Finally you come with a good response. That is what I'm expecting from you, laying down the fact on the table, which you should done from the first start rather than saying other thing.
Yes, you're right. That's the main reason behind my question to you, and asking you to explain what're those "other aspects".Originally posted by Red Dawn
if u were to compare the price of a Toyota with a Mercedes Benz, and u dismiss the Benz for being much more expensive, without considering any other aspects, then u're shortsighted. There's merely looking at prices, without considering other things such as needs, advantages, features etc.
Yes, this one advantage. As ex Leica-R user, I agree with you in term of sharpness at wide open. But not lighter nor smaller than the japanese brand (comparing to the equivalent MF lenses with the same max aperture & focal length. Unfair to compare MF with AF).- their lenses are some of the best, wide open, corner to corner, excellent contrast, MUCH smaller size, much lighter weight, comparable price as Ls or AFS lenses. In fact, they are much better built than some of the Ls (not all Ls are ALL metal construction)
Yes, this is true. As I had said in other thread, that most of german-designed lenses have a nice blur & bokeh.- their lenses have a different optical signature than most other lenses from other brands, sharp point of focus areas, pleasing out of focus areas. you have to look to see, though to be fair, some Canon Ls have that look too.
Sorry, I can't comment on this. As far as i know, the M system is rangefinder camera, while we are scoping into the equivalent japanese SLR, not a rangefinder. And I will not comment on some of your points because those are benefit of rangefinders, any rangefinders, not just Leica.- the Leica M system is small, unobstruive, light weight; lets u mix into crowds inconspicuously, looks like point and shoot stuff, and doesn't scream your presence.
Other brands can also last that long, it is all depend on the usage, not the sole advantage of a particular product. There're many other cameras from the 1950s which are still working till now, and hold their value too (the value as compared to its initial purchase price).- Leica M bodies (and lenses) are extremely well engineered, and can last many years. I've already quoted my example of my 1955-60s 90mm f4 Elmar, which is still working perfectly well today and certainly looks like it will for the next 50 years. Lots of pple today are still using (in fact a lot prefer) M3s and M2s.
- Leica M stuff hold their value very well. Even if u're not a collector, this simple fact means you lose less when u trade up or upgrade.
That is not advantage, but just a matter of personal preference.- Simpler to work with, no messy electronics, no "hold this button while turning that knob" stuff, jsut plain simple back to basics operation, and everything feels good and right.
- No batteries needed (even the electronic M7)
(.. CK will be proud of his FM2 for that same reason.. ) and by the way, M7 will only shoot at 2 different speed without battery.
Good to know that you understand your equipment very well. Believe me, some of people out there are using Leica just by faith, pride and brand-image.
Now I will tell you why I'm no more using Leica. (this is strictly personal, may not apply to other people. and I'm refering to SLR, not rangefinder):
- The difference of sharpness at wide-open as compared to other equivalent lens will only noticeable at large prints (20x30 or more) or side-by-side comparison. Other than that, hard to see.
And that only at wide-open, but if stopped down around 2 stop or more from its widest aperture, then a good japanese lens can equal the performance.
- Other than portraiture, I rarely shot at wide open, mostly stopped down to widen DOF. In this case, there's no advantage of Leica anymore.
- The blur & bokeh are mostly required for portraiture rather than other type of photography. And I found that Nikon's portrait lenses can equal the Leica performance at any given aperture (including the sharpness).
- I need the convenience of AF for non-serious photo taking, and at that time (around 10 years ago), I could exchange my Leica set with a Nikon system plus several lenses and still got extra money. After some years of usage, my conclusion is: I don't need the advantage of Leica, so it is not worth the money.