Old 03-12-2013   #81
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by airfrogusmc View Post
But at one time APS-C was what everyone had except Canon. Now Nikon Canon and Leica M have all moved to FF with their top models and Canon and Nikon are producing more and more FF models every time they announce new cameras.

When I first went digital Canon was the only FF camera in the game.

So if APS-C was the norm in the beginning and more and more FF cameras are being produced now than ever wheres the logic to that statement?
The fraction of FF cameras vs. total DSLRs sold is increasing, but we do not know by how much. The TOTAL number of DSLRs being sold is flat or declining. Look at Nikon's profits over the last year.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #82
segedi
RFicianado
 
segedi's Avatar
 
segedi is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,234
Value doesn't necessarily lower a camera's usefulness or ability to create fine images. I had a Canon 10D and used it for nearly six years before upgrading to a 50D. And sure the value dropped, but it still made great 6 megapixel images. The marriage of consumerism and corporate marketing are responsible for the disposable nature of our products.

To answer airfrog's question, the marketing of full frame, its usefulness to pros and its ability to create shallower DOF, especially for video are the big sell. But the manufacturers would rather sell more APS-C as it's more profitable. And they've sold a ton. I think the days of the APS-C DSLR are numbered though as the chips and consumers move to CSC and more and more people are using mobile phones for photos. Promoting full frame makes sense to keep DSLR sales afloat; to keep lens sales afloat as well.
__________________
-----------------------

Segedi.com

Flickr

Twitter
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #83
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by segedi View Post
Value doesn't necessarily lower a camera's usefulness or ability to create fine images. I had a Canon 10D and used it for nearly six years before upgrading to a 50D. And sure the value dropped, but it still made great 6 megapixel images. The marriage of consumerism and corporate marketing are responsible for the disposable nature of our products.

To answer airfrog's question, the marketing of full frame, its usefulness to pros and its ability to create shallower DOF, especially for video are the big sell. But the manufacturers would rather sell more APS-C as it's more profitable. And they've sold a ton. I think the days of the APS-C DSLR are numbered though as the chips and consumers move to CSC and more and more people are using mobile phones for photos. Promoting full frame makes sense to keep DSLR sales afloat; to keep lens sales afloat as well.

I mean I see no logic in the statement APS-C is the new FF. When I first went digital Canon made the only FF camera. Now there are a lot of choices if you want to buy FF. I would say FF is the new APS-C would be more appropriate especially with Nikon introducing two new FF models in the past year and if you count the M-E MM and M Leica 3 FF Ms in the past year or so.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #84
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by segedi View Post
But the manufacturers would rather sell more APS-C as it's more profitable.
Can you point to data showing that profit margins are higher on APS-C bodies v. FF?
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #85
Richard G
Registered User
 
Richard G's Avatar
 
Richard G is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: 37,47 S
Posts: 5,308
Enjoyable review and even more enjoyable thread here. I did like the composition of Steve's cat picture. I agree with a lot of Dave's observations here. Loved the question earlier about where was Steve Huff when the M5 came out. That's very good. Thicker, heavier than the M9 and cyclops ugly, it nevertheless sounds like a very good camera. It makes it easier for me to buy a Canon or Nikon than ever it was, but in the meantime I'll stick with my M9.
__________________
Richard
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #86
segedi
RFicianado
 
segedi's Avatar
 
segedi is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,234
I read it somewhere in the Internet so it must be true...

A full-frame DSLR might actually be more profitable unit to unit, but the volume of APS-C DSLRs makes the manufacturers more dough.
__________________
-----------------------

Segedi.com

Flickr

Twitter
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #87
Nigel Meaby
Registered User
 
Nigel Meaby is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Bournemouth, England.
Age: 50
Posts: 897
Quote:
Originally Posted by segedi View Post
I read it somewhere in the Internet so it must be true...

A full-frame DSLR might actually be more profitable unit to unit, but the volume of APS-C DSLRs makes the manufacturers more dough.
Stack 'em high sell 'em....err still rather, quite expensively
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-12-2013   #88
noimmunity
scratch my niche
 
noimmunity is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lyon/Taipei
Age: 57
Posts: 3,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by segedi View Post
I see finer gradations, perhaps more tonality in the new M image. It's a bit deceiving though as the shot isn't identical. There is a shadow on the M-E version under the eye on the right. That combined with the yellow tones mixing with the skin tone gives a different look. And not a better one in my opinion.

