View Full Version : How soon will you buy a M9 ?
FrozenInTime
08-31-2009, 22:03
Assuming that on the ninth minute of the ninth hour of the ninth day of the ninth month of the ninth year of this century (EDT) a significantly improved Leica DRF in announced, how much persuasion do you need, and how long will you wait before you commit your cash ?
When it's readily in stock and I can lay down cash and walk out with one. I'm not paying for a 2 month long backorder.
In a few years when they are around the 2500 dollar range like the current M8. But really, my money is still on Zeiss when they come out with something.
pkreyenhop
08-31-2009, 23:03
Where is the "Not until I can't get my M8 repaired" option? I'm still very happy with the M8 and can't see the need to upgrade.
larmarv916
08-31-2009, 23:16
There is a mindset that seems to be floating around that a digital product is needed...really? Let's look at this as a marketing excerise..where you make every new model...yesterday's news. Or the Gee your photos are not valid if they are not digital, like all the rest of the new hip kids! That is the marketing conecpt that Leica appears to be now swearing to.
That idea is what created a disaster in many other products and markets over the last century. It is in fact what killed the camera market. Moving into products that are disposable or oblsete 5 min. after production. I do not see reason for getting all hot for something that will be 2 steps behind the digital powers to start with. It's good for some people, and that is fine but it is not a movement that appeals to me.
benmacphoto
09-01-2009, 00:07
I'll do what I did with my M8, wait until they are second hand and at a reasonable price.
Missing option: "Not before it's even announced, anyway"
Ronald_H
09-01-2009, 01:19
I'll probably ponder on it for a while when the M9.2 comes out. With the weak pound and the cashback, the M8 was within reach for me. But I decided not to. It would not add much to my shooting. Same will probably happen with the M9. Unless I win the lottery of course...
Ronald M
09-01-2009, 01:32
If I were to buy one, which I will not, it would be a minimum of 6 months after introduction and I found out what all the problems are.
The M8 has proved Leica is like all other companies, rush to market, experiment on the customers, make `em return it for repairs or add ons or filters or other junk. Car companies like General Motors worked to that business model and you see what that get them.
Pherdinand
09-01-2009, 01:33
how soon will you win the lottery.
tom.w.bn
09-01-2009, 01:38
The M8 has proved Leica is like all other companies, rush to market, experiment on the customers, make `em return it for repairs or add ons or filters or other junk. Car companies like General Motors worked to that business model and you see what that get them.
The difference is, that GM has that cheap and crappy american car image (at least here in Europe). Leica still has the red dot and an exclusive image!
When it's readily in stock and I can lay down cash and walk out with one. I'm not paying for a 2 month long backorder.
I really prefer to be able to touch and feel, and once I put my money down walk out with what I bought!
When I can no longer buy film.........
The M8 has proved Leica is like all other companies, rush to market, experiment on the customers, make `em return it for repairs or add ons or filters or other junk. Car companies like General Motors worked to that business model and you see what that get them.
Arguably (1) Leica was never different - think about things like the glass pressure plate in the M3, which was changed to steel after customers complained about sparks visible on film due to static electricity build-up, or the preview lever which was added later, (2) think about what the same comparison says about customers who whine and threaten to vote with their feet until a company is forced either to rush a product to market or to go under.
Double Negative
09-01-2009, 04:13
Not until after the first wave of early adopters kick the tires and report back. Even then, probably not until they drop in price considerably if not show up "used." I'm also eager to see what Zeiss does, if anything.
I'm still not convinced there will be an M9, but I'll humor this thread and hope I'm wrong.
There is a mindset that seems to be floating around that a digital product is needed...really? Let's look at this as a marketing excerise..where you make every new model...yesterday's news. Or the Gee your photos are not valid if they are not digital...[snip]
Face it, digital is the present, film is the past. If you are working in the industry, digital is the only way to go now except for a few very select niches and still they are digitizing their film...
If you are taking pictures of newspapers on your garage door and the occasional snap of your potted plants and wine bottles, there is no reason not to use film if you so wish, but if you are serious about getting ahead in photography as a profession, its all digital mate.
Now as to whether or not Leica needs to have this camera be digital(I wonder if anyone thought for a moment that the M9 might be film?[though I highly doubt it]) I think the people who want to have their lenses be as they were meant to be are itching for that solution and I don't blame them. The thought of Leica needing this product to be digital to fill some professional gap in the market is simply not the case. Most professionals moved on long ago so its sort of a oddity this possibly upcoming camera.
And that comment about did anyone stop to think the M9 might be film....see anyone around here thinking that? The people looking towards this new camera are all thinking digital. A sign of the times.
Double Negative
09-01-2009, 05:08
^ Interesting suggestion that the M9 might be film-based. But what would they improve upon from the M7, really - to warrant a new camera? Besides, they already went digital with the M8, so it stands to reason the M9 would be digital as well... Maybe you're thinking of the M7.2... :D
I have promised myself that 'I will not be a beta tester this time'. I am going to Singapore in April next year. It is there I do most of my photo gear purchases. Most likely I will buy the M9 then.
When shooting with a Canon 1Ds III parallel to the M8, the latter falls through with all it's hassle with filters and poor high ISO performance. I am also sure that a Leica M-camera with a higher resolution will show the world how good the Leica glass really are.
Benjamin Marks
09-01-2009, 05:27
I've got my money on a CL/ m-4/3 digital that can take Leica glass, but which understands how to to "talk" to Leica's lenses and thus can deliver a real-world advantage over a G1+mechanical-only adapter. But predictions aside, I can't understand why anyone would rush to be an early adopter of this technology. I'm with DoubleNegative on this one. Let someone else be the beta tester.
Ben Marks
Clark Van Orden
09-01-2009, 05:34
Can't wait to see if Zeiss will have an answer. Anyone hearing anything from that camp? I'm suprised that they have not made a move.
Clark
When Leica stop asking 'advertising studio photographers' what they want in an M camera . Hence the S2. Heaven forbid having to dive from a 'stoned out of their brain' 12 year old firing his AK47 at you with 3 of those S2 'things' around your neck.
^ Interesting suggestion that the M9 might be film-based. But what would they improve upon from the M7, really - to warrant a new camera? Besides, they already went digital with the M8, so it stands to reason the M9 would be digital as well... Maybe you're thinking of the M7.2... :D
Let me make it clear though that I did not think the M9 would be film, just that no one is really mentioning that they think it could be which I think indicates that the market for a new Leica camera really has turned digital as a way of replying to that other fellows sarcastic point about if a picture is not digital its not valid or whatever.
When Leica stop asking 'advertising studio photographers' what they want in an M camera . Hence the S2. Heaven forbid having to dive from a 'stoned out of their brain' 12 year old firing his AK47 at you with 3 of those S2 'things' around your neck.
Yikes, that sounds sort of like some of the models I photograph for various things, stoned, drunk, or horny and me with a bunch of heavy cameras trying not to get them wet in the sweltering heat.
Heaven forbid having to dive from a 'stoned out of their brain' 12 year old firing his AK47 at you with 3 of those S2 'things' around your neck.
I guess it wouldn't be much different from diving with three R Digitals or a couple of Hasselblad H3Ds. Which is why nobody in their right mind takes that sort of gear to a war zone.
Good thing that there are different markets; if you're a studio photographer you'll be grateful that Leica doesn't shove that awkward-to-frame, non-autofocus, close-range-impaired, low-resolution M8 down your throat.
Benjamin Marks
09-01-2009, 07:12
Yikes, that sounds sort of like some of the models I photograph for various things, stoned, drunk, or horny and me with a bunch of heavy cameras trying not to get them wet in the sweltering heat.
Hmmm. "Them" is the cameras, right?
Hmmm. "Them" is the cameras, right?
:cool: Thats between me and the lenses.
nikonhswebmaster
09-01-2009, 07:34
I've got my money on a CL/ m-4/3 digital that can take Leica glass, but which understands how to to "talk" to Leica's lenses and thus can deliver a real-world advantage over a G1+mechanical-only adapter. But predictions aside, I can't understand why anyone would rush to be an early adopter of this technology. I'm with DoubleNegative on this one. Let someone else be the beta tester.
Ben Marks
I hate to bring this up, but with the exception of lens type coding, the Leica lenses are mutes.
Yeah, and they are quadriplegic, too. Say goodbye to 1950s comforts such as automatic diaphragms.
Benjamin Marks
09-01-2009, 07:53
Well, sure. But I assume that in order to apply in-camera corrections for things like lens distortion etc. that most of the information you would need from a lens would relate to the lens design (that is, if you are going to get corner fall-off or distortion with a 15mm lens, & you want to correct for that you mainly need to know what lens is attached).
I assume that this communication (or lack thereof) and associated post-exposure processing is what accounts for the differences in performance between the kit lenses on the G1, Digi-Pen and the use of other perfectly well-designed glass (Nikon, Oly, Pentax, Leica, C/V) on these 4/3 bodies.
Now for the part where I make stuff up I have no real idea about: If you showed me the ISO, the shutter speed and the resulting histogram for a given image, I am pretty sure I could ball-park the f-stop in order to know how much auto-corner adjustment to make. Am I smoking digi-crack here?
I would like to go to Portugal this summer. The trip is somewhat mandatory because I need to clear up various things dealing with my late father's estate. I would love to buy an M9 for that trip however that all depends on whether I can save up the money for the camera in time.
(that is, if you are going to get corner fall-off or distortion with a 15mm lens, & you want to correct for that you mainly need to know what lens is attached).
This has been extensively discussed years ago when the first M8 pictures leaked out and it was found that it has an external light sensor. In short: some things you can correct, some things you can't without knowing the lens settings. Distortion is lens-dependent, but the sum of corner fall-off and vignetting is aperture-dependent, so you need to know the aperture.
Now for the part where I make stuff up I have no real idea about: If you showed me the ISO, the shutter speed and the resulting histogram for a given image, I am pretty sure I could ball-park the f-stop in order to know how much auto-corner adjustment to make. Am I smoking digi-crack here?
Yes, you are. As long as you don't know the lighting conditions in your scene, you can't make any inference about the f-stop. It could be bright with the aperture closed, or dark with the aperture wide open. One can think about all sorts of odd solutions to this, such as an external light sensor, or for more accuracy a low-resolution second sensor with a wide-angle lens that always takes a second picture of the scene to compare against, but it would still be guesswork and I think many Leica owners don't want their cameras to take guesses for them.
thomasw_
09-01-2009, 08:26
I am not going to buy a M9 initially for a few reasons. 1. I still prefer the look of film in B+W or colour. 2. For someone only casually interested in a dRF for very limited use, the M9 is much too costly [or for that matter, so is the M8*]; a good P+S will do most of what I want in digital. 3. Initially I would be hesitant until after the initial reviews and users report their experiences -- after the M8 release, I think my caution is warranted. 4. I would want to know whether the M9 will require IR filtration or lens coding; my interest will drop if either is in play.
