Radiohead
Mine sucks
- Messages
- 3,756
- Name
- Guy
- Edit My Images
- No
Leica M9
- Thread starter jimlizard
- Start date
Radiohead
Mine sucks
- Messages
- 3,756
- Name
- Guy
- Edit My Images
- No
I quite agree, the camera has nothing to do with your ability to take pictures. And certainly having a Leica (or whatever) will make little difference to the actual images you produce.
However carrying a single Leica body, perhaps with as much as one of the very wide Voigtlander lenses with finder and a 35 1.4 and a 90 Leica lenses would be liberating - especially when compared to lugging an SLR and even a single zoom lens around.
I'll go with that. I'm thinking about an M8 at the moment actually (which will require an offload of my Nikon kit) for this reason.
alexkidd
D.O.N.K.E.Y.
- Messages
- 2,822
- Name
- Alex
- Edit My Images
- No
Not that i've looked into it but are leica the only people with that form factor? (olympus pen, g1)
if they're the only people providing that form factor and providing that quality then i can see the arguement but still, is it that much smaller than say a d40 for the price?
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The problem I have with Leicas is that they're surrounded by this aura of supremity perpetuated by many, when in fact they're as dated as hell and people put up with a lack of adoption of available technology purely because it's a Leica and if Leica haven't adopted it then there must be a good reason. Contax made the cameras the Leica could have been with the G1 and G2 and Leica must have breathed a huge sigh of relief when Kyocera ceased trading.
- Messages
- 1,842
- Name
- Ujjwal
- Edit My Images
- No
To be honest though, CT, Contax G1 and a Leica M ( say CL, which is possibly the cheapest M leica and the Leica alternative to G) are entirely different beasts. They handle differently; and there are situations when one or the other is not best suited. Both have great lens though; but sometimes the technology of G1 does get in the way of getting a good photograph
- Messages
- 685
- Edit My Images
- No
Sounds like a lot of people on this thread haven't actually tried using a Leica. Maybe they are expensive, but if you can afford it, why not pay for what is a luxury piece of handmade precision engineering? If I could afford one, I'd be buying a Leica, no doubt about it. No, a Leica might not make your photography better (then again, with those lenses it might) but it's not about that. It's about having a damn nice tool to use, and a damn nice tool they are.
The only thing I would like to see Leica try is a zooming finder. Maybe ISO 3200 would be nice too.
The only thing I would like to see Leica try is a zooming finder. Maybe ISO 3200 would be nice too.
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I keep reading that though and the example often given is that the Leica is the ultimate 'street' camera and that manual focus is somehow better in that situation. I can't for the life of me think how or why? A decent AF system would get off half a dozen shots while you were manually focusing the Leica.
I love Leicas as much as the next camera nut but the way they've refused to embrace technology over the years just makes them a Dodo for me. They're now producing the M8 because they have to to survive and are still building it around that same dated platform while asking us to believe that it's still superior, but less and less people are buying the argument.
- Messages
- 836
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think it's incredible (and sad) that Leica managed to screw up the M8 so badly. (For anyone not familiar with this, the M8 turned out to by hyper-sensitive to IR light, causing a magenta colour cast - Leica had to offer filters to correct the problem.)
When you spend £k's on a luxury camera brand, and it doesn't perform as well as a camera costing a tenth of the price, there's something seriously wrong
I only hope Leica have managed to get it right with the M9. The M8 fiasco has put me off the whole brand somewhat (assuming I had the necessary thousands to spend on a manual rangefinder!)
A.
When you spend £k's on a luxury camera brand, and it doesn't perform as well as a camera costing a tenth of the price, there's something seriously wrong
I only hope Leica have managed to get it right with the M9. The M8 fiasco has put me off the whole brand somewhat (assuming I had the necessary thousands to spend on a manual rangefinder!)
A.
- Messages
- 1,842
- Name
- Ujjwal
- Edit My Images
- No
I personally think deifying any instrument or any manufacturer is a bit ridiculous . Leica is a nice camera; and it has nice lens to go with it, but in the end, its the eyes behind the camera which make the photographs.
That said, I love the simplicity of an all manual camera ( I love my contax IIa as much as the Leica); and sometimes you dont really need to focus ( hyperfocussing and all). But then, its my personal choice; and I dont make a living out of my photographs ( meaning I dont have to work under pressure, satisfy unreasonable clients and be right 100% of the time), so I can indulge in photographing for purely my pleasure.
