This thread is really funny! Subscribe!
HAHA! it's getting out of hand
For me, Leica seems like one of those company frozen in time, locked on in old world technology, there is virtually no change in their looks or functionalities over the decades. Most is, they coat their cameras in gold to justify/increase their value & for people to go wow! They suck becos they cost the earlh, looks the same 40 years ago with minimal functional improvements that are "hand-me-down" technology. Just slapping on a digital sensor may make the world of a difference for some, but not for me. 60's rangefinders
They exist or survive mainly by banking on the reputation of their lens established over the years. Take away the name, & I doubt one would bother to pay that kind of price for it. It will be but like some unusual museum piece to look at & admire, not something truly functional to be used as workhorse by professionals to earn a living or for serious enthusiasts & hobbyists to indulge in. For sure, they serve a different niche market, appeals to the old-rich, people of leisure, people fascinated with old-world charm - like old gold pocket watches which costs $$$ to tell the same time (royalties & snobs included).
If they don’t change to cater for this digital age, in time to come they did go the way of Kodak. This M9 is just an attempt to replace the 35mm film with equiv digital sensor. Its the best they can do but the verdict is still out whether this is good enough to ensure the survive in this age of technological onslaught with all the digital, electro-mechanical advances. Of course there will still be people who would like to use legacy manual cameras & lenses, Leicas or otherwise, for the experience, the novelty or nostalgia. One more generation & all will probably be forgotten.
Paying for the experience & to learn is fine & laudable. It may give a unique, valuable perspective. As for the stated purpose, there are hundreds of cheaper, better alternatives in Canon, Nikon, Olympus etc that are portable, convenient, better quality, especially if you already agreed you cant tell the difference from the photos & the photos are the reason for investing in cameras & photographic pursuits. You have used the best of Nikons & Leicas, is there a world of a difference in the IQ between their lens now, like say from your 24 or 85 f1.4?
Whats so shocking if the ISO (or any other features) of the S90 (or other cameras) is same or even better than the Leica's for that matter. Will Leica incorporate video too And, heck, I can even use all those superb film cameras/lens (available cheap now) & then scan them into digital if I so love those manual stuff for the special experience, quality & such, minus the Leica now.
Last edited by s1221ljc; 4th February 2012 at 02:06 PM.
I'd disagree with you here. I've always wanted an M9 because of the excellent Noctilux optics, because it has a full frame sensor, and because I love the rangefinder focus mechanism. If I had $20k to spare I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
As it is if fuji comes up with an X-series rangefinder with the same superb optics and sensor combo as the X100 tomorrow, I'd buy it in a heartbeat too if it was reasonably priced (under $1500).
There's just something fun about aligning those two overlapping images, and it's, IMO, much easier to focus than conventional MF. The ability to see outside of the image is valuable too and is in fact the thing I love most (after the crazy good IQ and high ISO performance) about my X100.
The key point is; other than Leica no one else makes digital rangefinders. The FF sensor makes it so much sweeter too.
Originally Posted by s1221ljc
Last edited by pbear1973; 4th February 2012 at 02:16 PM.
Yes, it can't beat the high ISO beasts like D3s, D4, D700, 5DMkII, but the much smaller and lighter camera body with full frame sensor and excellent lenses can only be provided by Leica so far. I do hope that Nikon/Canon can come up with a similar camera like M9 with better ISO performance but they are unable to do it so far. Other much cheaper alternatives like Fuji X100, X-Pro1, Olympus PEN, Sony NEX, etc are not full frame sensor, not to mention the S95.
I only have the Leica Summilux 50mm f1.4 lens and haven't tried out their other lenses. What I can say is, just ignore the price tags alone, the pictures taken from the Leica M9+50mm Summilux is far more sharper and contrasty than my Nikon D700 and 50mm f1.4G at wide open f1.4.