However that may be, my wife is interested in a dRF in M-mount so we can share "my" M-mount lenses. But she is a bean-counter and penny-pincher to the core, so it will be a while before a used M9 price entices her to buy.
Can't wait to see if Zeiss will have an answer. Anyone hearing anything from that camp? I'm suprised that they have not made a move.
Clark
They did. They told Dave Farkas -officially- that they would not be competing in the DRF market. They analyzed the possibilities and concluded it was not possible to compete with Leica, as their DRF would be as expensive or more expensive than the Leica offerings.
Tuolumne
09-01-2009, 08:45
Micro 4/3rds is the future for me. Those cameras do far more for me and my photography than my R-D1 or film Leicas. I'm sticking with them. Mxx.x does nothing for me any more.
/T
I am not going to buy a M9 initially for a few reasons. 1. I still prefer the look of film in B+W or colour. 2. For someone only casually interested in a dRF for very limited use, the M9 is much too costly [or for that matter, so is the M8*]; a good P+S will do most of what I want in digital. 3. Initially I would be hesitant until after the initial reviews and users report their experiences -- after the M8 release, I think my caution is warranted. 4. I would want to know whether the M9 will require IR filtration or lens coding; my interest will drop if either is in play.
However that may be, my wife is interested in a dRF in M-mount so we can share "my" M-mount lenses. But she is a bean-counter and penny-pincher to the core, so it will be a while before a used M9 price entices her to buy.No IR filtering but lenscoding will certainly be advisable for wideangle lenses, as I would guess.
Mephiloco
09-01-2009, 09:01
For the cost of the M9 I'd rather spend it on other things which would make my photographs better, things not limited to: Lenses, Vacations, stocks, football tickets, etc.
I think it's insane to pay that much for a camera when the camera's success is measured against it's ability to perform like a 50 year old film camera. Why not just use the 50 year old film camera and pocket the several thousand dollar difference.
I think it's difficult to commit to a DRF fully (especially one that costs as much as a used Honda Accord) when Micro 4/3rds now gives me the option to use my M-lenses as well as R lenses.
Seeing my M8 quickly depreciate and be usurped by $1400 DSLRs in terms of high ISO image quality has definitely not been a good thing.
The surprising thing is that M7s and MPs continue to hold their value even as film use becomes more of a niche thing.
I guess the only way I can justify an M9 is a) buying it secondhand b) factoring a 2-4 year lifespan and c) knowing that there isn't another camera that can do what an M-factor camera can do - specifically focusing in near darkness.
drewbarb
09-01-2009, 09:16
I guess, if they stop making film...
I waited almost a year after the M8's rollout to get one, still disgusted with the need for the IR filters and still nervous over the reliability issues, and bought it only because I couldn't stand my RD1 and didn't figure Leica would replace the M8 with anything better for a long time. I bought one new, but only because the dealer agreed to sell it at the original price ($4795) versus the then-grossly-inflated price. Knowing that cameras historically drop in price as time goes on, and digitals all the more so, there was no way I would have accepted a hike.
But I've gotten to tolerate/ignore the IR filter debacle, and the M8 has not failed, and I did get the triple-upgrade. I'm immensely satisfied with the IQ (high-ISO noise is not a problem, and I have a 5D to compare) and a year to go on the extended warranty. I can't think of a single compelling reason why I should buy an M9, regardless of specs, until I can get a factory demo at a significant cost savings. YMMV of course.
Al Patterson
09-01-2009, 09:42
I was looking for the choice "when my M8 breaks".
Now while I don't have an M8, as my only Leica is a CL, I see no reason to buy a newer electronic gadget until the one I'm currently using breaks.
But then again, if everyone was like me the economy would have crashed years ago...
Regarding the poll...my answer "none of the above." Polls unfortunately don't reflect iterative thought processes.
I will first wait to see what the specs are in reality. Then I'll evaluate whether, in theory, given my shooting habits, the M9 offers features more useful to me than my M8.2 provides. If not, obvious answer. If yes, then there's the value equation....how much different/better?, and how much is that worth? In the meantime, the folks on LUF will have already posted hundreds of threads from early adopters on the pros/cons and any early faults or reliability issues (assuming the product is available soon after 9/9). And, after all of that, I'll decide if it's worth a test from my dealer at some point.
Meanwhile, I'll enjoy making prints from my already terrific camera.
I guess it wouldn't be much different from diving with three R Digitals or a couple of Hasselblad H3Ds. Which is why nobody in their right mind takes that sort of gear to a war zone.
Good thing that there are different markets; if you're a studio photographer you'll be grateful that Leica doesn't shove that awkward-to-frame, non-autofocus, close-range-impaired, low-resolution M8 down your throat.
Thats the point ..nobody would take S2s or those useless digital R modules to a war zone or any other 'active assignment'. They buy Canons and Nikons hence Leica's loss . Unfortunatley Leica has rejected its own heritage, that which made their name and reputation in photography to some who would reject this in favour of advertising and studio cameras.
Leica aint stupid ? yes they bloody well are= 28% less in sales last year and a 30% drop in revenue. No excuses of recession of world economy causing this please..if you need the best then you you a more than willing to pay for it
Interesting, bo you have sales and revenue figures for 2008 in comparison to 2006? That's much more interesting for the state of the company - already back then everybody was saying 2007 would be a "peak", as always when an entirely series of products successfully hits the market.
DougFord
09-01-2009, 10:04
Compactness and light weight are high on my list of requirements.
Somewhere there is a balance of size, weight and performance. The added size of an M9 is not desireable.
If Leica releases a dCL w/1.3 crop, that’s 3/4 the current M8 size, sub-set of frame lines, short rangefinder; then I would be VERY interested.
My hope would be that this camera be manufactured in Japan along with design assistance from Panasonic.
I’ll wait for extended testing and for QC issues if this camera is made in Germany.
coelacanth
09-01-2009, 10:27
No M9 for me. Only situation I go for Leica DRF in the future would be when both of these conditions are met.
• 35mm film is not regularly available unless you pay ridiculous price like Polaroid 600 film today.
• Leica makes the fullframe sensor/image processor units replaceable for future upgrade.
Big part of the reasons why I love Leica is that you can bring fully functional camera to six feet under with you or give it to your grandchildren. Yeah, camera is just a tool, but I do photography as hobby, and today's (and M9 for 'tomorrow') DRF doesn't really speak to me.
nikon_sam
09-01-2009, 12:04
When I find a BIN auction for $175 on ebay...lens included...
So, 7 people reckon they've already got one?
tom.w.bn
09-01-2009, 12:21
They did. They told Dave Farkas -officially- that they would not be competing in the DRF market. They analyzed the possibilities and concluded it was not possible to compete with Leica, as their DRF would be as expensive or more expensive than the Leica offerings.
That's the right answer to anyone who says Leica is to expensive and Cosina/Zeiss/Epson/... were able to build a modern DRF for 2000 EUR or less, if they wanted to. I rember those posts here in the forum some time ago.
tom.w.bn
09-01-2009, 12:23
So, 7 people reckon they've already got one?
Some users said in a different thread they preordered it. Probably this is meant by "got one".
FrozenInTime
09-01-2009, 12:45
I guess the wild card that I did not think to put on the list ( as DougFord suggested ) is : what happens if, in addition to the M9, there is also a digital CL announced.
Give it M lenses, an EVF rather than OVF/RF and perhaps x1.3 crop (not µ4/3) and pitch it in the $1000-$2000 bracket.
It would be interesting to see how many of us would opt for it rather than the full fat M9. That might also be a game in which Zeiss can compete.
nikonhswebmaster
09-01-2009, 14:02
I have mine, but due to non-disclosure agreements, I cannot show it to anyone until after the 9th.
With respect, but with the M8 experience in mind, anyone who is an early adopter on the M9 is either :D a completely incurable optimist or :( an idiot.
fdigital
09-01-2009, 18:55
I said never - a dslr is better for me. It's the truth. Although if I made decent money and the m9 turned out to be a good camera I would get one as a 2nd system.
To be honest, my 5d is technically a better camera in most ways than the m8. Thats wholly my opinion of course, but I can shoot at 1/30th of a second, f1.2 at 3200 iso and still have enough room to push it a stop or so more in post production, still looking great. Every time I shoot with it I know what the colors are going to look like, I know it's going to last through the shoot without freezing up, I don't have to worry about IR filters, I don't have to worry about weird colored corners. I've dropped my 5d, kicked it around, fell on it, used it in the rain and it just keeps on being super reliable, and the imaged I get from it are always super reliable.
Maybe leica will really get this one right, but it doesn't change the fact that a 2nd hand 5d will probably be similar to it in actual output image quality, let alone the new mk2 version.
If you are taking pictures of newspapers on your garage door and the occasional snap of your potted plants and wine bottles, there is no reason not to use film if you so wish, but if you are serious about getting ahead in photography as a profession, its all digital mate.
I work full time in photography, have shot digital for about 16 years now, you could not be more wrong son....
I am *very* excited to see what 9.9.9 brings, hopefully not 6.6.6...:-)
But seriously, I am really waiting for all of the following to happen:
1. See the specs, FF, 1.2, 1.33, high ISO improvement, no pesky IR filters.
2. The price.
3. Any early adoption bugs.
4. The point where I can't stand to wait any longer because it is so incredible or when I can no longer shoot Kodachrome in 2011....the latter will most likely be the case.
mfunnell
09-01-2009, 22:11
I'm not all that interested in the M9 from the standpoint of buying one for myself, in the same way I've never pursued an M8(.2) or RD-1. That's because for me, personally, the combinations of digital/colour/SLR and film/B&W/RF have suited most of the things I've wanted to do. Where they haven't it's mostly been putting B&W film through an SLR or, perhaps more frequently, colour film through one of my RFs.
Should that last change (that is, if I want to shoot even more colour by RF) then maybe I'd look into a digital RF. In my case it's all a bit moot anyway as I can't presently afford a digital RF (at least not without selling a bunch of stuff that's of more actual use to me).
Nonetheless, I'd like for the M9 (should it exist) to provide great photos for lots of people and sell well and so make lots of $$$ for Leica.
...Mike
It would be too expensive for me at the first place - whatever good it will be I simply can not afford it. Still - I do not expect digital to reproduce fine details the way film does. It may change once the Foveon technology removes the need for a Bayer filtering ...
Anyhow - at the time the first bugs will be solved with M9 I hope to be a happy owner of an R3A :)
Some users said in a different thread they preordered it. Probably this is meant by "got one".
Hmm, if people can pre-order it (and some perhaps even have them), that sounds like it removes any doubt about its existence.
Hmm, if people can pre-order it (and some perhaps even have them), that sounds like it removes any doubt about its existence.