In any case, my guess is the whole concept of digital imaging is to use more and more technology in the camera ( as well as in post processing); which is at variance with the core philosophy of Leica.
That said, I love the simplicity of an all manual camera ( I love my contax IIa as much as the Leica); and sometimes you dont really need to focus ( hyperfocussing and all). But then, its my personal choice; and I dont make a living out of my photographs ( meaning I dont have to work under pressure, satisfy unreasonable clients and be right 100% of the time), so I can indulge in photographing for purely my pleasure.
In any case, my guess is the whole concept of digital imaging is to use more and more technology in the camera ( as well as in post processing); which is at variance with the core philosophy of Leica.
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Now that I can completely understand - buy your Leica because you love it - for whatever reason. 
OP
- Messages
- 682
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
The M8 uses an APS-H sensor (1.3X crop factor), which is much larger than the one used on a Pen or G1 (2x). This makes all the difference.
You also don't have any rangefinder system in the later ones and, believe me, in some situations (low light conditions / using wide angle lenses wide open) it's very, very useful.
Ah, and the sensor from the M8 is AA filter free, so the files are sharper.
Just saying py6km's choice of the M8 over the Pen and G1 makes a lot of sense, as a replacement for some Nikon SLR equipment. I miss the M8 I used to have. It was so great to walk around in the street, just carrying a very small bag in the shoulders.
The body is smaller, but it's not about the body. Rangefinder lenses are way smaller, even comparing to manual focus Nikkors.
Somehow, they already did.
The Epson R-D1, R-D1s and R-D1x models use a Voigtländer Bessa R3A body so, they are made by Cosina.
Pretty nice cameras. Image quality is not amazing, since the sensor is the one used on the Nikon D100 (even the R-D1X, which was presented a couple of months ago), but it isn't bad either. Files look much better to my eyes than those from a D100.
However the great thing about them is the handling and feeling! It's such a pleasure to shoot with those Epson and to use the rapid wind lever, like if you were shooting with a film camera.
The built quality isn't on par with the Leica (no Voigtländer is), but they really fit and feel well in the hands.
For people who don't print large, it stills a very good and cool option!
The M9 is full frame.
I didn't know that. Mind you I've never seen a Epson in the flesh either.Somehow, they already did.
The Epson R-D1, R-D1s and R-D1x models use a Voigtländer Bessa R3A body so, they are made by Cosina.
Pretty nice cameras. Image quality is not amazing, since the sensor is the one used on the Nikon D100 (even the R-D1X, which was presented a couple of months ago), but it isn't bad either. Files look much better to my eyes than those from a D100.
However the great thing about them is the handling and feeling! It's such a pleasure to shoot with those Epson and to use the rapid wind lever, like if you were shooting with a film camera.
The built quality isn't on par with the Leica (no Voigtländer is), but they really fit and feel well in the hands.
For people who don't print large, it stills a very good and cool option!
Come on Cosina - make us an affordable full frame digital rangefinder!
Indeed, and this shows just how much smaller they are.
A comparison between the Canon EF 35mm /1.4 and the Voigtländer Nokton 35mm /1.4.
Indeed, and this shows just how much smaller they are.
A comparison between the Canon EF 35mm /1.4 and the Voigtländer Nokton 35mm /1.4.
That is significant...
Can you do the same with the bodies... :shrug:
OP
- Messages
- 682
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Good example!
I used to have that CV 35mm. My idea was to buy the f/1.2 version, but the difference in size was huge and I never regret for buying the f/1.4. Excellent results in both M8 and RD-1.
About the Epson, it was the first digital rangefinder camera in the world.
Mine had a beautiful Luigi (Leicatime) leather case, like the one in he picture. I sold the camera and I still have the case. I have to put it on ebay for sale.
P.S. - Yes, I know the M9 if full-frame. I just mentioned the M8 because there was a member who is considering to buy one.
Why do Leicas generate so much controversy? I don't think it really matters whether they have supreme IQ/handing, build quality or some indefinable "feel" about them; or if you just want one to add to a collection or for bragging rights. It's your money, and you're free to make the call. It doesn't affect anyone else at all.
I don't own an expensive car, hi-fi system or mobile phone. This is partly because I can't really afford them, but mainly because I'm just not very interested. I certainly don't have any problems with other people who want/buy them.