And there are differences in the exposure. Differences in metering maybe. If you look at the new M image, top left corner there looks to be more vignetting as well. I don't think it's as well corrected as the M-E, but firmware should take care of that.

Overall, the differences might not make much of a difference. But, there are other advantages to the new M over the M-E which should sway anyone wanting to drop a lot of money to buy the latest offering.
Thanks for taking a second (or probably third) look and sharing your observations back here.

I think the final paragraph is really the key.
__________________
jon 小強


flickr
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #89
CK Dexter Haven
Registered User
 
CK Dexter Haven is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,444
In the 'old days,' when someone "loved" a camera, they kept it until it couldn't be repaired. Nowadays, "love" means fanatical blog prose, for six months, until the company/another company sends you a new box to open in front of your video cam.

Not much of a 'review.' And while some folks seem to like the non-tech aspects, i'm not sure how it serves anyone when there are no comparisons to... anything significant. I'd like to know how this $15,000 package does those pictures better than a $4,000 Canon or Nikon package. Is that relevant? I guess not, to the leica crowd, which wouldn't be caught dead with one of those beastly plastic doodads.

So, where's the money going? The experience? The status? Congratulations.

But, i still haven't seen an M9-infinity photograph that is better than those i used to see on Altphotos, made by Eastern Block kids with cast-off film cameras. Where is the money going?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #90
thegman
Registered User
 
thegman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 3,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by CK Dexter Haven View Post
In the 'old days,' when someone "loved" a camera, they kept it until it couldn't be repaired. Nowadays, "love" means fanatical blog prose, for six months, until the company/another company sends you a new box to open in front of your video cam.

Not much of a 'review.' And while some folks seem to like the non-tech aspects, i'm not sure how it serves anyone when there are no comparisons to... anything significant. I'd like to know how this $15,000 package does those pictures better than a $4,000 Canon or Nikon package. Is that relevant? I guess not, to the leica crowd, which wouldn't be caught dead with one of those beastly plastic doodads.

So, where's the money going? The experience? The status? Congratulations.

But, i still haven't seen an M9-infinity photograph that is better than those i used to see on Altphotos, made by Eastern Block kids with cast-off film cameras. Where is the money going?
I agree 100%.

All I will say is that I have bought cameras because I like how they look. It does not always have to be about getting better results. An M9 is not going to give technically better results than any other contemporary full frame digital camera, and it's not really supposed to, it's supposed to be a pleasure to use for Leica fans. They are not for pros, or students, for 99% of enthusiats. Leicas are for Leica fans or collectors, and that's about it. I don't believe there is anything wrong with that really, the world would be full of boring things if we only took what we *needed*.
__________________
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #91
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegman View Post
I agree 100%.

All I will say is that I have bought cameras because I like how they look. It does not always have to be about getting better results. An M9 is not going to give technically better results than any other contemporary full frame digital camera, and it's not really supposed to, it's supposed to be a pleasure to use for Leica fans. They are not for pros, or students, for 99% of enthusiats. Leicas are for Leica fans or collectors, and that's about it. I don't believe there is anything wrong with that really, the world would be full of boring things if we only took what we *needed*.

Isn't that mankind's failing though ... and why such a large percentage of the world lives in poverty while we accumulate more 'stuff?'

Sorry to go all philosophical on you but that sentence really caught my eye!

__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #92
thegman
Registered User
 
thegman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 40
Posts: 3,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
Isn't that mankind's failing though ... and why such a large percentage of the world lives in poverty while we accumulate more 'stuff?'

Sorry to go all philosophical on you but that sentence really caught my eye!

Yes, I think accumulation of "stuff" is almost always a bad thing, but I don't see anything wrong with the acquisition of things we really like.

I think there is a good sized grey area between always buying the next new phone/tablet/toy every six months and occasionally buying a classic watch or camera.

But then, if millions in China were not employed making tat for the rest of us, what would they be employed doing? Perhaps in a different type of economy and society, that could be answered but as it stands, most of us still need some kind of employment.

The consumerist impulses you see around you every day can leave a bad taste in the mouth, and I certainly don't like it. However, I do accept that our modern economy is founded on it and changing it would not be trivial.

I do quite agree with you though.
__________________
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #93
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,645
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegman View Post
Yes, I think accumulation of "stuff" is almost always a bad thing, but I don't see anything wrong with the acquisition of things we really like.