Maybe they had an arrangement such as where someone pays a deposit that is considered a preorder if something is announced. As long as a product is sufficiently hyped, there will be both buyers and sellers interested in such an arrangement. I heard that sort of thing with some Apple products.
Maybe they had an arrangement such as where someone pays a deposit that is considered a preorder if something is announced.
Hmm, yes - I guess there'll be dealers willing to take deposits on that basis.
Philippe D.
09-02-2009, 02:21
On Sept. 9th, the S2, announced one year ago, come out on the shelves.
I guess the same day, the announcement of M9 will be made to come, at best, for the next Photokina (2010).
(or maybe not ? http://www.flickr.com/photos/crabom/3880198495/in/photostream/)
[censored pictures]
Anyway, I'm keen to see a FF digital Zeiss Ikon, for a reasonable price, as I have two M8 at work and quite satisfied with. ;)
Dave Wilkinson
09-02-2009, 02:31
How soon will you buy an M9?
- assuming there is such a thing.....when I am convinced that my pictures - and my enjoyment of the hobby would improve dramatically, and when the state pension is doubled!.....realistically - more chance of a B/J from Madonna!:D
Dave.
tom.w.bn
09-02-2009, 05:59
I have a hate/love relationship with my M8 and I thought about selling it. But there are still those moments when I love the rangefinder so I stopped thinking about selling. But I decided that I don't want to invest more money in a rangefinder the next 1-2 years.
On the other hand I wasn't content with my Canon 40D and my 17-55/2.8. With the crop canon, my other old prime EF-Lenses were just too long for my taste. The zoom was too heavy. So I made a decision a month ago and sold the 40D and zoom for 1100 EUR and bought a used 5D for 800 EUR. Now I am a happy FF user who enjoys his prime lenses. They are obviously not as good as Leica lenses but comparable to my Voigtländer lenses on the m8.
Because I shoot 80% 5D and 20% M8 at the moment there is no need for a rangefinder change.
Because I shoot 80% 5D and 20% M8 at the moment there is no need for a rangefinder change.
This is exactly the market Leica would capture with a fixed lens budget rangefinder. People who enjoy using one on occasion or as a curiosity.
This is exactly the market Leica would capture with a fixed lens budget rangefinder. People who enjoy using one on occasion or as a curiosity.
I'm ready to spend $50 for a Canonet on occasion or as a curiosity, but not $1500 for a Leica fixed lens budget rangefinder.
They are obviously not as good as Leica lenses but comparable to my Voigtländer lenses on the m8.
strange.. 3 hours already and no Canon fans have objected this by now :)
i'm happy with my M8. i can't imagine needing more ...
tom.w.bn
09-02-2009, 10:38
strange.. 3 hours already and no Canon fans have objected this by now :)
I didn't talk about L-Lenses, because I only have that "normal" stuff e.g. 1.4/50, 1.8/85
But I believe the difference between a 1.4/35L Canon and a 1.4/35 Leica is rather small.
Hi Thomas,
I didn't talk about L-Lenses, because I only have that "normal" stuff e.g. 1.4/50, 1.8/85
But I believe the difference between a 1.4/35L Canon and a 1.4/35 Leica is rather small.
Depends on the metric I guess. Size? Price? Price/performance ratio? Enjoyment you get out of it? In what ways is your 85/f1.8 better or worse than a Summicron 90? This kind of comparison is usually skewed, useless, or both.
I'm sticking with the M8 and have no interest in the M9 unless it is shipped with the mind and brain of a great photographer. Seriously, whilst this forum is a gear orientated space, how many of you have reached the point where enough is enough with all the cameras that are being pumped out.
And furthermore; seeing as the emphasis has shifted away from mega pixels towards IQ and improved noise control how many photographers actually print large images in comparison to the amount that end up being exhibited online at small heavily compressed file sizes.
That, as Lev Manovich suggests is one of "The Paradoxes of Digital Photography"
http://www.manovich.net/TEXT/digital_photo.html
Roger Hicks
09-02-2009, 12:11
I'm sticking with the M8 and have no interest in the M9 unless it is shipped with the mind and brain of a great photographer. Seriously, whilst this forum is a gear orientated space, how many of you have reached the point where enough is enough with all the cameras that are being pumped out.
And furthermore; seeing as the emphasis has shifted away from mega pixels towards IQ and improved noise control how many photographers actually print large images in comparison to the amount that end up being exhibited online at small heavily compressed file sizes.
That, as Lev Manovich suggests is one of "The Paradoxes of Digital Photography"
http://www.manovich.net/TEXT/digital_photo.html
If the M9 is FF then focal lengths will equate to all I have learned over the last 40+ years, and I can shoot digi colour alongside B+W film with the same lenses (mostly 35+75).
That is worth a LOT to me. Even if the M9 were only 10-12 megapixels, the focal length equivalence is fundamental.
Cheers,
R.
The purchase of the M8 was a huge enough purchase for me that I would be unable to trade up to an M9.
As with a few others here, I see no need to upgrade my M8.
It takes amazing photographs and has never let me down.....yet.
I have no need at all for more pixels etc.
It will be a few years yet before I upgrade!
Nikon Bob
09-02-2009, 18:51
If the M9 is FF then focal lengths will equate to all I have learned over the last 40+ years, and I can shoot digi colour alongside B+W film with the same lenses (mostly 35+75).
That is worth a LOT to me. Even if the M9 were only 10-12 megapixels, the focal length equivalence is fundamental.
Cheers,
R.
That would be my reason to buy an M9 too and I already know 10-12 megapixels will work for me. It does with my D700 anyway. Being retired will make an M9 purchase virtually impossible for all practical purposes at the projected price.
Bob
strange.. 3 hours already and no Canon fans have objected this by now :)
Could be because the Voigt lenses really are quite stunningly well-behaved of course :) I've got the VC 75 2.5 and 90 3.5 for use on film and they have nothing to be ashamed of compared to my Canon 85L, 100 macro and 135L on FF digital, except for max aperture.
As with a few others here, I see no need to upgrade my M8.
It takes amazing photographs and has never let me down.....yet.
I have no need at all for more pixels etc.
It will be a few years yet before I upgrade!
I "suffered" with my Canon 20D for the entire product life of the 5D until I got a refurb (swear it was never used) for $2000 less than the original price. So I won't have a problem doing likewise in the case of the M9. Long ago I gave up making excuses for why I just "had to have" the latest model of things, or caring that someone might think I'm not as affluent as they are. Marketing ploys just roll off my back like water off a duck.
kshapero
09-03-2009, 13:22
I think this is great news. Folks should be applauding Leica's upcoming intro. It pushes the envelope, it shows they are listening. All I ask is that Ilford keep making film.
nikonhswebmaster
09-05-2009, 16:08
The purchase of the M8 was a huge enough purchase for me that I would be unable to trade up to an M9.
Yeah -- that's pretty much the main reason I never bought an M8, it was just so obvious it would be replaced with a FF, and would then be pretty worthless trade-in wise, the way of everything digital.
I do however, believe the new camera might be acceptable for a very long time, to many who are not anxious to have the absolute latest model.
Ken Ford
09-05-2009, 16:54
I probably could have saved and scrounged enough for an M8, but I couldn't afford the new glass to make it do what I wanted. The M9 is going to be hard to resist but would be a multi-year savings project.
I would have to suspect that a year from now an M8 or an Epson RD-1 will be a pretty cheap way to shoot digitally if you want to stay with a rangefinder. The freely available supply of used M8's will knock the Epson's price way down, probably under $1000.00 and the M8 itself may finish up where the Epson currently seems to sit ... $1200.00 to $1500.00!
The follow on from this may be glut of very cheaply priced film rangefinders flooding our classifieds.
Interesting times alright!
ben@btwhite.org
09-05-2009, 19:56
I hate to bring this up, but with the exception of lens type coding, the Leica lenses are mutes.
No, they just communicate mechanically. No reason a fully electronic camera can't have a sensor to read the focus distance from the lens and convert it into an electronic signal usable by the brains of the camera. Now it is true that set focus distance the only info you get; no way to read f-stop.
Cheers,
Ben
nikonhswebmaster
09-05-2009, 21:33
No, they just communicate mechanically. No reason a fully electronic camera can't have a sensor to read the focus distance from the lens and convert it into an electronic signal usable by the brains of the camera. Now it is true that set focus distance the only info you get; no way to read f-stop.
Cheers,
Ben
I suppose that information would be very useful if you were using your M8 to play golf. :D
I suppose that information would be very useful if you were using your M8 to play golf. :D
Of course you can do that already, just strap a 135 lens with a nice long distance scale in front of your M Leica :)
crossing my fingers on a Digital Zeiss Ikon. If one doesn't materialize in the next two or so years then when they have refurbs or used for around the $2000 dollar mark. I'd pay more money but only for a mechanical film body, which is worth that kind of parting with money as it is justified in that it IS mechanical and thus complex to build and also because it will stand the test of time.
I wonder how much now for a used M8. No matter how greedy and enthusiastic we are now for the M9 now, it will sooner than we would like have the same desirability as the M8 does today - meaning ... not much, despite being as good a M8 as ever. Who would pay $4500 for an M8 now?
tom.w.bn
09-06-2009, 06:59
crossing my fingers on a Digital Zeiss Ikon. If one doesn't materialize in the next two or so years then when they have refurbs or used for around the $2000 dollar mark. I'd pay more money but only for a mechanical film body, which is worth that kind of parting with money as it is justified in that it IS mechanical and thus complex to build and also because it will stand the test of time.
I wonder how much now for a used M8. No matter how greedy and enthusiastic we are now for the M9 now, it will sooner than we would like have the same desirability as the M8 does today - meaning ... not much, despite being as good a M8 as ever. Who would pay $4500 for an M8 now?
What would you get for 2000$? I think a Zeiss branded mFT Camera, not more.
nikonhswebmaster
09-06-2009, 07:16
What would you get for 2000$? I think a Zeiss branded mFT Camera, not more.
Leica could sell the M8-9-10 at some loss or close to cost hoping to sell lenses, but they are in a bad place, since they have lost control of their lens mount.
Mackinaw
09-06-2009, 08:07
I wonder how much now for a used M8. No matter how greedy and enthusiastic we are now for the M9 now, it will sooner than we would like have the same desirability as the M8 does today - meaning ... not much, despite being as good a M8 as ever. Who would pay $4500 for an M8 now?
With a full-frame sensor, the M9 is a game changer. I suspect this camera will retain it's value much longer than the M8, which is a camera that we all knew, from Day 1, would be superseded by something better.
Jim B.
What would you get for 2000$? I think a Zeiss branded mFT Camera, not more.
I don't think that is necessarily correct. We have gotten used to outrageous prices for Leica because of the small economics of scale and needed high margins. There is nothing that Leica seems to sell in volume to pad the low volume products. Zeiss is a much larger company and could do with far more standard markups. You have $2000 full frame Sony 850's now. That may or may not be a profitable price, but it is possible even if it is making little or no profit because the stability of the company can handle it.