I don't own an expensive car, hi-fi system or mobile phone. This is partly because I can't really afford them, but mainly because I'm just not very interested. I certainly don't have any problems with other people who want/buy them.
That's refreshing. A lot of people denigrate kit or people's choices largely, I suspect, because they're not in a position to have it themselves. Live and let live is what I say.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
I think they generate controversy because some people care about the traditional values that Leica seem to represent, and they see it fading away. The skill and craft of photography, the blend of science and art, superb optical and mechanical engineering, man and machine. That kind of sentimental stuff, those largely emotional values that have been swept aside by high end digital technology.
Then there's the fact that they cost a huge amount of money, Leica fans try to defend their fundamentally low technology with unsustainable claims of superiority, which provokes less admiration than ridicule. Everyone gets upset.
I've tried hard to like Leica's for a long time. Have used them on and off for many years, even toured the factory. I love most of what Leica stands for, and like most people wanted to see them succeed with a truly modern incarnation of the breed. The pathetic M8 was just bewildering, not only was the concept completely misguided, the damn thing didn't even work properly.
But now, to Leica's credit, they appear to have sorted just about everything that needed sorting in a digital Leica, but I am more than a little surprised that I still don't want one. TBH, it actually leaves me coldly indifferent. I find that I don't actually want today's technology in yesterday's clothes; I want tomorrow's technology in tomorrow's clothes, or at the very least some small hint of the great innovations that made Leica world famous.
And the closest they have come to that, IMHO, is with the X1, not the M9. It is a beautiful jewel of a camera, with a modern-sized APS-C sensor and sublimely simple form. If only it had interchangeable lenses, cutting edge optical designs like they used to make. A really top class zoom viewfinder, supreme mechanicals, digital ancilliaries that are not just good, but better than the best.
I think that the camera I'm actually looking to see is the new Panasonic GF1, but aimed at enthusiasts rather than well healed amateurs. Same form and function, but dramatically elevated in terms of performance - in line with the price. IMO that is the spiritual successor to Oscar Barnack's brilliantly ground breaking Leica design, but this too is just so much wistful dreaming and I think Panasonic have earmarked that particular new product opportunity for themselves. Maybe it's time to just let it all rest, and remember Leica for what it once was - at the very pinnacle of performance and excellence - when things were different.
It's time I stopped.
- Messages
- 1,634
- Name
- Dan
- Edit My Images
- No
I'd love an M9. Could maybe, perhaps, possibly even, stretch to one, but it'd be such an uncomfortable stretch that I wouldn't then enjoy the subsequent ownership. I am watching M8 prices with interest, though.
Why do I want an M so bad? Well, I enjoy my little D-lux very much, and get a kick out of seeing the red dot. So what if it means nothing on a rebadged Panasonic? I've already got my money's worth out of the DL4's extra price difference, [and it was my wallet that did the talking...]
But the real reason I want an M is because that's the highest quality way of mounting a 50mm Summilux. I want the lens, really. I love the bokeh, the contrast; to me it's an inspirational lens. Having handled one in the flesh [albeit briefly, and under the owner's watchful eye], it's my ultimate prime.
I have a feeling that either M8 prices will soften, and 2010 will be my M-year; or I'll go with a Nikkor clearout switch to either a GF1 or an EP1 and that wonderful lens.
Why do I want an M so bad? Well, I enjoy my little D-lux very much, and get a kick out of seeing the red dot. So what if it means nothing on a rebadged Panasonic? I've already got my money's worth out of the DL4's extra price difference, [and it was my wallet that did the talking...]
But the real reason I want an M is because that's the highest quality way of mounting a 50mm Summilux. I want the lens, really. I love the bokeh, the contrast; to me it's an inspirational lens. Having handled one in the flesh [albeit briefly, and under the owner's watchful eye], it's my ultimate prime.
I have a feeling that either M8 prices will soften, and 2010 will be my M-year; or I'll go with a Nikkor clearout switch to either a GF1 or an EP1 and that wonderful lens.
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
LOL. If customers are trading in their SLR outfits for the M9, then they're either very desperate to get the camera at any cost or very sure that their future use is going to be in quite a limited range of subjects. Forget any idea of doing macro or anything that requires a lens much longer than about 130mm!
Rangefinders certainly excel with wide lenses, but they're very limited in other areas, and nowhere near as flexible as a DSLR as an all-round photographic tool.
Rangefinders certainly excel with wide lenses, but they're very limited in other areas, and nowhere near as flexible as a DSLR as an all-round photographic tool.