I think there is a good sized grey area between always buying the next new phone/tablet/toy every six months and occasionally buying a classic watch or camera.

But then, if millions in China were not employed making tat for the rest of us, what would they be employed doing? Perhaps in a different type of economy and society, that could be answered but as it stands, most of us still need some kind of employment.

The consumerist impulses you see around you every day can leave a bad taste in the mouth, and I certainly don't like it. However, I do accept that our modern economy is founded on it and changing it would not be trivial.

I do quite agree with you though.

... Sometimes there is a reflex that gets triggered and it makes you feel uncomfortable for a minute or three!

As you say though hard to change ... I admire the souls who do make personal change in this area though because most of us choose not to.
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #94
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by CK Dexter Haven View Post
In the 'old days,' when someone "loved" a camera, they kept it until it couldn't be repaired. Nowadays, "love" means fanatical blog prose, for six months, until the company/another company sends you a new box to open in front of your video cam.
To some it is just a tool and not an object of fetishization.

Quote:
I'd like to know how this $15,000 package does those pictures better than a $4,000 Canon or Nikon package. Is that relevant? I guess not, to the leica crowd, which wouldn't be caught dead with one of those beastly plastic doodads.
This comes down to ergonomics and what you enjoy using to make photos.

Quote:
But, i still haven't seen an M9-infinity photograph that is better than those i used to see on Altphotos, made by Eastern Block kids with cast-off film cameras. Where is the money going?
Is this just typical Leica hate and the fact that people seem think that if you have an expensive camera, you should be making the worlds best photos? Money spent has nothing to do with output. Time spent does. There is nothing wrong with someone owning something expensive and using it for pleasure. Unfortunately, not everyone in the world gets to experience that, but that is not the typical Leica users fault.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #95
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 31,408
I would have gotten more and more stuff in my life hasn't it been for getting married to a woman who does not want to see lots of stuff at home. She is a minimalist. It could be that she appreciates other sides to life, after experiencing many years of war and lost lives around her.

I still have plenty of stuff, but it is "controlled" now.
__________________
- Raid
________________

http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #96
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,849
I'm in he process of downsizing now.

If Leica M would have had a FF camera when I went digital I wouldn't have bought my Canon gear. I shoot all of my personal work now with the MM and the 35 Lux. Thats it. I also use it on some of my commercial assignments when B&W is the end goal. I eventually plan to get dump my Canon cameras and Canon glass which I only have what I need in that regard to and pick up a couple of color Leica M digital bodies for my real job and a 21mm and a 75 mm lens. Thats the plan as of now.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #97
newsgrunt
Registered User
 
newsgrunt's Avatar
 
newsgrunt is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,175
gee, better performance at hi iso AND video ? I'd get one if I had the scratch.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #98
maclaine
Registered User
 
maclaine's Avatar
 
maclaine is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by CK Dexter Haven View Post
In the 'old days,' when someone "loved" a camera, they kept it until it couldn't be repaired. Nowadays, "love" means fanatical blog prose, for six months, until the company/another company sends you a new box to open in front of your video cam.

Not much of a 'review.' And while some folks seem to like the non-tech aspects, i'm not sure how it serves anyone when there are no comparisons to... anything significant. I'd like to know how this $15,000 package does those pictures better than a $4,000 Canon or Nikon package. Is that relevant? I guess not, to the leica crowd, which wouldn't be caught dead with one of those beastly plastic doodads.

So, where's the money going? The experience? The status? Congratulations.

But, i still haven't seen an M9-infinity photograph that is better than those i used to see on Altphotos, made by Eastern Block kids with cast-off film cameras. Where is the money going?
If you actually read what Mr. Huff writes, you'd know that he is never sent any free cameras. He buys everything he reviews and sells something if he wants a new camera.

As far as where the money goes, yes, it is the experience. I do not currently have a digital camera for exactly the reason you mention. I don't like the way they look, feel, or operate in my hands. I do, however, enjoy shooting with Leicas, though I don't currently own one, either film or digital. Leica, for all their current focus on the luxury market, has done something no other camera company has, which is to present a full frame digital camera that preserves a unique and older style of shooting. Perhaps not useful to you, but not everyone is alike. For me, this may be the camera that finally makes me go digital. I don't live an extravagant lifestyle. Quite the opposite, in fact, so it has nothing to do with status and everything to do with taking pictures the way I like.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #99
Scheelings
Registered User
 
Scheelings is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by CK Dexter Haven View Post
But, i still haven't seen an M9-infinity photograph that is better than those i used to see on Altphotos, made by Eastern Block kids with cast-off film cameras. Where is the money going?
That's because 99.9% real photographer's can't afford Leica's - not because the camera isn't more technically capable.