I think that Zeiss can make a product as good and probably better than Leica for two reasons at half the price. THey made The film Ikon and in my opinion it is a superior product. Better viewfinder etc.
But more importantly in the digital age the costly manufacturing of precision mechanical equipment is not such a factor in the price. Leica has a closed door policy it seems. they don't want to dilute their brand by working with some Japanese company except to provide them lenses and so they seem to be going it alone with the electronic components.
Zeiss doesn't seem to have any of those issues and for better or worse the japanese are light years ahead of the germans with electronics. So I think the possibility of a Zeiss Digital Ikon, same as the film body except that you take out the mechanical transports and put in a circuit board made by cosina and a sensor by sony is possible and prices less than half of the Leica likely.
The only question is if Zeiss feels that a pure rangefinder done in the old way is worth the bother. I'm not tied to the rangefinder mechanism myself, I simply want it to be the size of a Leica M9 or Ikon - not much smaller, not much bigger and to use manual focus lenses that are small.
That is all. Now I would not mind at all to have a rangefinder built in, in fact I'd prefer it - don't get me wrong - but I'm not wedded to it.
So I"m going to wait for sure. In film I prefer the Zeiss to the Leica M7 and so who knows, I may like a digital Ikon better - who knows.
And If not ... then the prices should get to levels that make it viable for me ... in about three years or so. If the prices are too high ... I can skip Leica and watch from the sidelines. When they get to where they make sense for me (about $3000 at max) then I will be very happy to buy one - and hope for better luck with mine than I had with the M8 - which I really like except my bad luck with it. :)
Sometimes I think though that since I like what my digital SLR does for me ... that I should simply buy a film Leica or a Zeiss. I can't really go wrong that way - playing to both sides current strengths.
The Ziess has a great viewfinder, the old leicas this amazing feel and a new MP is an expensive but sublime instrument. No electronics ... and while pricey will be almost like a heirloom - so I don't mind the price. I will live longer than I .... and so it is really the ultimate investment.
Time will tell ... but it's all good ... with choices for all. :)
Yeah -- that's pretty much the main reason I never bought an M8, it was just so obvious it would be replaced with a FF, and would then be pretty worthless trade-in wise, the way of everything digital.
What was not so obvious was the time frame in which it would be replaced. Leica doesn't have a history of moving at the same pace as the rest of the camera market, they do have a history of stubborn contrarianism, and a lot of their resources were pouring into unforseen fixes for the M8, not to mention the head-scratching S2. Even then, three years would've been a long time to sit on one's hands. Still, I can't say I wish I hadn't done just that. I hung onto my 20D all the way until they were closing out refurbs on the discontinued 5D. Shoulda woulda coulda.
I do however, believe the new camera might be acceptable for a very long time, to many who are not anxious to have the absolute latest model.
Well that could be said for the M8 as well. For someone like me who has a stable of ultrawide lenses down to 12mm, learned to turn a blind eye to the ridiculous red filter up front, and rarely shoots above ISO 320, the M8 image quality is nothing short of superb.
With a full-frame sensor, the M9 is a game changer. I suspect this camera will retain it's value much longer than the M8, which is a camera that we all knew, from Day 1, would be superseded by something better.
Jim B.
I think "we all know" the M9 will also be superseded "by something better", just as every "game changing" digital camera has been, sooner or later. Whatever the M9 is, there will be people complaining about this or that, and ready to trash it as "obsolete" the moment Leica rolls out a successor...which you can bet they are already working on. Camera manufacturers have solidly adopted the computer market paradigm. If you think the M9 will hold its value better than any other digital camera, I think you're going to be disappointed.
tom.w.bn
09-06-2009, 09:54
Zeiss doesn't seem to have any of those issues and for better or worse the japanese are light years ahead of the germans with electronics. So I think the possibility of a Zeiss Digital Ikon, same as the film body except that you take out the mechanical transports and put in a circuit board made by cosina and a sensor by sony is possible and prices less than half of the Leica likely.
If it was that simple than you were probably right regarding the price ticket. But I doubt that it's in fact that simple.
But I think we have to wait some time to see who is right.
Keep in mind ... I have no real expectations ... what you said Tom, about "if it was that simple ..." is spot on. So mine are just conjectures and light hearted plans (with money that I don't have :D) that frankly, should they come out the way I'd like them to ... I'd be nicely shocked. Nice to wonder and daydream though.
nikonhswebmaster
09-06-2009, 10:28
Well that could be said for the M8 as well. For someone like me who has a stable of ultrawide lenses down to 12mm, learned to turn a blind eye to the ridiculous red filter up front, and rarely shoots above ISO 320, the M8 image quality is nothing short of superb.
I think many are like you. But I am pretty set in my ways, I want to use a 35 and a 50 Summicron. While I still own two 21s (a Nikkor RF and a CV RF) I really "never" use them.
So the M9 fits perfectly allowing someone like me to use the Leica lenses we are used to.
As I have noted, I was loaned an M8 for a month, and liked the image quality, but found I just could not really think without a 35mm Summicron on the camera. It just felt all wrong - you have to go with your gut on these things, I have owned too many cameras, bought just because I thought they might work because they seemed interesting to me.
I think "we all know" the M9 will also be superseded "by something better", just as every "game changing" digital camera has been, sooner or later.
True for the pixel peepers, but the M9 will always work well with the legacy Leica lenses, something the M8 simply could not do. My guess is that I would be satisfied with the image quality far into the future.
nikonhswebmaster
09-06-2009, 10:40
If you think the M9 will hold its value better than any other digital camera, I think you're going to be disappointed.
I don't buy new cameras to hold value, I buy them to use up. The M9 with a 35 Summicron is very affordable (OK -- as Dave Wilkinson points later out not so affordable, maybe sort-of-reasonable considering what an MP costs?), and in my opinion would be a great picture taker for many years to come, if it is reasonably reliable. I have just paid 1/3 that cost for a new micro 4/3rds system, which should be seriously worth nothing in a year, because the system is in such flux.
If you want to make money on cameras, you need a time machine, cameras of any kind, bought in the last 10 years are not likely to make you a profit, only buying a dozen Notiluxes would have paid off. ;)
I think I'll buy one as soon as I can get a beat up copy used for 3000 USD and have the cash for that and a CV 20, 35, 50 and a leica 75 2.0... I wonder how much such a kit would weigh.. CV 20/4, 35/1.2, 50/1.1 and 75/2 + m9?
nikonhswebmaster
09-06-2009, 10:48
I think I'll buy one as soon as I can get a beat up copy used for 3000 USD and have the cash for that and a CV 20, 35, 50 and a leica 75 2.0... I wonder how much such a kit would weigh.. CV 20/4, 35/1.2, 50/1.1 and 75/2 + m9?
Not all that much really, but you will have to go with 2.5 on that 75mm SUMMARIT-M.
Not all that much really, but you will have to go with 2.5 on that 75mm SUMMARIT-M.
Ah, I just thought i saw 75/2 in the brochure, must have been half asleep.. :)
My current kit, as described earlier, will be 995g (body) + 524g (85 1.4) + 505g (50 1.4) + 300g (24 2.0) + 385g (35 1.4), that is almost 3kgs, plus memory cards, batteries and the bag itself, close to 3.3kg.
Leica kit: 136g (24 4.0, lose a lot of light here, but I shoot f/8 wide most of the time) + 490g or 200g (35 1.2 or 1.4) + 428g (50 1.1) + 345g (75 2.5) + m9 (585g), about 1.6kg if I choose the light solution and about 1.9kg if I choose the heaviest solution. with batteries and bag, 2-2.2kg. Almost half the weight...
tempting.. :) Or are my calculations way off?
nikonhswebmaster
09-06-2009, 11:18
tempting.. :) Or are my calculations way off?
Not good at math, but the slower lenses really can literally cut the weight by a third or more.
Dave Wilkinson
09-06-2009, 11:26
I don't buy new cameras to hold value, I buy them to use up. The M9 with a 35 Summicron is very affordable,
.....mmm!....it may be for you, Fred! - and I'm glad!...but for some of us?....er, BTW - how much was it, again? :rolleyes:
Dave.
My current kit, as described earlier, will be 995g (body) + 524g (85 1.4) + 505g (50 1.4) + 300g (24 2.0) + 385g (35 1.4), that is almost 3kgs, plus memory cards, batteries and the bag itself, close to 3.3kg.
Leica kit: 136g (24 4.0, lose a lot of light here, but I shoot f/8 wide most of the time) + 490g or 200g (35 1.2 or 1.4) + 428g (50 1.1) + 345g (75 2.5) + m9 (585g), about 1.6kg if I choose the light solution and about 1.9kg if I choose the heaviest solution. with batteries and bag, 2-2.2kg.
Another way to look at it would be to ask why you're running around with four fast primes on a DSLR. Moreover since your DSLR is the model with the best low-light performance on the market and you say that you shoot f/8 most of the time. So I'd think of replacing them with a very good zoom (such as a 24-70/f2.8 at 890 grams) and maybe taking one fast prime for low-light shots. We're not in the 70s anymore where zoom == bad image quality.
Ultimately the question is which style of camera operation you prefer. It's more important to think about whether you actually prefer a rangefinder and how much that is worth for you.
Roger Hicks
09-06-2009, 11:32
We have gotten used to outrageous prices for Leica because of the small economics of scale and needed high margins. There is nothing that Leica seems to sell in volume to pad the low volume products. Zeiss is a much larger company and could do with far more standard markups.
Not if they can't sell enough cameras. You are confusing the size of the market with the size of the company.
Also, 'outrageous' is a meaningless statement. Do you really believe that Leica would refuse to sell more cameras at lower prices if by doing so they could make a higher profit?
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
09-06-2009, 11:36
If you think the M9 will hold its value better than any other digital camera, I think you're going to be disappointed.
And if you think it WON'T hold it's value better than any other digital camera, I think you're deluding yourself.
What extra features do most people want? Higher ISO/lower noise is about the only defensible argument.
Which cameras will hold their value better? And do you deny that there are plenty that will depreciate a lot faster?
Cheers,
R.
Pickett Wilson
09-06-2009, 11:37
There are folks who can afford $7,000 cameras and those who can't. Both buy $7,000 cameras. But if you are going to show your photos primarily on the web, there are other options. :)
AS Roger points out, there is no such thing as an outrageous price. If there were not buyers of new Leica cameras and lenses at the price they ask, Leica would not be in the camera business.
Another way to look at it would be to ask why you're running around with four fast primes on a DSLR. Moreover since your DSLR is the model with the best low-light performance on the market and you say that you shoot f/8 most of the time. So I'd think of replacing them with a very good zoom (such as a 24-70/f2.8 at 890 grams) and maybe taking one fast prime for low-light shots. We're not in the 70s anymore where zoom == bad image quality.