I'm sure that for the people considering one that will be fine.
My point, that you clearly have failed to grasp, is that they are considerably smaller and lighter than an SLR 'outfit' and if you can live with the imaginary limitations that you are inventing, that simply carrying the kit would be somewhat liberating.
You do not have to agree, but do try to follow the subject.
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm sure that for the people considering one that will be fine.
My point, that you clearly have failed to grasp, is that they are considerably smaller and lighter than an SLR 'outfit' and if you can live with the imaginary limitations that you are inventing, that simply carrying the kit would be somewhat liberating.
You do not have to agree, but do try to follow the subject.
I know they're smaller and lighter than an SLR ouifit - I have a rangefinder system which I use and consider ancillary to my DSLR kit. I'm not 'inventing' the limitations of a rangefinder compared to a DSLR - they're very real. Yes it's great to be carrying a much lighter kit, but it's no replacement for the flexibilty of a DSLR, and the limitations are a very real consideration which needs to be carefull considered when trading in your DSLR outfit and weighed against your anticipated uasge.
I don't think I'm having any problem keeping up with the argument and there was certainly no need for the sarcastic smiley!
Not strictly true as, in my very limited knowledge of the system, they do have a 90mm Macro Elmar M f4 in the range ... :shrug: ... albeit it uses an adapter.
Altohugh I would certainly not be qualified to comment on how it would stack up against most people's traditional idea of the Macro concept...
Cedric said:
I would have thought the Rangefinder system might be eminently suited to the manual type focussing many togs prefer when shooting Macro... :shrug:
I think for anyone considering it that will be a benefit rather than an encumbrance if it is used correctly...
this shows just how much smaller they are.
That will teach me to (thoroughly) read the thread before asking daft questions...
Looked at your linky Voyager, thanks, and found this...
Image courtesy of 'The Online Photographer' as linked by Voyager...
Puts the M9 even more into perspective imhgo... :shrug:
Where did I suggest you were 'inventing' anything?
I do believe you are imagining limitations by choosing to comment on a reported from a photographic retailer though. You are not being forced to exchange any of your overweight legacy dross for a Leica rangfinder, why not simply accept that others are willing to make compromises in order to have a lighter bag to cart around?
So what? Do you really think that these buyers are blind to the way a rangefinder works? That they are blindly shelling out thousands of pounds just to have a Leica? (They might well be - but that is not how it was reported)
There was no need to 'LOL' at the AP article and rant on about the 'desperate' customers and their future 'limited range of subjects' either. :nono:I don't think I'm having any problem keeping up with the argument and there was certainly no need for the sarcastic smiley!
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Erm... you did - read your original post again.
Overweight legacy dross? You can't be serious. Modern DSLR's are legacy compared to a rangefinder???
I entirely accept that that some people will have considered the compromise they're making, I'm equally sure some wont have considered all the implications.
There's only one person ranting here and it certainly isn't me.
Forget about Leica for a moment. SLRs, rangefinders and all other cameras, film and digital, just take photographs. That's it. Some are more flexible than others - SLRs/DSLRs probably rule the roost here - but none of them are perfectly suited to everyone and every situation. You chose what you want, and live with the limitations, or buy another camera if you want to. I know a lot of people who own good DSLR cameras and lenses, but also own a small P & S for parties and so on. It really doesn't matter if someone wants to sell all their gear to buy into another system, buy a new car, invest on the stock exchange or go on holiday/a bender for the next few weeks. This doesn't affect anyone else, and only becomes a point for discussion if they are asking for advice, not when they are stating an intention.
Damn I meant to delete that before posting.
Note to self - proof read more carefully :bang:
Absolutely serious. They certainly are overweight and they are legacy as they are being constructed in the bodies of old SLR's. In the same breath I don't think a Leica is the be all and end all of photography, but I'd rather carry one about than some hulk with a pointless flappy mirror.
In reality I hope that the Leica will be successful and make the manu's think a bit harder about what they are making and why. Personally I think I'll be more likely to actually buy something like a Panasonic GF1 - but would love Nikon to revive the S (an SD5?) or Canon the 7 using Leica fit lenses (or their own) with full frame sensors. Still think it is a shame that Contax won't be making a digital G.
That was not the point.
It is reported that customers are trading dDLR kit for the digital Leica's because they are not as heavy and bulky.
That was the point.