Also, the technical capabilities of the camera only play a small part in the final image. In other words - photographer's quickly learn the limits of their camera's - and work within those bounds.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #100
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,849
Meyerowitz owns one and has made a few decent images with it.

The only people I know personally that own Leica digital Ms are full time working photographers.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-13-2013   #101
Scheelings
Registered User
 
Scheelings is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 313
Hmm, maybe that's because you live in a wealthy country where photographers can earn enough to afford a Leica.

I typically live in countries with high disparity between rich and poor.

I think I've been out of the First World far too long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by airfrogusmc View Post

The only people I know personally that own Leica digital Ms are full time working photographers.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #102
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,849
Bresson, Meyerowitz, Robert Frank, Winogrand, Davidson all shot Leica M in an age when Leica M was 2 and even 3 times more than the top of the line Canon & Nikons. And many photographers shot with Hasselblad and Rollieflex and those were even more expensive. I think if you don't try and own all the equipment its easier to get the equipment that really fits your vision and the way you work.

Leica M has never been the cheap alternative.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #103
CK Dexter Haven
Registered User
 
CK Dexter Haven is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
To some it is just a tool and not an object of fetishization.

Is this just typical Leica hate and the fact that people seem think that if you have an expensive camera, you should be making the worlds best photos? Money spent has nothing to do with output. Time spent does. There is nothing wrong with someone owning something expensive and using it for pleasure. Unfortunately, not everyone in the world gets to experience that, but that is not the typical Leica users fault.
I agree with your first point. It can be just a tool. I have no qualms with people buying/using Leicas. I used to buy/use Leicas. What i resent is the unwarranted hype that goes along with it. Not from most photographers, but from too many forum members and those bloggers. My 'rant' was, essentially, aimed at Huff and Thorsten.

So, no, re: "Leica hate." I've had two M7s, a CM, an R8, and an R7. Well, maybe i should amend that. Yes, to "Leica (digital) hate." The film cameras somehow seemed 'worth it,' in a way. Digital, not so much, except as a platform for the glass, which is still excellent, but again, not so excellent as to make photography qualitatively better.

I tried DR Summicrons, 50 Lux-Pre, 50 Lux-ASPH, current 50 Cron... and now my favorite lens is a $30 Nikon 50/1.8 Series E. The E does what i had been looking for in the $8,000 i spent on Leica glass. Which is kinda my point. You buy a 50 Summicron 20 years ago, because Leica (and everyone else) says it's the best lens. Five years later, there's a newer Summicron. You have to have that. Another five years, it's a newer Leica 50, and five years on, it's a newer and better Leica 50. Then, you look back, and ask yourself if photography is better now than it was 20 years ago. My answer is No.

Yet, the bloggists proclaim every advance as the greatest thing to happen to the craft, and people line up to spend $5,000 on a lens or $8,000 on a camera. Believe me, i am not anti-luxury. I love my Merc convertible, covet a BMW or Aston Martin, and will have a Ferrari before i die. And, i'll never approach their top speeds or handling capabilities. But, when people talk about those things, there is a greater sense of perspective involved. The car will depreciate much more than a Leica lens, and i realize there's some conflict in this paragraph and comparison. Something just 'happened' in the past few years, with Leica, its approach to development, support, and marketing, and then the blogosphere. It's a combination of issues just kinda sicken me. I hope not to have offended anyone here, and truth told, i don't even mind Huff in the vast majority of instances. I still read his stuff, but when these guys approach Rockwellian bluster and BS, i either tune it out or dismiss the surrounding material.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #104
CK Dexter Haven
Registered User
 
CK Dexter Haven is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by airfrogusmc View Post
Meyerowitz owns one and has made a few decent images with it.

The only people I know personally that own Leica digital Ms are full time working photographers.
That's kind of interesting. Of all the pro photographers i've known, worked with, or read about, only a few use(d) Leicas, and never for professional work. But, those guys were mainly in fashion and commercial work, not journalism.

I still think it's 'rare' to find a pro using a Leica. Canon and Nikon and Hasselblad H dominate pro work in just about all fields. Which is odd, if Leicas really do present a significant and/or valid advantage.