Ultimately the question is which style of camera operation you prefer. It's more important to think about whether you actually prefer a rangefinder and how much that is worth for you.
I shoot wide at f/8, other than with my 24mm, 90% of my shots are 1.2-2.0. I like fast primes, they suit my style, and I would run around with fast primes on a rangefinder as well as a slr.
I shoot wide at f/8, other than with my 24mm, 90% of my shots are 1.2-2.0. I like fast primes, they suit my style, and I would run around with fast primes on a rangefinder as well as a slr.
OK, I misunderstood your statement and thought you were shooting at f/8 generally. If that is how you work, weightwise a rangefinder makes much more sense; then it's really just a question of whether you can afford it and which style of focusing you prefer.
Roger Hicks
09-06-2009, 11:47
Yeah -- that's pretty much the main reason I never bought an M8, it was just so obvious it would be replaced with a FF, and would then be pretty worthless trade-in wise, the way of everything digital.
I do however, believe the new camera might be acceptable for a very long time, to many who are not anxious to have the absolute latest model.
Dear Fred,
First para: meanwhile, those who DID buy an M8 in 2006 will have had 3 years' pleasure (and value, if it earns them money) shooting with them. Allowing for the residual value of an M8 even after the introduction of an M9, that's <$1000/year. Pretty good value, I'd say.
Second para: you must surely be right.
Cheers,
R.
The price is the main issue.. I do a lot of split prism focusing already, and i do rf-focusing with my yashica, and I like it... but the price! ach, I have to see... when it comes to what I like to do, shameless plug: http://thyve.net
nikonhswebmaster
09-06-2009, 12:36
.....mmm!....it may be for you, Fred! - and I'm glad!...but for some of us?....er, BTW - how much was it, again? :rolleyes:
Dave.
The sense I am getting from my dealer friends is not much increase, but who knows what "not much" means in Germany? Yesterday I was at Bed Bath and Beyond and noticed Braun thought electric shavers were "worth" $289, while Norelco thought they were worth $85.
"Affordable" in most cases means how much you are willing to give up to upgrade, if I sold my existing film rangefinders, which see very little use, I could easily own an M8.2 and some lenses.
But in a real dollar sense we are talking $2000 over a fllm Leica, give or take a few bucks, to me that is affordable in "German-speak."
Roger Hicks
09-06-2009, 12:53
You are certainly right there... if you wait, you don't get to use, and life is surprisingly short.
When I tried the M8 however I realized it would be a shelf queen for me, and that is no bargain. I have owned other shelf queens from Leica . . .
Dear Fred,
Ah. The only 'shelf queen' I have is a 12x15 Gandolfi, which I got silly-cheap. But as soon as I tried an M8, I knew I'd use it. And I have. Thanks to the self-resetting frame counter, I don't know exactly how many M8/M8.2 pics I've taken, but I do know that since I started using the M8 in 2006 it is a multiple of all my other cameras put together.
Even after allowing for digital overshooting, it's still a multiple. Except in B+W.
Cheers,
R.
When it will take better B&W pictures, than M7 with Tri-X
Roger; no I think that Leica would like to get to the money in any way they can but are in a transitional period which right now makes it unlikely that they can compete in volume and cheap prices. I have no doubt that they are doing the best they can.
As for confusing the size of the market ... I don't know but it seems that the market for $8000 dollar cameras is very different from the market for $2000 cameras, don't you agree? The price Leica is stuck in defines the market for the most part, I'd say. I personally think that Leica is stuck right now between a rock and hard place. They need to appeal to their old base which expects the ultimate in craftsmanship, but the craftsmanship of the old days is now a very unafordable luxury. Good plastic is todays great quality. Can you imagine the old leica guard if Leica became a regular company dealing in regular high volume products. That would eat at the branding and I wonder if many would not abandon Leica - while at the same time Leica is not ready to play the commodity game?
Outrageous prices? Yes they are. 1100 percent premiums for that last 2 percent in quality.
The last thing that I'd like to say is that I believe that Leica's traditional strength in high quality (IQ wise) lenses is a strength which film makes thrive but in the digital world is not very important. Past a certain threshold of quality of the glass ... software makes the differences of that last ounce mute. Contrast and apparent sharpness seems now, with software tweaks, to be available at unbelievably low prices out of seemingly third grade lenses. Just look at the panasonic files of the G1. A one hundred dollar lens, tweaked to minimize flaws in software, does a shockingly good job.
Leica-philes (of which I'm one) are stuck in old ways in more ways than one.
The M9 does nothing to make me feel that Leica is an adaptive dinosaur. The same ol'. The same ol' way. That is like taking a formula which lost you the game ... and polishing it. The M9 is one wonderfully polished and shiny object of day gone by - No doubt.
Roger Hicks
09-06-2009, 13:29
Roger; no I think that Leica would like to get to the money in any way they can but are in a transitional period which right now makes it unlikely that they can compete in volume and cheap prices. I have no doubt that they are doing the best they can.
As for confusing the size of the market ... I don't know but it seems that the market for $8000 dollar cameras is very different from the market for $2000 cameras, don't you agree? The price Leica is stuck in defines the market for the most part, I'd say. I personally think that Leica is stuck right now between a rock and hard place. They need to appeal to their old base which expects the ultimate in craftsmanship, but the craftsmanship of the old days is now a very unafordable luxury. Good plastic is todays great quality. Can you imagine the old leica guard if Leica became a regular company dealing in regular high volume products. That would eat at the branding and I wonder if many would not abandon Leica - while at the same time Leica is not ready to play the commodity game?
Outrageous prices? Yes they are. 1100 percent premiums for that last 2 percent in quality.
The last thing that I'd like to say is that I believe that Leica's traditional strength in high quality (IQ wise) lenses is a strength which film makes thrive but in the digital world is not very important. Past a certain threshold of quality of the glass ... software makes the differences of that last ounce mute. Contrast and apparent sharpness seems now, with software tweaks, to be available at unbelievably low prices out of seemingly third grade lenses. Just look at the panasonic files of the G1. A one hundred dollar lens, tweaked to minimize flaws in software, does a shockingly good job.
Leica-philes (of which I'm one) are stuck in old ways in more ways than one.
The M9 does nothing to make me feel that Leica is an adaptive dinosaur. The same ol'. The same ol' way. That is like taking a formula which lost you the game ... and polishing it. The M9 is one wonderfully polished and shiny object of day gone by - No doubt.
Dear Pavel,
For the highlighted portion: elsewhere I quote Lobb boots at about $5000 a pair. In cars there are Ferraris or Bristols: the $500,000 car is almost commonplace. A Savile Row suit is maybe 50x the price of a cheap off-the-peg.
Leicas are quite affordable by these standards -- less than 10x the price of a very ordinary camera -- but people don't want to apply these standards. It's precisely because they are so much more affordable than Lobb, Bristol or Gieves that more people are aware of them and hanker after them.
Turn it around, though, and it looks to me very much as if there really were a market for $2000 M9, and the possibility of making them at this price, someone would have jumped in and made one. The fact that no-one does make them suggests to me that Leica meets the demand very well, at a price which allows them to stay in business.
Cheers,
Roger
Dang ... then the problems is ... that I don't make enough money! :)
I hate how I still want one though.
So ... you feel fully confident that the prices are not desperation prices ... and that Leica is healthy as can be and here for a long while?
narsuitus
09-06-2009, 13:50
I will buy an M9 when I am convinced that Leica has finally produced a digital rangefinder that is worthy of the high price.
No ... never mind. I'm simply going to buy a Panasonic GF1. That way I don't feel ripped off and part of a snob cult going down to a slow grave, screwing its silly customer base of Lawyers and Dentists.
You just provided a moment of clarity for me. If a Zeiss Digital comes out ... great. The Pani GF1 is fantastic and what I need. The Leica dreams are/were ... a bad LSD trip.
And now I'm over it until they make the $2000 Leica. Ciao!
Richard Marks
09-06-2009, 14:23
Dear Pavel,
For the highlighted portion: elsewhere I quote Lobb boots at about $5000 a pair. In cars there are Ferraris or Bristols: the $500,000 car is almost commonplace. A Savile Row suit is maybe 50x the price of a cheap off-the-peg.
Leicas are quite affordable by these standards -- less than 10x the price of a very ordinary camera -- but people don't want to apply these standards. It's precisely because they are so much more affordable than Lobb, Bristol or Gieves that more people are aware of them and hanker after them.
Turn it around, though, and it looks to me very much as if there really were a market for $2000 M9, and the possibility of making them at this price, someone would have jumped in and made one. The fact that no-one does make them suggests to me that Leica meets the demand very well, at a price which allows them to stay in business.
Cheers,
Roger
But Roger
The comarisons that you are making are essentially luxury and fashion accessories. I think it is the worst possible stereotype for leica. Those guys refered to as "strokers" who never take pictures.
The M3 in its day might have been expesnive but professionals would pay because there was not a comparable alternative. Hasselblad again had little competition for many years so pros would find the cash. The question regarding the current M9 essentially in terms of its value is "Is this the only way I can get those shots? If so it is worth it. We shall soon see. What interests me at the moment is that people are finally admitting the flaws in the M8 when a few months ago they would have defended it to their last breath!
I swapped my M8 for a D700 after 3 wonderul years (still have my film M). I will probably have a look at an M9 at some stage, but quite honestly a change is as good as a rest. I had a D1x soon after it was launched and it had lots of anoying issues. It is intersting to look at the D700 a few years on and see how refined it has become. In some ways this makes me in no great hurry to rush into another digital rangefinder. Things can onyl get better.
Best wishes
Richard
DougFord
09-06-2009, 14:26
The M9 does nothing to make me feel that Leica is an adaptive dinosaur. The same ol'. The same ol' way. That is like taking a formula which lost you the game ... and polishing it. The M9 is one wonderfully polished and shiny object of day gone by - No doubt.
Leica has this niche market by the short hairs and for them not to exploit it doesn’t make sense.
As far as Leica being an adaptive dinosaur, what of the HYBRID X1? Leica has DESIGNED a digital hybrid APS-C camera WITHOUT a mechanical rangefinder assembly. Not a re-badged Panasonic model, but a ground up design by Leica sans mechanical rangefinder. Is it too much of a jump to believe that the ground work is now in place for a future X2 to include a FF sensor and perhaps an m-mount? The future design paths are now clearly delineated within Leica; hybrid digital cameras for the future with a mechanical rangefinder equipped model for the short term exploitation of a still vital but ever dwindling market.
Look very closely at the X1. It could be a real world trial of autofocus for the M10.
Roger Hicks
09-06-2009, 22:49
But Roger
The comarisons that you are making are essentially luxury and fashion accessories. I think it is the worst possible stereotype for leica. Those guys refered to as "strokers" who never take pictures.
