea that people pursue, just as much as having "mechanical perfection" is another idea that brands have been able to ingrain in our ideology and opinions.



this wasn't a criticism. you said exactly what i was trying to say. canon and nikon cater to professionals who actually need bells and whistles to keep up with their work, and leica caters to people who want cameras that are built like swiss watches. i didn't mean to say it like a bad thing.. i was just pointing out the different markets and how the implied "convincing customers they need to upgrade" is unfair. people need the best AF as much as a leica user needs a camera that can be passed down through five generations.

Its unfair? Then why the tech wars? And again most of those wars are being fought about things that a good deal of photographers could care less about if they haven't bought into it. Think about it. If you're a good photographer with really good technical skills these bells and whistles are not going to increase your chances of taking a great photograph. Your skills will but all the auto focus and auto exposure in some cases actually can have the opposite effect.

If you need the long lenses then this conversation doesn't really apply. But a camera is light tight box with a shutter, lens and aperture and if you can effectively read a meter and can process all that info what do you really need all the bells and whistles for? In fact with all this auto stuff you'd think the art of photography would have leaped forward at the same rate as the new bells and whistles but I don't see it.

And if you don't need that stuuf then you might just be an M9 customer and once you've invested the ones that need all that stuff will keep chasing the stuff and Nikon and Canon count on it. So when I get my new M9 and all of the one that like all the stuff have gone through several generations of cameras as long as its still working fine I'll still have the M9. I wish I would have kept one of my 500 C/Ms and a couple of lenses. I still have an old F-1n and a New F-1. Actaully I wish Canon would have made a digital back for them and if they would have made a FF high pixel back I probably wouldn't have bought my 5Ds and all the new glass.

So see Canons smart. They really left me no option when it came to my old gear and upgrading to digital, so they made out. Instead of selling me two backs they've got my for 15,000+. Leica respected their owners enough to make a Camera that incorporates all those great expensive old lenses. Maybe not the wisest short term business move but the loyalty factor they got by doing just that might be priceless.

This isn't a complaint as much as an observation. I love my 5Ds. Thats not the question. Both have been in the shop though, one of the 5Ds twice. My good bud has yet to see any mechanical problems with either of his M8s. And one of his M8s is about the same age as my first 5D.

[airfrogusmc]

if you're up for reading it, i recall chris weeks' ode to leicas in his street photography work really interesting: http://www.deviantart.com/download/38038974/street_photography_for_the_purist.pdf

he has a three part movie sequel too, but i didn't enjoy it quite as much as the PDF: http://vimeo.com/6497905

i followed his street work long before i knew what he shot with so it really piqued my interest when i read about how strongly he defends the use of rangefinders for the craft. it's an interesting read. some say it's pretentious, but i'll leave that for you to decide. ;)

All ya gotta do is put anyone work up against say Winogrand, Bresson, Freidlander or just set a 1DsMkIII with a 35L (which most here probably wouldn't shoot street with anyway (some would but most would go with a 24-70) next to an M9 with a 35 1.4 aspherical and tell me which is less conspicuous.;)

[alt4852]

Its unfair? Then why the tech wars? And again most of those wars are being fought about things that a good deal of photographers could care less about if they haven't bought into it. Think about it. If you're a good photographer with really good technical skills these bells and whistles are not going to increase your chances of taking a great photograph. Your skills will but all the auto focus and auto exposure in some cases actually can have the opposite effect.

If you need the long lenses then this conversation doesn't really apply. But a camera is light tight box with a shutter, lens and aperture and if you can effectively read a meter and can process all that info what do you really need all the bells and whistles for? In fact with all this auto stuff you'd think the art of photography would have leaped forward at the same rate as the new bells and whistles but I don't see it.

And if you don't need that stuuf then you might just be an M9 customer and once you've invested the ones that need all that stuff will keep chasing the stuff and Nikon and Canon count on it. So when I get my new M9 and all of the one that like all the stuff have gone through several generations of cameras as long as its still working fine I'll still have the M9. I wish I would have kept one of my 500 C/Ms and a couple of lenses. I still have an old F-1n and a New F-1. Actaully I wish Canon would have made a digital back for them and if they would have made a FF high pixel back I probably wouldn't have bought my 5Ds and all the new glass.

So see Canons smart. They really left me no option when it came to my old gear and upgrading to digital, so they made out. Instead of selling me two backs they've got my for 15,000+. Leica respected their owners enough to make a Camera that incorporates all those great expensive old lenses. Maybe not the wisest short term business move but the loyalty factor they got by doing just that might be priceless.