Back in the film days, Leicas were used by the sort of 'nomadic storyteller' — the guy who could spend a month in a location on a story. Or the random street photographer — the guy who put a book or exhibition together after a few years of wandering around. But, not by people who actually had to get the (specific) shot on that day, in that instant.

Different types of pro work have different types of demands. I haven't really seen a major change in Leica's direction with digital, but maybe i'm looking in the wrong places. I'm sure someone here can list a few pros who use the M9 as a primary tool, but what percentage does that make?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #105
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 20,195
Thank you for the thoughtful and tactful response CK. I can completely understand where you are coming from. I believe I misunderstood what you were saying in the other thread. My fault.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #106
srtiwari
Daktari
 
srtiwari's Avatar
 
srtiwari is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vero Beach, Florida
Posts: 1,018
I have discovered, to my surprise, that excess "stuff" accumulated during bouts of GAS, caused me a vague discomfort - in part since I could not use it enough with all the other "stuff" around. The desire to own it is relatively fleeting, in my case, but selling it is not easy, either. Once sold, however, I don't think of it again, and seem to enjoy the remaining "stuff", much more.
Go figure...
__________________
Subhash
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #107
noimmunity
scratch my niche
 
noimmunity is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lyon/Taipei
Age: 57
Posts: 3,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by CK Dexter Haven View Post
I agree with your first point. It can be just a tool. I have no qualms with people buying/using Leicas. I used to buy/use Leicas. What i resent is the unwarranted hype that goes along with it. Not from most photographers, but from too many forum members and those bloggers. My 'rant' was, essentially, aimed at Huff and Thorsten.

So, no, re: "Leica hate." I've had two M7s, a CM, an R8, and an R7. Well, maybe i should amend that. Yes, to "Leica (digital) hate." The film cameras somehow seemed 'worth it,' in a way. Digital, not so much, except as a platform for the glass, which is still excellent, but again, not so excellent as to make photography qualitatively better.

I tried DR Summicrons, 50 Lux-Pre, 50 Lux-ASPH, current 50 Cron... and now my favorite lens is a $30 Nikon 50/1.8 Series E. The E does what i had been looking for in the $8,000 i spent on Leica glass. Which is kinda my point. You buy a 50 Summicron 20 years ago, because Leica (and everyone else) says it's the best lens. Five years later, there's a newer Summicron. You have to have that. Another five years, it's a newer Leica 50, and five years on, it's a newer and better Leica 50. Then, you look back, and ask yourself if photography is better now than it was 20 years ago. My answer is No.

Yet, the bloggists proclaim every advance as the greatest thing to happen to the craft, and people line up to spend $5,000 on a lens or $8,000 on a camera. Believe me, i am not anti-luxury. I love my Merc convertible, covet a BMW or Aston Martin, and will have a Ferrari before i die. And, i'll never approach their top speeds or handling capabilities. But, when people talk about those things, there is a greater sense of perspective involved. The car will depreciate much more than a Leica lens, and i realize there's some conflict in this paragraph and comparison. Something just 'happened' in the past few years, with Leica, its approach to development, support, and marketing, and then the blogosphere. It's a combination of issues just kinda sicken me. I hope not to have offended anyone here, and truth told, i don't even mind Huff in the vast majority of instances. I still read his stuff, but when these guys approach Rockwellian bluster and BS, i either tune it out or dismiss the surrounding material.
I really understand where people are coming from on this one. For people who take real pleasure in using genuine RFs, yet want digital, the price is just disproportionately high compared to other formats. This is NOT an argument about whether or not that price is justified. It's just that it is high enough to be really exorbitant or even prohibitive for people who would really like to be using that kind of body. It doesn't have to be Leica, but I think people who like RFs really really do want full frame.

Now, if you were a shooter of any other kind of small format body, you would have many more options, including full frame ones, some of them at a much lower price.

In about 2 or 3 years full-frame M9s will be affordable for a much larger group of people. However, the waiting period, plus the fact that you have to buy second or third-hand, is a drag. Not to mention the ignominy of buying a camera with a really outdated sensor for such an inflated price, even used.

Even though the M-E is called an "entry level" body, the price really isn't there yet.