The M3 in its day might have been expesnive but professionals would pay because there was not a comparable alternative. Hasselblad again had little competition for many years so pros would find the cash. The question regarding the current M9 essentially in terms of its value is "Is this the only way I can get those shots? If so it is worth it. We shall soon see. What interests me at the moment is that people are finally admitting the flaws in the M8 when a few months ago they would have defended it to their last breath!
I swapped my M8 for a D700 after 3 wonderul years (still have my film M). I will probably have a look at an M9 at some stage, but quite honestly a change is as good as a rest. I had a D1x soon after it was launched and it had lots of anoying issues. It is interesting to look at the D700 a few years on and see how refined it has become. In some ways this makes me in no great hurry to rush into another digital rangefinder. Things can onyl get better.
Best wishes
Richard
Dear Richard,
Lobb boots, Gieves suits and Bristol cars are about as far from fashionable as you can get. Most people have never even heard of them. They are indeed expensive luxuries, but they are as close to timeless as you can reasonably expect. They are also, in the eyes of those who buy them, the best you can get.
The same is true, I suggest, of an M-series Leica, even an M9 -- though because Leicas are far more affordable to far more people, they are better known that Lobb, Gieves and Bristol. The belief that if someone can afford the best, they are somewhow morally or in some other way inferior to those who cannot is as meaningless (and as reprehensible) as the reverse assumption, that the poor are morally or in some other way inferior to the rich.
In all four cases -- Lobb, Gieves, Bristol, Leica -- the simple truth is that this is what the best costs. If someone does not think they are the best, they are not obliged to buy them, even if they can afford them; and if they cannot afford them, Lobb, Gieves, Bristol and Leica are not obliged to lower their prices (and, necessarily, their quality) to make them accessible to more people.
As I said to Pavel, if there were a real demand for cheaper digital RF, and if it were possible to build them profitably for a lower price (the latter is the important bit), someone would make them. That's how capitalism works. The fact that no-one else does make a digital RF suggests to me that it is not economically possible to build such cameras for a tiny market.
Cheers,
R.
Tiny market being the main point in that line of reasoning though, a m8 is not harder to build than a d700, nor is it better "quality" buildwise or image quality wise than a d700 objectively (I'm sure people can prefer either camera, but when it comes to things like resolusion, color accurancy, high iso performance and other measurable things, the m8 is not better). So how is it better? The main issue here is that dslr manufactorers can spew out thousands and thousands of each copy, making it very cheap, while leica have to split the R&D-cost on far fewer units.. That is the life of a niche system. Are Lobb boots better than high end Ecco boots that cost half? or even my handmade italian hiking shoes that cost a fraction of the lobb boots? I would say no, but they cater to a niche market and have a costly production cycle. Just as Leica. I think a) "handmade" and b) small quantities, is the main problem here, no superior quality per se.
Roger Hicks
09-06-2009, 23:32
Just as Leica. I think a) "handmade" and b) small quantities, is the main problem here, no superior quality per se.
Obviously it's both quality and 'handmade'/small quantity. Reducing the quality wouldn't significantly reduce the price, but reducing the price would significantly reduce the quality.
Are Lobb boots better than hiking boots? Well, are bananas better than hacksaws? Lobb Wellingtons at $5000 a pair are what it costs for Lobb Wellingtons, probably about 5-10x the cost of other good-quality Wellingtons that are not made to measure. Good-quality Wellington boots are alarmingly expensive: I stopped buying ready-made Gieves Wellingtons over 30 years ago, when the price went over £125 a pair, and haven't worn Wellingtons since. For those who confuse Wellington boots and gumboots (I'm sure you won't), Wellingtons are of course made of leather.
The clinching argument, of course, is that yes, Leicas are indeed the best digital RF cameras on the market. They're also the worst, by dint of being the only RF cameras on the market. And they cost what they cost.
Cheers,
R.
leicashot
09-06-2009, 23:51
I anticipate MANY inexperienced M users to buy up quickly just to 'have it'. Their mistake will be my advantage.
Lobb boots, Gieves suits and Bristol cars are about as far from fashionable as you can get. Most people have never even heard of them. They are indeed expensive luxuries, but they are as close to timeless as you can reasonably expect. They are also, in the eyes of those who buy them, the best you can get.
The same is true, I suggest, of an M-series Leica
No, I don't think the same is true. While I have trouble seeing Lobb produce and sell a diamond-encrusted Independence of Rhodesia Special Edition, or Bristol a Sir Arthur Harris Memorial Edition of the Blenheim, we have had the doubtful enjoyment of seeing Royal Danish Wedding and Sultan of Brunei Leicas, the latter complete with gold plating and red leather. Leica is considerably more of a banal you-want-it-we-have-it luxury goods company, much like those New York jewellers that produce heavy diamond-encrusted crosses that then dangle around the neck of US gangsta rap stars.
Roger Hicks
09-07-2009, 00:10
I anticipate MANY inexperienced M users to buy up quickly just to 'have it'. Their mistake will be my advantage.
In what way? Do you think they will soon sell it second-hand? Or what? I'm not being combative: I genuinely don't understand your post.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
09-07-2009, 00:17
No, I don't think the same is true. While I have trouble seein Lobb produce and sell a diamond-encrusted Independence of Rhodesia Special Edition, or Bristol a Sir Arthur Harris Memorial Edition of the Blenheim, we have had the doubtful enjoyment of seeing Royal Danish Wedding and Sultan of Brunei Leicas, the latter complete with gold plating and red leather. Leica is considerably more of a banal you-want-it-we-have-it luxury goods company, much like those New York jewellers that produce heavy diamond-encrusted crosses that then dangle around the neck of US gangsta rap stars.
The 'funnies' from Leica may indeed be in questionable taste, but it is not Leica's job to question the taste of their customers. The 'funnies' are a trivial (but no doubt profitable) sideline, and the vast majority, remember, do not originate with Leica: they are special orders from dealers (Year of the Rooster) or indeed individual customers (Sultan of Brunei).
What Leica actually does is makes very good cameras and lenses: the best in the eyes of those who buy them, or they would buy something else. To liken Leica buyers to gangsta rap stars, or call them 'fondlers' as another poster did, is pretty pointless.
Cheers,
R.
leicashot
09-07-2009, 00:29
In what way? Do you think they will soon sell it second-hand? Or what? I'm not being combative: I genuinely don't understand your post.
Cheers,
R.
This is becomming a common trend especially with Leica and digital combined. Many newbies to photography are excited by the prospect of owning a unique camera like a Leica M. They will try it, find that focusing a rangefinder is not for them as it doesn't focus track children or animals, and neither does it macro focus. Then the'll become jealous as their friend's EP-2/GF-2 5D mark III, D700s all shoot high def video and make them a sunday roast and do the dishes....and they will then decide to sell it. I can actually see into the future...didn't you know? ;)
In what way? Do you think they will soon sell it second-hand? Or what? I'm not being combative: I genuinely don't understand your post.
Cheers,
R.
Same thing that happened when the M8 was released. A lot of people buy into that Leica mystique. I had an exgirlfriend that spent $700 on a Leica D-Lux 2 rather than the cheaper Panasonic option just for that little red dot. And she actually got miffed when some guy in a camera store told her "That's not a real Leica. They're made in Japan."
But a lot of people bought M8's. Because they could finally use a Leica without having to worry about film. I mean people who would never ever would have bought one before. People who think a Leica is the equivalent to a photographic magic wand went out and bought one. Just because it was digital rather than film.
I think the best example to display the welcoming of the M8 by the uninitiated masses is the used lens market. A lot of those lenses were going dirt cheap in 2005. Then 2006 rolled around and the M8 was announced and suddenly all those lenses had an extra $500 attached to them. Because their usability was extended and people were buying those old cheap v2 'crons and Canon 7 lenses to throw on their new M8's.
And then of course came the new Canon and Nikon offerings. The 1Ds Mark III's and the Nikon D3's and D700's. And those who were using M8's as toys, started selling their M8's to buy Canon and Nikon toys. And the used market got progressively cheaper and cheaper as second hand M8's were going to 3rd and 4th owners. To people who just "wanted to try it out" or weren't ready for a camera that only focused manually, had no zooming lenses whatsoever, that had no such thing as matrix metering.
I've met a lot of people who've heard of Leica but have never actually seen one. It's like some legend. And when they can afford one and pony up the cash for it and actually get one in their hands. A lot of people find out it isn't for them. And so they sell them.
nikonhswebmaster
09-07-2009, 00:40
This is becomming a common trend especially with Leica and digital combined. Many newbies to photography are excited by the prospect of owning a unique camera like a Leica M. They will try it, find that focusing a rangefinder is not for them as it doesn't focus track children or animals, and neither does it macro focus.
The stores like Adorama always seem to have several, but the prices used are not as attractive as one would expect. Frankly the "demos" seemed a better deal, although most stores offer a warranty. There has been a lot of churning in M8s. The are hard to get the hang of if you have never used an RF, you can end up with a lot of soft photos, which is probably discouraging.
The 'funnies' from Leica may indeed be in questionable taste, but it is not Leica's job to question the taste of their customers. The 'funnies' are a trivial (but no doubt profitable) sideline, and the vast majority, remember, do not originate with Leica: they are special orders from dealers (Year of the Rooster) or indeed individual customers (Sultan of Brunei).
Of course they are, and Leica corporate policy in fact encourages such orders; the "a la carte" program was even meant to leverage this down to the individual customer. They will dutifully produce them nevertheless, show them to the world, reserve serial number spaces for them and make sure that the collectors get some, while if you were to walk into Bristol's showroom in London and tell them "Hey, can I have ten Arthur Harris memorial Blenheims", you would in all probability be told that Bristol Cars is a self-respecting company and shown the door. Or so I hope.
To liken Leica buyers to gangsta rap stars, or call them 'fondlers' as another poster did, is pretty pointless.
It would be indeed; however I have done neither. What I've done is not to liken the customers, but the makers. Of course if a company makes a public point out of catering to the more, let's say, exotic tastes of the more pomp-loving parts of its customer base, it does not mean that all its customers share the same tastes, thank God.
Dave Wilkinson
09-07-2009, 00:47
Bah!....enough of this M9 nonsense!....let's get back to the cars! :p
....BTW, I used to have a Morris 'Oxford'....never knew where it was made!:D
Dave.
Roger Hicks
09-07-2009, 00:58
Bah!....enough of this M9 nonsense!....let's get back to the cars! :p
....BTW, I used to have a Morris 'Oxford'....never knew where it was made!:D
Dave.
Dear Dave,
Hindustan, of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindustan_Ambassador
But not Bristol. And for those who confuse 'Oxford' and 'Cowley', there's probably no hope.
Cheers,
R.
Whatever camera Leica introduce it will be 3 years behind electronicaly and cost the earth if its going to be an M9 and 12 months later an M9.2
Leica do decide what we should buy and not, as it should be, in reverse because of their unique position in the market place and a certain amount of influence persuading them to abandon their natural niche in the market to the esoteric.