This isn't a complaint as much as an observation. I love my 5Ds. Thats not the question. Both have been in the shop though, one of the 5Ds twice. My good bud has yet to see any mechanical problems with either of his M8s. And one of his M8s is about the same age as my first 5D.

i think you're straying away from advocating leica in particular and delving a bit into the root of minimalism in the photographic process. you reference the tech war, but there's an equally fierce war of words among leica users and zeiss users concerning who has the best lenses. none of it contributes to how good a photographer is.

it's just as easy to say "if you're a good photographer with really good technical skills having the sharpest lenses are not going to increase your chances of taking a great photograph. your skills will, but preoccupation with getting a $11,000 noctilux or mulling over whether the pre-ASPH or ASPH is better in some cases actually can have the opposite effect."

i think it's fair to say that a good photographer with really good technical skills doesn't need a 1D's autofocus system any more than they'll need a $2500 film rangefinder with a $4000 standard prime. i have friends who have olympus OM-1's from forever ago that are still kicking strong, and canonets that are from the stone age but are accurate and reliable as ever. i think whether you're buying into canon, nikon, leica, or what have you.. you're buying into something that you don't NEED as a photographer. if autofocus is a luxury, so is a 50mm f/0.95. who's to say one is "crap" while the other is something to be revered?

[Jannie]

I'm thrilled to see Leica do this.

[airfrogusmc]

i think you're straying away from advocating leica in particular and delving a bit into the root of minimalism in the photographic process. you reference the tech war, but there's an equally fierce war of words among leica users and zeiss users concerning who has the best lenses. none of it contributes to how good a photographer is.

it's just as easy to say "if you're a good photographer with really good technical skills having the sharpest lenses are not going to increase your chances of taking a great photograph. your skills will, but preoccupation with getting a $11,000 noctilux or mulling over whether the pre-ASPH or ASPH is better in some cases actually can have the opposite effect."

i think it's fair to say that a good photographer with really good technical skills doesn't need a 1D's autofocus system any more than they'll need a $2500 film rangefinder with a $4000 standard prime. i have friends who have olympus OM-1's from forever ago that are still kicking strong, and canonets that are from the stone age but are accurate and reliable as ever. i think whether you're buying into canon, nikon, leica, or what have you.. you're buying into something that you don't NEED as a photographer. if autofocus is a luxury, so is a 50mm f/0.95. who's to say one is "crap" while the other is something to be revered?

No one said anything was crap just that there are plenty of photographers out there that would PREFER manual exposure, manual focus and NO FPS. And there is a market for it.

[alt4852]

No one said anything was crap just that there are plenty of photographers out there that would PREFER manual exposure, manual focus and NO FPS. And there is a market for it.

i was referencing doublenegative:

So the more "hot new features" (read: crap) they can get into the next version, the better. MUST... UP... GRADE... Leica knows the real shooters will have a camera for a lifetime.

yea, there's definitely a market for it. this discussion has inspired me to leave my SLRs at home for the rest of the week and just put a few rolls through my rangefinder. ;)

[Double Negative]

Seems the exodus has begun:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Leica_M9_Photographers_ditch_DSLR_cameras_news_289 093.html12

[airfrogusmc]

Seems the exodus has begun:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Leica_M9_Photographers_ditch_DSLR_cameras_news_289 093.html12

Told ya I wasn't the only one:D

[Gentleman Villain]

oh it has begun

I sold my last DSLR in 2008 and don't ever plan on owning one again...

[airfrogusmc]

It will probably be a slow migration for me and I might keep one 5D and a long lens but I am going to get an M9 next year for sure. I was going to get a 5DII and I'm so glad I held off.

[Gentleman Villain]

There's nothing wrong with a slow migration. I did a similar thing in the sense that I took the last year off from photography just to think long and hard about what direction to take for the future.

LIke you said in previous posts...the professional world is different from the hobbyist world. We tend to make large purchases once and then hope to make it last for a long time. I have no intention of chaning my mind once making a switch...and will hopefully be able to stick with it for decades...maybe permanently. Leica is definitely a system that could become permanent..especially when it comes to the lenses

[alt4852]

Seems the exodus has begun:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Leica_M9_Photographers_ditch_DSLR_cameras_news_289 093.html12

i think most people are probably going to augment their equipment rather than transition completely as an "exodus" would imply. i think it's more or less a horses for courses deal with the M9. i'd love to have one, but i can't see it ever fulfilling all of the duties my 5D's are satisfying right now.

Told ya I wasn't the only one:D

never.. in this whole thread have i ever hinted that you were. ;)

It will probably be a slow migration for me and I might keep one 5D and a long lens but I am going to get an M9 next year for sure. I was going to get a 5DII and I'm so glad I held off.

yea, i think finances are keeping me from getting one anytime soon. i just spent a whole day in DC with my canonet and it really is a different experience than when i take my 5D or F1N out for a spin. i think i'll baby step up to a canon P or a leica M4 in the near future, but the M9 would have to earn it's keep.. and i can't see myself investing $10k+ in a system when my $6k in EOS gear makes clients happy already. we'll see. :D

There's nothing wrong with a slow migration. I did a similar thing in the sense that I took the last year off from photography just to think long and hard about what direction to take for the future.