I don't think Leica will incorporate video in their cameras in the future. Their cameras are very simple and straighforward. No complicated menus and buttons like the DSLRs. I do enjoy this simple and elegant kind of camera because I can easily access the buttons that I really need for shooting. There are many buttons and menus in Nikon D700 which I never touch before within these 2 years. And ya, the viewfinder of M9 is so big that I can spot something interesting which is out of the frame immediately and recompose my frame to capture it. I can't do this with my D700 though.
I'm not sure if you have shot with a Leica M9 for some time or not. It would be too quick to say something is not good or not worth it if we never experience it and get used to it.
Last edited by kentwong81; 4th February 2012 at 02:22 PM.
Due to uncooperative TOTO results, my plans for the M9+Noct have to wait.
& Oh, who would want to make digital rangefinders now but Leica?? And why??
Last edited by s1221ljc; 9th February 2012 at 03:03 AM.
Heard many people asked before, "my $200 compact camera or iPhone can take good pictures already, why spend $6000++ on a Nikon D700 + 24-70mm zoom + SB900 + flash diffuser cap. They are so bulky, heavy and big size to be carried for my family outing, friends gathering, backpack trip, etc. I find myself spending more time taking care of these bulky equipment than with my family and friends."
$6k maybe a small amount to the Nikon D700 + 24-70mm zoom + SB900 + flash diffuser cap user but it's a big sum to the user who only use $200 compact camera or iPhone to take pictures. Similarly, $15k on Leica may also sound too much to the Nikon D700 + 24-70mm zoom + SB900 + flash diffuser cap user.
Well, the Nikon D700 + 24-70mm zoom + SB900 are still very popular and well sought-after. They are here for some reasons, not affected by the perception of the people above. The same goes to a much bigger and more bulky setup D3s + 70-200mm VRII + SB900.
Some may wonder why some people can spend $60k to renovate a small 4-room flat while they can better use the big sum of money on other things like bringing parents for oversea trips, saving for childrens' education, saving for rainy days, etc.
Some may wonder why some people can spend $30k on hi-fi system while a normal $500-$2000 hi-fi player can also play music.
Some may wonder why some people can spend $120k on a car while a much cheaper China Cherry QQ also can bring them from point A to point B in Singapore.
Some may wonder why some people can spend $8k on an Omega watch while a normal $500 Seiko watch also can display time and has nice design too.
Some may wonder why some women can spend $3k on a LV bag, $6k on a Chanel bag or $12k on Hermes bag while a normal $100-500 bag is sufficient to carry the same things. They can even keep buying such bags whenever the season changes and keep the old ones aside without use.
For photography hobbyists, there are also many of them who spend more than $20k on DSLRs, lenses and other photographic accessories, but most of them are kept in the dry cabinet without practical use. Some hobbyists spend so much on these not because they want to become a much better photographer nor win any international awards. Some simply just want to enjoy the shooting experience, the sound of clicks, documentate the moments, appreciate the beautiful glasses, etc, although those equipments could have much more practical use.
For me, I also can't understand why they spend so much on those things which I don't really prioritize in my life. I will only understand it when I'm in their shoes and experience it. There is no right or wrong. Just different human different perception on money vs values.
Sharing an article:http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbrune...famous-lenses/
Referring to your question "who would want to make digital rangefinders now but Leica?", I think the best person to answer you is the CEO of Leica. But looking at the pool of digital rangfinder users in the world, obviously there is a reason for Leica M9.
Last edited by kentwong81; 9th February 2012 at 10:55 AM.
And digital is convenient. No need to buy films, no need to make trips to the developers (or have my own darkroom), no need to scan negatives, etc.
Last edited by pbear1973; 9th February 2012 at 10:07 AM.
P.S. My rationale carry hints of sacarsm & my question at the end was just rhetorical, the answers I already stated before
Last edited by s1221ljc; 9th February 2012 at 11:46 AM.
i think it's more of getting used to which camera on hand... given that you hand over a M9 to a newbie, i think he/she will find it typically hard to use. which you hand a S90 to a pro, he/she might find that it's simply too amatuerish... to each his own i would say, like i personally prefer and use more of my film slr than my 7D...