They could stamp 'Mikey Mouse' special edition on some old
M2s and charge $ 20,000 each and of the 7 billion souls on this planet there would be enough 'chumps' to buy them and keep Leica in buisness.
As everybody on here seems to list their cameras, why I'm not sure.
Leicas= 5 including an original MP2 which was given to me 35 years ago pretty bashed about then because every body wanted to 'hold a pentax'
or a swinging sixties Nikon F. ( When the US news agency here in London closed and they couldn't wait to get home) they let me buy it for a $100 nobody else wanted it !!! ?
Nikons = as many as I need inc D3s D 300/700s and a plain prism black F2 for when I want to make some photographs.
Cars 3 = including an original Mercedes Gull Wing 300 SL in red for the one or two sunny days here in England until we move to Perpignan next year
Hopefully a good year for the grape
A 2009 Ford RS Focus --'Breathed upon' at Boreham about 280 /320 bhp depending on 'configuration' for general use.
2008 MGF for the missus.
Regards
Peter.
Whatever camera Leica introduce it will be 3 years behind electronicaly and cost the earth if its going to be an M9 and 12 months later an M9.2 3 years ago there was no Maestro chip, nor a sensor with fancy IR filtering or ff-microlenses. The price will probably be 5500 Euro - not exactly over the top...
I will buy one when I find out whether it meets my needs AND I can afford it. I can't fathom how people fork out $7K without having a clue if the camera will be a turkey. The M8 hardly had an illustrious start! I would have thought people would want to know more about the basics first and decide once some tests have been done or they have had a chance to test one themselves. Each to their own...
I am also hoping that Leica has the sense not to increase the prices of their lenses with the introduction of the M9. I already feel insulted enough as it is and all they have done is ensure that I only buy used Leica, Zeiss, or CV of which they see no profit. The frustrating thing is, I (and many others like me) actually use the cameras & lenses for what Leica made them for, but have had enough of their outrageous price hikes (which have also driven the used market now to what new prices were 3 years ago).
C'mon Leica, rememeber the users. Remember compact lenses that may not be perfect optically, but are the best you can get for their size/performance.
Roger Hicks
09-07-2009, 04:07
Whatever camera Leica introduce it will be 3 years behind electronicaly and cost the earth if its going to be an M9 and 12 months later an M9.2
Leica do decide what we should buy and not, as it should be, in reverse because of their unique position in the market place and a certain amount of influence persuading them to abandon their natural niche in the market to the esoteric.
Dear Peter,
Three years behind WHAT electronically? All the other digital rangefinders on the market?
Cost the earth? No. Let's assume the 5500€ figure is correct. Stand it next to other luxury goods -- NOT consumer disposables or 'designer label' tat -- and that's not very much. But an awful lot of people have difficulty in understanding what luxury goods are. They are an alternative to the mass market, and may be bought for any one of several reasons.
Also, assume you use an M9 for only 5 years and that it has zero resale value at the end. It's still only 1100€ a year. Assume (more realistically in my view) you use it for 10 years and that it's still worth even 500€, and it's 500€ a year. When Leica launched the M8 they said they'd support it for 20 years and I assume the M9 will be the same.
It's all very well to say that it will be obsolete in 2 or 5 or 10 years, but what would that actually mean? That there is a 30-megapixel version, when 18 megapixels are generally agreed to be equivalent to a 35mm transparency?
Leica decide what we should buy? How? By holding a gun to our heads and forcing us? If I have disentangled your syntax correctly, do you really believe that they perversely refuse to build the cameras that people really want? Why would they do that? Sheer spite? And do you believe that there are no other camera manufacturers who would, if they could turn a profit by doing so, manufacture digital RF cameras at a lower price than Leicas?
The hysteria about 'specials' is just that: hysteria. 'Specials' don't detract for an instant from the quality of the other cameras; there are no R+D costs in producing them; and they are presumably handsomely profitable, so they help keep Leica in business.
Likewise, if people want to customize luxury goods with the à la carte programme, why are so many people so hysterical about this? I don't want red leather, but if you do, why should I stop you? Why a camera company should lose 'self respect' by building what their customers want (not your point, I know) is hard to understand: think of some of the old Maharajas' Rolls Royces of the 1920s.
Finally, remember a simple truth. You don't run the Leica company. I don't run them. Of course they pay attention to what their customers say, and even to RFF members who don't use Leicas, but understandably they will pay a lot more attention to those customers who buy new Leicas than to those who buy them second-hand because they're 'overpriced'.
Cheers,
R.
Dave Wilkinson
09-07-2009, 04:18
[quote=parsec1;1133021
As everybody on here seems to list their cameras, why I'm not sure.
Peter.[/quote] - to show-off - of course!....and you joined in - in great style!....well done! :rolleyes:
Dave.
Likewise, if people want to customize luxury goods with the à la carte programme, why are so many people so hysterical about this?
Thus asks the man who just put Bristol in capital letters about eight times to make a point :)
But actually it is very simple: there was the example of a few British luxury goods manufacturers who make a point out of understating their products to the extent that hardly anyone knows them. Understatement is part of the product image here. Leica, on the other hand, will make and publicly showcase anything a customer is asking for. Of course this is a perfectly fine way to do business, and Leicas are still luxury goods (gold-plated or otherwise), but they are simply not in the same category ("class", if you will). Concava (now out of business) or even Gandolfi would be better examples.
Also, assume you use an M9 for only 5 years and that it has zero resale value at the end. It's still only 1100€ a year. Assume (more realistically in my view) you use it for 10 years and that it's still worth even 500€, and it's 500€ a year.
R.
JMO but when one purchases the M9 or in fact any digital camera they need to look at is as long term lease rather then a purchase. In other words this is something you're going to own for a finite period of time so its cost should be measure against what you might spend over that same period of time if you were shooting film.
Roger Hicks
09-07-2009, 05:16
JMO but when one purchases the M9 or in fact any digital camera they need to look at is as long term lease rather then a purchase. In other words this is something you're going to own for a finite period of time so its cost should be measure against what you might spend over that same period of time if you were shooting film.
No question! Even if I reckon that a digital Leica saves only 50-100 rolls of slide film a year, and price the slide film at only 5€ a roll, that's 250-500€ a year off the 'astronomical' cost of 500-1100€/year. If I look back on when I used to do all my illustrations for books and magazine articles on film, I think it's a good deal more.
Cheers,
R.
Dante_Stella
09-07-2009, 05:25
Also, assume you use an M9 for only 5 years and that it has zero resale value at the end. It's still only 1100€ a year. Assume (more realistically in my view) you use it for 10 years and that it's still worth even 500€, and it's 500€ a year. When Leica launched the M8 they said they'd support it for 20 years and I assume the M9 will be the same.
Roger, you raise the best point of them all.
You have to love the people posting in multiple topics that M8s will be worthless soon, M9s are vastly superior, M8 owners are in denial because of their "investment." Cameras are not "investments" (any more than a car is), and they are worth something to their owners for as long as they are used (witness the $25-at=a-garage-sale Minolta Autocord that I have been shooting with for 20 years...). I have observed that pretty much any pro camera depreciates at a little over $1k a year (and for most $5K pro cameras, this is entirely consistent with principles of depreciation in the U.S.) - and that's how I budget.
I bought an M8 on the assumption that it would be worth nothing at the end of 4.5 years. I've liked the results, though I really didn't like the way Leica overhyped out of the box compatibility and charged huge amounts of money to "recalibrate" Leica lenses that were supposedly M-spec. Would I keep an M8 until it was truly worth "nothing" on the market? Well, if the only thing Leica has to offer in that time frame is a bigger-sensor version of the M8, then yes, I'd wait.
1. My impression is that a lot of people who are "trash talking" don't have long-term experience with the M8. The crop factor is not a huge issue with that camera (see #2). The issue (in the view of this long-term user) is that the controls are mediocre (self timer, anyone?), the battery life is pretty poor, TTL flash operation is worst-in-industry, and there is meter- and flash-lag. What of this has changed in the M9? My suspicion is nothing - only that battery life will be greatly diminished because the DSP will have to contend with more data per picture.
2. Like a lot of M8 owners, I bought a good 28mm to sub for my 35mm lens, let my existing 35mm take over the role of a 50, and didn't care enough about wider or longer to make any adjustments there (and for as little as I do wide-angle anything, I have a Kodak 14n and a 17-35/2.8 Nikkor that are "good enough") At this point, although the M9 is well within financial reach, it would seem pretty foolish to drop a huge amount on it just to widen up some lenses.
3. There's an awful lot of optimism about the performance of existing lenses on the M9. If the M8 is any guide (and it should be, since it has the same pixel pitch more or less), people are going to be surprised how poorly legacy lenses will perform. The M8 - even taking the best part of lenses' image circles - mercilessly exposes the faults in lenses, particularly corner sharpness, vignetting, and overall collimation. As a result of this, I personally figure the cost of lens upgrades into the equation. And when you get to the point of shopping for a camera and lenses, you might as well start looking at other systems.
I anticipated that the M8 would be a "transitional" camera to get the oldsters conditioned to using digital cameras (or to buy Leica some time) - and that Leica would do a major update to the M system at the same time it figured out how to get a 24x36mm sensor to work. But what we have gotten in the M9 is another incremental improvement. It's actually something of a letdown.
Dante
Dear Roger,
No of course not any other drfdr as there aren't any yet but the D3s and Canon Mk 3DSLRs or whatever is on the market at this time are much much better technically and produce better image quality..
Perhaps this forum is more concerned with the technical than the picture. If that is the case then I'm in the wrong place but when I entered 'Fleet Street' a Leica was the camera to carry incase everything else broke down. This was advice given by Vic Blackman to me and endorsed by other Express photographers whilst sitting around that great big table between the developing ' rooms 'and the no entry at any cost ' unionised darkrooms. In fact a bit later I brought from Express Sports photographer Stewart Robinson a M4P,winder and 35 mm summilux which he said he couldn't 'get on with' on the stairs of the Express building to the 3rd floor picture desk for 750 quid . Bet you wouldn't be able to do that now .( BTW that camera provided me with an exclusive Sunday Express byelined front page picture of Prince Charles sucking a dummy given by a woman standing a few feet away from me when HRH got out of his car and chatted to the onlookers after visiting Princess Di and newly born Prince Harry in hospital.)
Anyway I digress. Everybody used Fs or F2s later but all always carried a Leica.
Except Vic who was a Minolta fan even to the extent of getting Minolta to produce a motorised version of the SR1s virtualy for himself. I am aware that current economics would not entertain this. But a professional press photograper was at least involved in the 35mm camera designs and ran for a very long time a much admired and well read column in AP.(Not that yours is not of course) grovel grovel !