LIke you said in previous posts...the professional world is different from the hobbyist world. We tend to make large purchases once and then hope to make it last for a long time. I have no intention of chaning my mind once making a switch...and will hopefully be able to stick with it for decades...maybe permanently. Leica is definitely a system that could become permanent..especially when it comes to the lenses

the glass might be permanent, but the M9 is no MP. ;)

[Gentleman Villain]

i
the glass might be permanent, but the M9 is no MP. ;)

ain't that the truth :D

The MP is probably the coolest camera that I've ever seen...that is one badass little box

[ghaleon109]

Seems the exodus has begun:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Leica_M9_Photographers_ditch_DSLR_cameras_news_289 093.html12

So.. correct me if I'm wrong here.. but everyone in the article talking about finally being rid of all the "space" that DSLR's and thier peripherals occupy seems a bit odd...

I mean your going to need add-ons for the X9 too right?

If your doing everything with your Canon or Nikon SLR's chances are you'll have lenses and flashes stocked up (as it was saying) why would that suddenly change with an X9? :confused:

[airfrogusmc]

Never said it was an MP but in my opinion its the best of the 135 format digital lot. ;)

[Double Negative]

i think most people are probably going to augment their equipment rather than transition completely as an "exodus" would imply. i think it's more or less a horses for courses deal with the M9. i'd love to have one, but i can't see it ever fulfilling all of the duties my 5D's are satisfying right now.
.
.
the glass might be permanent, but the M9 is no MP. ;)

Oh, I agree. I love my RFs, but indeed, they're not SLRs. They each have important pros and cons going for them. I don't think I could decide on one over the other...

The MP (and similar older models) are really timeless "forever cameras."

So.. correct me if I'm wrong here.. but everyone in the article talking about finally being rid of all the "space" that DSLR's and thier peripherals occupy seems a bit odd...

I mean your going to need add-ons for the X9 too right?

If your doing everything with your Canon or Nikon SLR's chances are you'll have lenses and flashes stocked up (as it was saying) why would that suddenly change with an X9? :confused:

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.

Never said it was an MP but in my opinion its the best of the 135 format digital lot. ;)

The M9 is no MP in the sense it has a finite lifespan (which arguably, film does also, but...) I think it's as close as you can reasonably expect. It sure isn't built any cheaper and just as solid. Can't go wrong with any Leica M camera, really. Except maybe an M5 or CL.

[lefturn99]

What amazes me is that almost all the gushing reviews and pitiful fanboyisms fail to mention a few minor things about the M9.

Minor things like the lack of IS and AF. The fact that you can't use long lenses (I didn't know that until I read it earlier in this thread). A bare mention of the poor high ISO performance for such an expensive piece. I wouldn't mind if they would mention it and then talk about how it really isn't necessary. They just omit it altogether.

Even DPReview OMITTED the AF area in the specs. Look at the specs for any other camera. It tells how many focusing points there are and other info. You would think there would be a box and a little N/A, but no.....

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but there are so many gushes out there and I've read all of them and they don't say a word about no AF or IS. This is almost 2010, not 1985.

Disclaimer: When the gushers were cutting their teeth on manual focus and f8 and be there, I was racing cars so I never had the pleasure. I'm sure that would give me a different perspective. Now I'm 62, kinda shaky and my eyes aren't that great. I guess I'm an AF and IS wuss.

So it looks like you can have a soulless, versatile peice of crap that takes wonderful pictures or a work of art that takes wonderfull pictues as long as you aren't too demanding. When I win the lottery I'll buy one and put it on the mantle or use it at the Concours at Pebble Beach or Amelia Island.

[JeffreyG]

What amazes me is that almost all the gushing reviews and pitiful fanboyisms fail to mention a few minor things about the M9.

Minor things like the lack of IS and AF. The fact that you can't use long lenses (I didn't know that until I read it earlier in this thread). A bare mention of the poor high ISO performance for such an expensive piece. I wouldn't mind if they would mention it and then talk about how it really isn't necessary. They just omit it altogether.

Even DPReview OMITTED the AF area in the specs. Look at the specs for any other camera. It tells how many focusing points there are and other info. You would think there would be a box and a little N/A, but no.....

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but there are so many gushes out there and I've read all of them and they don't say a word about no AF or IS. This is almost 2010, not 1985.


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.

[sjones]

Just curious, how many Canon L primes under 135mm have IS?

[JeffreyG]

Just curious, how many Canon L primes under 135mm have IS?

One!

EF 100 f/2.8L Macro IS USM

[alt4852]

Finally, rangefinders only work with prime lenses. No zooms!

don't forget the pseudo-zoom tri-elmar! :D