Leica Lovers Anonymous

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16859022
Why so critical of the MM edge? Probably Leica's finest digital body.

I've warmed to the MM, to be fair. It's the best digital B&W, by far.

I just don't like digital B&W.

Also, removing the Bayer array from the M9 sensor, and then jacking up the price is cheeky, even for Leica.

But I'll admit, if you like digital B&W, the MM is unparalleled.

Edge yeah the price sucks. But so does the price of the 1DX and whatever the top of the line Nikon is at the moment. I remember when Leica M was over double the price of both the top of the line Nikon and Canon.

I had a one man exhibit last April and a lot of my friends still shoot a lot of film and were stunned when I told them the i,mage were all digital. The prints are stunning. 10,000 ISO looks somewhat like tri x processed in Rodinal 1:50 than digital noise.

Heres a read that I thought you might find interesting.
http://blog.leica-camera.com …e-to-the-monochrom-part2/

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16859162
Edge yeah the peice sucks. But so does the price of the 1DX and whatever the top of the line Nikon is at the moment. I remember when Leica M was over double the price of both the top of the line Nikon and Canon.

I had a one man exhibit last April and a lot of my friends still shoot a lot of film and were stunned when I told them the i,mage were all digital. The prints are stunning. 10,000 ISO looks somewhat like tri x processed in Rodinal 1:50 than digital noise.

Heres a read that I thought you might find interesting.
http://blog.leica-camera.com …e-to-the-monochrom-part2/

Yeah, I agree; I don't think Leica M bodies are overpriced. Just like a 1DX serves a niche by shooting at a bazillion frames/sec or whatever, Leica bodies serve a niche, too. And they're built much better, to boot.

The lenses...you could argue that $5000 for a 35 'Lux FLE or $7300 for a 50 'Cron APO is pushing it. I appreciate that Leica has to build top-notch glass and make them tiny, and there's a cost premium to that. But those prices are really SO much higher than anything from anyone else, that it's hard to justify. Then again, no one else builds lenses of that build and image quality AND of that size.

I've seen that article, and it's part of what made me come around on the MM (which I was not at all a fan of when it was released). As I said, it's the best digital B&W by a long shot, and, to the extent that this is possible, it's very film-like. If I had one, I'd be inclined to shoot it at 10,000 ISO with a 3 stop ND filter on all the time, just to get some "grain"; ISO 400 is just *SO* clean, it's off-putting.

I personally don't shoot enough B&W to justify an MM, so I'm quite content with my MP and Tri-X. I have thought hard about an M240, but I just have too many other camera-related priorities (e.g. large format kit and a 35 Cron ASPH, mainly). I've also got a freezer full of colour film, and an X-Pro1 that I'm happy with as a semi-low cost digital camera.

The good thing about Leica glass is you wont loose money. My 35 lux is selling for more used now than what I paid for it.

You can always add grain in post. I love the fact that my files look like files they were shot with a Rolleiflex and tri-x. I personally like the fact I can get amazing 13 X 19s without noise shot at 1600 or 3200 ISO. Cleaner than a 5DIII and without the artifacts from conversion.

If I still had a darkroom I would still be shooting film. Probably would still have one of my Blads and I would pick up a M 3 or M 4. Lost it through forced downsizing (divorce) All of my personal work and some of my pro work is B&W so a dedicated B&W was a no brainer for me. I do plan on completely switch to Leica M over the next few years. Really hoping Leica comes out with a mostly manual MP (M-E) like digital M cheaper in cost with the new CMOSIS. If not a new 240 and an M9 for back up for my pro work and dump all the Canon gear.

http://www.reddotforum​.com …-Leica-T-(Typ-701)-Review

edge100 wrote in post #16859412
Yeah, I agree; I don't think Leica M bodies are overpriced. Just like a 1DX serves a niche by shooting at a bazillion frames/sec or whatever, Leica bodies serve a niche, too. And they're built much better, to boot.

The lenses...you could argue that $5000 for a 35 'Lux FLE or $7300 for a 50 'Cron APO is pushing it. I appreciate that Leica has to build top-notch glass and make them tiny, and there's a cost premium to that. But those prices are really SO much higher than anything from anyone else, that it's hard to justify. Then again, no one else builds lenses of that build and image quality AND of that size.

I've seen that article, and it's part of what made me come around on the MM (which I was not at all a fan of when it was released). As I said, it's the best digital B&W by a long shot, and, to the extent that this is possible, it's very film-like. If I had one, I'd be inclined to shoot it at 10,000 ISO with a 3 stop ND filter on all the time, just to get some "grain"; ISO 400 is just *SO* clean, it's off-putting.