After the debacle of the M8 and it was ,IR/UV filters,poor image chip, banding issues et al leading to the introduction of the M8.2 which came after the total dissapointment of pro's who had for all of Leicas history regarded them as sacrosanct.
How many Press photographers now always carry an M8 these days just incase their Nikons die on them ?.
Secondly size. I don't really shoot 300 or 450mm 2.8s anymore and although having a 300mm 2.8 I don't really care for lugging it about the mountains of some 3rd world country or shoving my Nikon Ds large heavy and awkward body into some tribal individuals face.
I have no choice .When the consumer has no choice we are forced into compromise..not good for trade.
I would dearly love to dump the lot in favour of 3 reliable digital Leicas with a 21mm 35and a 75 /90 individually and without the size or weight of a bagfull of DSLRs.
No you will not have these says Leica because the soul of photography the Image has been replaced by the 'Ive got the latest ,biggest most obvious DSLR with the sexiest 5 to 500mm lens poking out of my belly, everybody look at me ,mentality or I've got a Leica M8 as jewellry to hang around my neck whilst strolling up the promenade with my 18 year old 'Chick'.
Whatever reasons you may want to have a 'designer' camera if thats what you want it has to work ! or there again perhaps you feel itdoes not ? I am fortunate enough to own a Breitling Chronometer a designer watch maybe but if the Hands got stuck a 5 past 3 it would still be a 'designer' watch and it would give accurate time twice a day the rest of the day it would be just so much junk on a bracelet. Thats how I feel about the Leica M8/2s, rushed into sale without proper thoughts or consideration just so that some individuals can have a red dot digi camera hanging around their neck. That is being forced into buying them by those who have no idea of the original purpose of the cameras (or even in many cases not even able to take a picture with them)and the hype that has been heaped upon them by the 'Hip and shallow" advertising market.
Very much looking forward to getting into the 'habit' of drinking more of that 'Grape Juice' stuff they produce over there
All the best
Peter.
- to show-off - of course!....and you joined in - in great style!....well done! :rolleyes:
Dave.
Cheers Dave,
Thought I might as well 'Join the Club". BTW the new RS is awesome and I love it but not enough to sleep with it...yet:)
Roger Hicks
09-07-2009, 07:43
Dear Peter,
Fair do's on most of what you say, especially the bit about '3 reliable digital Leicas': I think that you and Paul Stewart would be in an undignified melee for the first three to be issued to Fleet Street. I forget if it's three-quarters or four-fifth of Paul's awards (including second and third places) were won with Leicas.
But I don't agree that it's Leica telling us what to buy. Tragically, I think it's ourselves. Not you or me or indeed Paul but the market-place. Photography is 'equipment driven' as never before, and the catch is, there aren't enough Old Fogeys arguing (as they did in the 1930s) that quarter-plate Sandersons were all we needed. There's a lunatic pseudo-professionalism which assumes that expensive and above all NEW cameras are better.
There are also the undoubted advantages of digital: instant access, very low materials costs. You and I come at this from different directions -- Fleet Street and advertising -- but neither of us would dispute the enormous savings of time and money.
Leica had to make what they could, and although the M8 was a long way from perfect, it was almost certainly better than nothing. Also, it was almost certainly good enough for most applications. For the last decade or two I've referred to myself as a 'paid amateur' because that's what I am, most of the time: I don't HAVE to produce shots the way you do now, and I used to when I was shooting advertising. Or food, though that was a bit different), and the only way the M8/M8.2 have let me down seriously was a shoot 200 miles away when an SD card went bad; not Leica's fault, though a dual SD card (even in an accessory baseplate) would have been nice.
The M8/M8.2/M9 aren't 'designer' cameras. They are 'user' cameras. Not as perfect as you (or anyone) might wish, but merely the best you can get of a particular kind, much like a Breitling. Sure, they've a long way to go before they're a Breitling, or even an Omega Seamaster 30 (my watch for the last 40+ years). But then, the Leica III had a long way to go before it was an M3, and fitting a digital sensor into a body that's too small ain't easy.
I really believe that an M8/M9, with the compromises involved in a too-small body, were a vastly safer bet than a re-run of the M5, andI think Leica took the same gamble.
Finally, I believe that dear old V.B. (I never met him) wrote his column untl he died, and I hope I can do the same!
Cheers,
R.
[QUOTE=Roger Hicks;1133229]Dear Peter,
Fair do's on most of what you say, especially the bit about '3 reliable digital Leicas': I think that you and Paul Stewart would be in an undignified melee for the first three to be issued to Fleet Street. I forget if it's three-quarters or four-fifth of Paul's awards (including second and third places) were won with Leicas.
But I don't agree that it's Leica telling us what to buy. Tragically, I think it's ourselves. Not you or me or indeed Paul but the market-place. Photography is 'equipment driven' as never before, and the catch is, there aren't enough Old Fogeys arguing (as they did in the 1930s) that quarter-plate Sandersons were all we needed. There's a lunatic pseudo-professionalism which assumes that expensive and above all NEW cameras are better.
There are also the undoubted advantages of digital: instant access, very low materials costs. You and I come at this from different directions -- Fleet Street and advertising -- but neither of us would dispute the enormous savings of time and money.
Leica had to make what they could, and although the M8 was a long way from perfect, it was almost certainly better than nothing. Also, it was almost certainly good enough for most applications. For the last decade or two I've referred to myself as a 'paid amateur' because that's what I am, most of the time: I don't HAVE to produce shots the way you do now, and I used to when I was shooting advertising. Or food, though that was a bit different), and the only way the M8/M8.2 have let me down seriously was a shoot 200 miles away when an SD card went bad; not Leica's fault, though a dual SD card (even in an accessory baseplate) would have been nice.
The M8/M8.2/M9 aren't 'designer' cameras. They are 'user' cameras. Not as perfect as you (or anyone) might wish, but merely the best you can get of a particular kind, much like a Breitling. Sure, they've a long way to go before they're a Breitling, or even an Omega Seamaster 30 (my watch for the last 40+ years). But then, the Leica III had a long way to go before it was an M3, and fitting a digital sensor into a body that's too small ain't easy.
I really believe that an M8/M9, with the compromises involved in a too-small body, were a vastly safer bet than a re-run of the M5, andI think Leica took the same gamble.
Finally, I believe that dear old V.B. (I never met him) wrote his column untl he died, and I hope I can do the same!
Cheers,
Dear Roger,
Any melee Paul would certainy win as my 'deportment' is far less.
(About as politicaly correct as I can be !)
Peter
I am also hoping that Leica has the sense not to increase the prices of their lenses with the introduction of the M9. I already feel insulted enough as it is and all they have done is ensure that I only buy used Leica, Zeiss, or CV of which they see no profit. The frustrating thing is, I (and many others like me) actually use the cameras & lenses for what Leica made them for, but have had enough of their outrageous price hikes (which have also driven the used market now to what new prices were 3 years ago).
C'mon Leica, rememeber the users. Remember compact lenses that may not be perfect optically, but are the best you can get for their size/performance.I am always utterly amazed at feelings of being insulted whenever somebody feels that too high a price is asked. How on earth can that be an insult? It is simply a business proposition that one is free to take up or not. So don't buy - no harm done I would say.
Roger Hicks
09-07-2009, 08:34
I am always utterly amazed at feelings of being insulted whenever somebody feels that too high a price is asked. How on earth can that be an insult? It is simply a business proposition that one is free to take up or not. So don't buy - no harm done I would say.
Well, I suppose there's the implication that you're stupid enough to pay more than something is worth, but when it comes to that, I'd look at trainers and designer clothes before I'd look at Leicas. Also, unless you are stupid enough to pay more than something is worth, the insult pretty much rebounds on the person who offered it.
Besides which, where are you going to find better digital RF cameras or lenses? At that point, you pay the asking price if it's worth it to you (and it has no other value, unless you're selling), or not, if it's not.
As you say: no harm done.
Cheers,
R.
I don't fell insulted by Leica's prices of late...more like assaulted:D In particular, the cameras and lenses that have been around a number of years and are now double their former cost despite no improvements and despite a protracted period of very low inflation and a very bad economy that has brought many consumer-product manufacturers to their knees. The rationalization of world currency fluctuations hasn't made sense to me at all in face of the fact that major German automobile prices have not risen in the US. The MSRP of a comparably-equipped completely-redesigned 2010 Mercedes E-Class is almost to the penny what it was back at this time in 2002 when I bought one.
But if Leica can actually sell MP's, M7's and those legacy lenses for double what they went for 5 years ago, I have tremendous respect for them, not to mention a good measure of envy. Frankly the M8/8.2/9 (and the newest lenses) are the most reasonable IHMO to me of all Leica's products because they represent recent R&D costs, not products whose development has been fully amortized for a decade or so. If I feel stupid it's only because I sold my ASPH lenses 3-4 years ago. Had I held onto them I could have easily financed a couple of M9's on the profits alone.
The fact I will wait for a demo M9 is less a function of my feeling the new cost is unjust (well, given the fact I am travelling much less and shooting much less these days, perhaps unjustified) as it is a decision to sidestep some of the inevitable depreciation.
Roger Hicks
09-07-2009, 09:12
I don't fell insulted by Leica's prices of late...more like assaulted:D In particular, the cameras and lenses that have been around a number of years and are now double their former cost despite no improvements and despite a protracted period of very low inflation and a very bad economy that has brought many consumer-product manufacturers to their knees. The rationalization of world currency fluctuations hasn't made sense to me at all in face of the fact that major German automobile prices have not risen in the US. The MSRP of a comparably-equipped completely-redesigned 2010 Mercedes E-Class is almost to the penny what it was back at this time in 2002 when I bought one.
But if Leica can actually sell MP's, M7's and those legacy lenses for double what they went for 5 years ago, I have tremendous respect for them, not to mention a good measure of envy. Frankly the M8/8.2/9 (and the newest lenses) are the most reasonable IHMO to me of all Leica's products because they represent recent R&D costs, not products whose development has been fully amortized for a decade or so. If I feel stupid it's only because I sold my ASPH lenses 3-4 years ago. Had I held onto them I could have easily financed a couple of M9's on the profits alone.
Possibly because a mass-market manufacturer of taxis and commercial vehicles can swallow short-term currency fluctuations easier than a small specialist manufacturer of luxury cameras? Or possibly (I don't know) because profit margins on luxury Mercedes were a great deal higher than on Leicas?
I completely agree with your point about the newer cameras and lenses, but to discount a very significant decline in the value of the dollar strikes me as disingenuous.
Cheers,
R.
leica007
09-07-2009, 09:12
I don't fell insulted by Leica's prices of late...more like assaulted:D
that's great - i feel the same way.
leicashot
09-07-2009, 09:19
that's great - i feel the same way.
That's great, any deterent of the greater population buying Leica's is a good thing. I like the fact it's a niche product and would prefer it to stay that way.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.