The RF system really really needs a true low(er) cost entry-level NEW offering. But I doubt that we're ever gonna see that, so that's where the frustration really comes from.
__________________
jon 小強


flickr
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #108
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalintrigue View Post
I rather see it as mankind's accomplishment. There will always be rich and poor; the creation, development, and manufacture of products serves to help people at all levels.
Dr. Pangloss, I presume?
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #109
swoop
Registered User
 
swoop is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New York City
Age: 37
Posts: 1,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
If auto manufacturers took the same approach to development that Leica demonstrates we'd be driving cars with no crumple zones, side valve engines with carburetors, points and coil ignition, drum brakes ... and a computer to manage it all!
I laughed.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #110
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by CK Dexter Haven View Post
That's kind of interesting. Of all the pro photographers i've known, worked with, or read about, only a few use(d) Leicas, and never for professional work. But, those guys were mainly in fashion and commercial work, not journalism.

I still think it's 'rare' to find a pro using a Leica. Canon and Nikon and Hasselblad H dominate pro work in just about all fields. Which is odd, if Leicas really do present a significant and/or valid advantage.

Back in the film days, Leicas were used by the sort of 'nomadic storyteller' — the guy who could spend a month in a location on a story. Or the random street photographer — the guy who put a book or exhibition together after a few years of wandering around. But, not by people who actually had to get the (specific) shot on that day, in that instant.

Different types of pro work have different types of demands. I haven't really seen a major change in Leica's direction with digital, but maybe i'm looking in the wrong places. I'm sure someone here can list a few pros who use the M9 as a primary tool, but what percentage does that make?
I shoot advertising/commercial and I use my MM to shoot when B&W is the end goal for say an annual report. I use it exclusively for my personal work because its the right tool. The only folks I know that own digital Leicas are other commercial photographers. They like me have other equipment but they to use their Leicas on commercial assignments if its right for the assignment. And they all to use it for their personal work.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #111
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 65
Posts: 3,312
Leica as a brand and as a photographic tool is seductive. Both the bodies and the glass. Trying to convince the seduced to give it up is futile. Money will be spent and, if needed, sacrifices are made to afford such expensive gear. And for the unseduced, well, more power to their resistance.

Jon said it: it would be a fine thing for Leica to produce a sub $2K digi RF. But odds are they won't.
__________________
--Mike

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #112
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCTuomey View Post
Leica as a brand and as a photographic tool is seductive. Both the bodies and the glass. Trying to convince the seduced to give it up is futile. Money will be spent and, if needed, sacrifices are made to afford such expensive gear. And for the unseduced, well, more power to their resistance.

Jon said it: it would be a fine thing for Leica to produce a sub $2K digi RF. But odds are they won't.
Why would they? I remember a time with Leicas were at least double the top of the line Nikon and Canons. Now they're about equal.

Heres a great piece by Meyerowitz and a great reason to choose a rangefinder among many other reasons.
I would say watch the entire piece but the point is about 1:30 in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xumo7_JUeMo
  Reply With Quote

All Huff and Puff and a lot of GAS!!!
Old 03-15-2013   #113
noimmunity
scratch my niche
 
noimmunity is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lyon/Taipei
Age: 57
Posts: 3,111
All Huff and Puff and a lot of GAS!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by airfrogusmc View Post
Heres a great piece by Meyerowitz and a great reason to choose a rangefinder among many other reasons.
Thanks for the link.

The view and the mechanical focus mechanism. We get it. Sean Reid came out arguing for that big time.

Meyerowitz's take is a little bit different from Reid's, since he emphasizes two-eyed shooting, while Reid emphasizes being able to see outside the frame but within the VF.

Note that Meyerowitz's emphasis puts left-handed shooters and people with glasses at a disadvantage. Would also seem to favor 1:1 VFs like the Bessa R3* and the RD-1.

Also note that since he doesn't make a reference to the mechanical RF, he could just as easily be talking about a Fuji X-Pro1.

With the rise of mirrorless digicams, form factor is not the privilege of the Leica. But that VF/RF experience, if you like it and know a little bit about how to use it, is really to die for.

Too bad there is no competition in this market segment and the prices as a result are so exorbitant.

If you want FF DSLR, $2K gets you there. So RF is a niche market, add a 50% premium--but you're still only half way to being able to buy a new FF dRF under guarantee and all that.

Anyway, this is all way off topic. Thanks for the link. I enjoyed it, especially the part on photographing relations rather than objects. I enjoyed it a lot more, BTW, than reading Huff's review. That man is all huff and puff and a lot of GAS !
__________________
jon 小強


flickr
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #114
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by noimmunity View Post
Thanks for the link.