I personally don't shoot enough B&W to justify an MM, so I'm quite content with my MP and Tri-X. I have thought hard about an M240, but I just have too many other camera-related priorities (e.g. large format kit and a 35 Cron ASPH, mainly). I've also got a freezer full of colour film, and an X-Pro1 that I'm happy with as a semi-low cost digital camera.

I would argue some offerings from Voigtlander, Zeiss and MS optical are about the same quality as leica lenses.

Depends on the lens....

But if you spend X on Leica glass you will get it all back and then some. Not always the same on other brands.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16861808
Depends on the lens....

But if you spend X on Leica glass you will get it all back and then some. Not always the same on other brands.

Not the case anymore, I can find practically any used Leica lens for less than brand new, even the noctilux. The market has leveled off and prices are returning to normal.

http://www.popflash.co​m/11663SPEC

J_TULLAR wrote in post #16861788
I would argue some offerings from Voigtlander, Zeiss and MS optical are about the same quality as leica lenses.

Image quality, perhaps.

Build?? Google: zeiss wobble

edge100 wrote in post #16862720
Image quality, perhaps.

Build?? Google: zeiss wobble

Google: Leica Wobble, build quality wont be the same obviously. Your Paying 1/5th the price lol.

J_TULLAR wrote in post #16862776
Google: Leica Wobble, build quality wont be the same obviously. Your Paying 1/5th the price lol.

You won't get an argument from me that Leica glass isn't overpriced. It surely is. And none more so than the 23/2 for the T. $2k for a 35 f/3 equivalent?!?

The 35/2 Biogon and 50/1.5 Sonnar are definitely top grade lenses. As is the CV 35/1.2 Nokton mkII. Easily the equal of the Leica counterpart, for much less.

On the other hand, the Zeiss Ikon and Bessa camera are nowhere near the quality of the Leicas, with the notable exception of the ZI viewfinder, which is really excellent.

edge100 wrote in post #16862834
You won't get an argument from me that Leica glass isn't overpriced. It surely is. And none more so than the 23/2 for the T. $2k for a 35 f/3 equivalent?!?

The 35/2 Biogon and 50/1.5 Sonnar are definitely top grade lenses. As is the CV 35/1.2 Nokton mkII. Easily the equal of the Leica counterpart, for much less.

On the other hand, the Zeiss Ikon and Bessa camera are nowhere near the quality of the Leicas, with the notable exception of the ZI viewfinder, which is really excellent.

True but they are also 1/5th to 1/6th the price. I also dare say that you couldnt tell if a picture was taken with a bessa and cv 50 1.5 ver2 versus a MP with a 50lux. That being said I prefer leica bodies over bessa's and Zeiss's. Also it seems the new Leica M hasnt really taken off like the M9 did. You can find Leica M bodies for $5.8k now. I think the market is saturated.

J_TULLAR wrote in post #16862653
Not the case anymore, I can find practically any used Leica lens for less than brand new, even the noctilux. The market has leveled off and prices are returning to normal.

http://www.popflash.co​m/11663SPEC

And then some of the rarer glass like the 35 double asph lux is going for 14K + now if you can find one.

My 35 LUX FLE is selling now for more used than what I paid for it...

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16862887
And then some of the rarer glass like the 35 double asph lux is going for 14K + now if you can find one.

My 35 LUX FLE is selling now for more used than what I paid for it...

Well with price increases the used prices goes up as well, same with most lenses (brand). Did you pay less than $4600 for your lens? Because retail now is $5150. Any rare lens is going to end up being worth more than it was bought brand new. Those are collectors. Konica Hexanon 60 1.2's go for 10k! Canon LM 50 1.2's go for 5k in mint condition. Normal Leica lenses however can now be bought for less than retail. Ten years ago you could buy Noctilux's for 1500 bucks lol. Its just how the market is popular at any given time.

J_TULLAR wrote in post #16862868
True but they are also 1/5th to 1/6th the price. I also dare say that you couldnt tell if a picture was taken with a bessa and cv 50 1.5 ver2 versus a MP with a 50lux. That being said I prefer leica bodies over bessa's and Zeiss's. Also it seems the new Leica M hasnt really taken off like the M9 did. You can find Leica M bodies for $5.8k now. I think the market is saturated.

On the world wide web you at 85KB on a 96 PPI monitor from a site that compresses the $hit out if the file you can't tall something taken with a 2 MP phone shot from a Contax 645 and a Phase One IQ180 back.

Monos are still fetching good prices though....