Leica Lovers Anonymous

Thanks. It was a total gift. I went to Calumet in Oak Brook (it just reopened today) and this was a newly paved and painted exit from a place on the way there.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16897962
Thanks. It was a total gift. I went to Calumet in Oak Brook (it just reopened today) and this was a newly paved and painted exit from a place on the way there.

Are they open for clearance? Or are they back in business?

Back in biz under a new parent company, same name. The really cool thing is ome friends of mine are back to work. I'm not sure if any of the other Chicago area locations will reopen.

edge100 wrote in post #16896531
So does the X-T1. And the X-T1 has a built-in EVF, to boot (and a pretty damn good one).

Look, Leica will sell a bunch of these, and I have no doubt that the $2k 23/2 will sell as well (I'm not so sure about the $2000 18-56 f/3.5-5.6...that...that just defies any logic at all). But what does the T really *do* that cannot be done, just as well, for far less than half the price?

Again, I'm not bashing Leica here; I'm a proud MP user, and I think the M system is unique enough in both form and function to justify its high price (which, in reality, is no higher than a top-end Canikon DLSR). But the T brings nothing to the table that isn't already there.

That I disagree on. I don't consider the Leica T to be excessively expensive at all, given you're paying a moderate premium for design and workmanship it seems a fair price.
The Leica M on the other had. Let's see a Canon 6D for $1500 with a $700 Sigma 35mm will provide the same quality in terms of sensor and lens image quality as a Leica M + 35mm 1.4 ASPH set up. You're talking $2200 vs $13000. You've got to really love using a Rangefinder to think its worth that much extra.

Mornnb wrote in post #16898501
That I disagree on. I don't consider the Leica T to be excessively expensive at all, given you're paying a moderate premium for design and workmanship it seems a fair price.

Forget the body; the body is a loss-leader. It's the lenses that are ridiculous. $2000 for a 18-55 f/3.5-5.6??!??!?!?

Mornnb wrote in post #16898501
The Leica M on the other had. Let's see a Canon 6D for $1500 with a $700 Sigma 35mm will provide the same quality in terms of sensor and lens image quality as a Leica M + 35mm 1.4 ASPH set up. You're talking $2200 vs $13000. You've got to really love using a Rangefinder to think its worth that much extra.

First off, no it won't.

Second, not if you don't get the shot.

Third, by that argument, the 1DX is a total rip-off as well.

edge100 wrote in post #16898505
Forget the body; the body is a loss-leader. It's the lenses that are ridiculous. $2000 for a 18-55 f/3.5-5.6??!??!?!?

If it offers sharpness, colour rendering and contrast worthy of a $2000 lens, why not?

The Sigma 35mm is quite an exceptional lens, and completely out performs Canon and Nikon's similar 35mm offerings.

Also read this review by Steve Huff who is BTW a Leica M lover and shooter.

"The Sigma 35 1.4 Art Series is SUPERB and under $1000 is well worth it especially since when I compare real world images, it is right up there in quality with a 35 Summilux ASPH, just MUCH MUCH larger."
http://www.stevehuffph​oto.com …-4-art-and-canon-85-1-2l/

I'm not dissing the Leica M, it's a fantastic platform. And the Rangefinder has plenty of advantages. But I do not think the pricing makes much sense.

Which is why pretty much only sports shooters or journalists get it, who actually need the 14FPS.

Mornnb wrote in post #16898517
If it offers sharpness, colour rendering and contrast worthy of a $2000 lens, why not?

The Sigma 35mm is quite an exceptional lens, and completely out performs Canon and Nikon's similar 35mm offerings.

Also read this review by Steve Huff who is BTW a Leica M lover and shooter.

"The Sigma 35 1.4 Art Series is SUPERB and under $1000 is well worth it especially since when I compare real world images, it is right up there in quality with a 35 Summilux ASPH, just MUCH MUCH larger."
http://www.stevehuffph​oto.com …-4-art-and-canon-85-1-2l/

Emphasis mine.

Mornnb wrote in post #16898517
I'm not dissing the Leica M, it's a fantastic platform. And the Rangefinder has plenty of advantages. But I do not think the pricing makes much sense.

It's a pro-level body, with pro-level construction, priced similarly to other pro-level bodies.

Mornnb wrote in post #16898517
Which is why pretty much only sports shooters or journalists get it, who actually need the 14FPS.

And the Leica M is used by people who actually need the rangefinder.

Mornnb wrote in post #16898501
That I disagree on. I don't consider the Leica T to be excessively expensive at all, given you're paying a moderate premium for design and workmanship it seems a fair price.
The Leica M on the other had. Let's see a Canon 6D for $1500 with a $700 Sigma 35mm will provide the same quality in terms of sensor and lens image quality as a Leica M + 35mm 1.4 ASPH set up. You're talking $2200 vs $13000. You've got to really love using a Rangefinder to think its worth that much extra.

Again no matter how you slice and dice it the 6D is not a rangefinder. And the Sigma ain't even in the same league as the 35 LUX FLE. I learned early on that settling winds up more expensive than not having all the stuff but having the gear you really need instead.

And for the type of work I do and the way I work and see there is not a better tool than the Leica MM. And there are few on POTN that have shot with more formats and more of a variety of equipment than I have both personally and professionally. So I know what works for me and for my personal work it's not a 6D and sigma . And it's great to be in a position where my work pays for it all and I don't have to compromise and I'll never apologize for that. I've earned it.