The view and the mechanical focus mechanism. We get it. Sean Reid came out arguing for that big time.

Meyerowitz's take is a little bit different from Reid's, since he emphasizes two-eyed shooting, while Reid emphasizes being able to see outside the frame but within the VF.

Note that Meyerowitz's emphasis puts left-handed shooters and people with glasses at a disadvantage. Would also seem to favor 1:1 VFs like the Bessa R3* and the RD-1.

Also note that since he doesn't make a reference to the mechanical RF, he could just as easily be talking about a Fuji X-Pro1.

With the rise of mirrorless digicams, form factor is not the privilege of the Leica. But that VF/RF experience, if you like it and know a little bit about how to use it, is really to die for.

Too bad there is no competition in this market segment and the prices as a result are so exorbitant.

If you want FF DSLR, $2K gets you there. So RF is a niche market, add a 50% premium--but you're still only half way to being able to buy a new FF dRF under guarantee and all that.

Anyway, this is all way off topic. Thanks for the link. I enjoyed it, especially the part on photographing relations rather than objects. I enjoyed it a lot more, BTW, than reading Huff's review. That man is all huff and puff and a lot of GAS !
I have shot with the fuji and didn't like it was well as the Leica. FF was a big reason for me. My bud that has the fuji also prefers his M9.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #115
noimmunity
scratch my niche
 
noimmunity is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Lyon/Taipei
Age: 57
Posts: 3,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by airfrogusmc View Post
I have shot with the fuji and didn't like it was well as the Leica. FF was a big reason for me. My bud that has the fuji also prefers his M9.

I have the Fuji and love its polyvalent flexibility. The M-E is cool, too, but it is less polyvalent. Sometimes that's good; sometimes that's bad. But the point is that the Fuji OVF/EVF combination achieves the view that Meyerowitz is talking about, AND it adds an extra trick in the ability to toggle over to TTL EVF.
__________________
jon 小強


flickr
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #116
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by noimmunity View Post
I have the Fuji and love its polyvalent flexibility. The M-E is cool, too, but it is less polyvalent. Sometimes that's good; sometimes that's bad. But the point is that the Fuji OVF/EVF combination achieves the view that Meyerowitz is talking about, AND it adds an extra trick in the ability to toggle over to TTL EVF.
Well I'm in love with my MM. Don't like a lot gadgets. I like to keep it simple. If Leica comes out with an M-E with the new M sensor I might have to grab one of those. I find the MM and 35 lux get out of my way and have, with some practice, become a real extension of my vision. Shooting for the moment has become effortless for me.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #117
frank-grumman
Registered User
 
frank-grumman is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: SoCal/PA
Posts: 277
Polyvalent???? Excuse my stupidity, but I'd appreciate knowing in photographic terms what that means.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #118
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,849
I think he means having muti purposes, kinda one size fits all. If thats what he is meaning those are reasons I don't like it. I have DSLRs that try real hard to do that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #119
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by porktaco View Post
epic lol

--

It’s no secret I was one of the worlds biggest fans of the M9 and I was not shy about saying so. Millions of people have read my “Big Bad Ass Leica M9 Review” and hundreds if not thousands have purchased the M9 due to me pouring out my love for such a machine over the past few years. I am not tooting my own horn but it is a fact! The words I write on these pages seem to be heavily influential just as a movie reviewer influences the publics movie choices, which is why I always keep it real and am always honest and let my heart do the talking, even if I get grump-o’s attacking me for being overly enthusiastic. That is just who I am and when I am excited about something…you guys will know it.

The fact is that myself and Thorsten Overgaard (the original Leica web presence) have done more for the M9 than anyone else has due to us oozing our passion for that camera over the past few years.
this must be the part of the movie where steve lets his internet fame go to his head. i can just see him fondling huge piles of freshly unboxed cameras.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-15-2013   #120
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 65
Posts: 3,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by airfrogusmc View Post
Why would they [produce a sub-$2K digital RF]? I remember a time with Leicas were at least double the top of the line Nikon and Canons. Now they're about equal.
Good point. My egalitarian side wishes for more accessible Leica dRfs, so more people can enjoy them, that's all, and I don't mean being able to buy 6-7 year-old digital Ms that may or may not be serviceable. My wishing will not have any effect whatsoever on Leica's marketing and production, that much is certain.
__________________
--Mike

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:46.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.