The Leica M is the one that is the real gems and Leica makes glass that none of the bargain makers or the big two can come close to. Zeiss, Costal and Leica make glass thats in a league that the maker you mentioned isn't even close to.

edge100 wrote in post #16898522
It's a pro-level body, with pro-level construction, priced similarly to other pro-level bodies.

And the Leica M is used by people who actually need the rangefinder.

EXACTLY

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16898774
The Leica M is the one that is the real gems and Leica makes glass that none of the bargain makers or the big two can come close to. Zeiss, Costal and Leica make glass thats in a league that the maker you mentioned isn't even close to.

Sorry but I don't think that's true at all and I must defend DSLR lenses. I really don't think you're being objective here. Sigma doesn't want to be a bargain maker any more and they're serious about it, their 35mm trumps Nikon and Canon's, and even Zeiss's 35mm. It's on par with the Leica 35mm, seriously. Regardless of price, it is in fact world class glass and has completely turned around Sigma's reputation. They're now starting to be seen in the DSLR world as a serious maker of some glass that is 'the best'. There's not a 35mm lens you can get for a Nikon or Canon mount that is any where close.
Take a look at how it cleans up Leica's DSLR R mount 35mm, which is not an asph... http://www.eoshd.com …-vs-summicron-r-35mm-f2-0
And compared to the Zeiss. http://crashcoursephot​ography.com/zeiss-vs-sigma-35mm/

And nobody makes a lens that is quite like Canon's 85mm II 1.2.

Mornnb wrote in post #16898824
Sorry but I don't think that's true at all and I must defend DSLR lenses. I really don't think you're being objective here. Sigma doesn't want to be a bargain maker any more and they're serious about it, their 35mm trumps Nikon and Canon's, and even Zeiss's 35mm. It's on par with the Leica 35mm, seriously. Regardless of price, it is in fact world class glass and has completely turned around Sigma's reputation. They're now starting to be seen in the DSLR world as a serious maker of some glass that is 'the best'. There's not a 35mm lens you can get for a Nikon or Canon mount that is any where close.
Take a look at how it cleans up Leica's DSLR R mount 35mm, which is not an asph... http://www.eoshd.com …-vs-summicron-r-35mm-f2-0
And compared to the Zeiss. http://crashcoursephot​ography.com/zeiss-vs-sigma-35mm/

And nobody makes a lens that is quite like Canon's 85mm II 1.2.

Yep, Sigma makes good SLR glass. Good on them.

Apples to oranges, though. We're not talking about DSLR vs DSLR, are we?

I actually owned the 85/1.2 mkII for many years. It's a brilliant lens.

The 90 Summicron APO-ASPH is better. WAY better.

The Noctilux 50 f/0.95 is better.

The 50 Summicron APO-ASPH is better.

The 50 Summilux ASPH is better.

Yes, all of these are many times more expensive than the 85 1.2. They're also many times smaller.

The charts don't lie. I do believe the 35 sigma is on par with the Canon 35L (I own BTW as well as the 85L and the only Canon glass I ahve shot with that renders and is as sharp as the better Leica glass are the 200 2L which I also own, the 300 2.8 and the 400 2.8 and nothing in the wide or the normal range by Sigma Nikon or Canon can run with the normal and wide Leica glass.

The two sharpest 50s made today are the Leica Summicron 50 APO. Its sharper at the corners than anything Canon or Nikon produce are in the center. And the Zeiss 55 Otus are the sharpest being produced today.

But it is always more than sharpness. As edge pointed out the 35 Lux FLE is over twice as small as the 35L and it is a whole lot sharper and renders a lot better. Much smother bokeh.

As edge pointed out the 90 summicron APO is in a league all its own as are the other Leica lenses I mentioned.

And then there the rangefinder shooting experience.

on a lighter topic, have you guys watched the DRTV review of the M3?
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=3NB0yxXYj1Y

Yes, the rangefinder as a system is worth it to some folks, and why should this be surprising? Billions of folks on the planet, some are going to prefer what others don't, and vice versa. A Canon 6D will never be a rangefinder, and that very fact makes comparisons largely suspect.

Also, I wonder if only one company offered only one full frame DSLR model, with all of the competitors committed to APS-C or smaller...what premium might that full frame DSLR have, given that the top end models are already roughly the same price as Leica's M system amidst growing competition.

As for lens image quality, I'm not a stickler with that, as illustrated by the fact that one of my favorite lenses was built in 1934, but again, compare the size and weight of typical DSLR lenses to their rangefinder counterparts, and the difference can be significant.

Is this disparity important to some folks, or for that matter, many folks? Probably not; but for those of us who don't want to carry around a camera/lens combo the size of Texas, it's great that choice still exists.

I'm sure a number of Leica digital rangefinder owners wished the price of their camera was cheaper, but it's not. But their aversion to DSLRs is perfectly reasonable, as preference is personal, not something carved in stone by Canon or Nikon, or for that matter, by technological modernity.

If you don't understand the appeal or utility of rangefinders, you don't have to; you've got other options. So no need to argue for limited choice.

I just found out today I was selected for this exhibit at the SoHo Gallery in New York. It was a juried show and only 40 images were chosen from over 2000. The opening is July 1 if you are in New York.

Heres the info..
http://www.sohophoto.c​om …te/competitions​/national/