CT
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Let's understand each other. If I picked up any M series Leica I'd be dribbling over every screw and every inch of it, admiring what is without doubt a superb piece of craftsmanship and engineering. I feel pretty much the same about my Contax G2, and I love using it, but it's not a realistic replacement for a DSLR for the photography I mainly want to do. I could forget wiildlife photography for a start, and despite Ven's reference to a macro lens being available for Leica, macro work would be difficult in the extreme, given the parallax problems youi'd get with a rangefinder camera at macro distances.
Using a wide angle lens on the Contax makes a similar lens on a DSLR look like the bottom of a pop bottle in comparison - but that's playing to the exact strengths of a rangefinder camera - you can't avoid acknowledging it's weaknesses in other areas.
The pointless flappy mirror is what enables us to focus on ground glass, and fit any lens we like without parallax problems and seeing precisely what your final image will be.
I hope Leica succeeds too, and going digital is a step they have to make if they want to survive. It's a great pity that no-one is making a digital rangefinder with all the technology that the Contax G2 has - whoever does it will have a winner on their hands for sure.
Using a wide angle lens on the Contax makes a similar lens on a DSLR look like the bottom of a pop bottle in comparison - but that's playing to the exact strengths of a rangefinder camera - you can't avoid acknowledging it's weaknesses in other areas.
The pointless flappy mirror is what enables us to focus on ground glass, and fit any lens we like without parallax problems and seeing precisely what your final image will be.
I hope Leica succeeds too, and going digital is a step they have to make if they want to survive. It's a great pity that no-one is making a digital rangefinder with all the technology that the Contax G2 has - whoever does it will have a winner on their hands for sure.
alexkidd
D.O.N.K.E.Y.
- Messages
- 2,822
- Name
- Alex
- Edit My Images
- No
just to clarify my 2p it's not that i don't like leica so much as i'd expect for the price for them to be exceptional and at the very top end of technology as in as much as they were exceptional film cameras, it just seems like they're relying on the name rather than their prior dedication to excel
i'd definately see the benefits of the size matter but as other people have said comparing slr vs rangefinder has it's pitfalls based on practical usage
i'm impressed with how reasonably nicely this thread has carried on going though, decent photo debate...who'd have thunk it?
i'd definately see the benefits of the size matter but as other people have said comparing slr vs rangefinder has it's pitfalls based on practical usage
i'm impressed with how reasonably nicely this thread has carried on going though, decent photo debate...who'd have thunk it?
- Messages
- 4,347
- Name
- You can call me Sir.
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think you might be missing part of the point. It's not just about technology it's about craftsmanship, you're paying for a highly engineered precision piece of kit not a plastic box which records video and stills.
The same as people who have watch fetishes, my 10 year old casio keeps time well enough but it doesn't stop people spending thousands on something which does the same job and doesn't necessarily do it any better.
I don't look at equipment for equipment's sake - to me a camera is a camera and we have a G1 kit still in regular use here - and am certainly not 'dribbling' about the new Leica. But I like what it represents to me essentially a digital version of a 'manual' camera and not its 'craftsmanship and engineering' which, after all, can be seen in different guises in all sorts of photographic kit from all over the world.
Fine. But it is still entirely irrelevant to my point (that you 'LOL'd' at), people are ditching heavy SLR kit because of the weight of the kit and not because they are you wanting to do 'wildlife' or 'macro' photography with it.
I'm not sure I follow how you think a Zeiss lens is the difference between a rangefinder and an SLR. But there we go.
And being digital sensors are capable of presenting an image on a screen, pointless. Monitors may have some way to go before they are perfect (some mirrors and prisims are not that), but they can get there.
We agree!
alexkidd
D.O.N.K.E.Y.
- Messages
- 2,822
- Name
- Alex
- Edit My Images
- No
i see what you're trying to say but i'm not missing the point i don't think (maybe i am)
an old leica was a highly engineered piece of kit mechanical and whatnot
a new leica is pretty much the same body (nice but not really a mechanical necessity) and technology that isn't on par with the attention to detail they've put into their film bodies
it's like having a rolex without any hands, yeah nice body and lovely watch but not really upto scratch
i suppose i equate technological engineering with mechanical, in the essence of if their film bodies were mechanically excellent why aren't their digital bodies technologically excellent? and still paying a premium?
edit (whilst explaining this thread to my gf i came across what was probably my original point)
for £4850 (jacobs) the technology inside should be exceptional if not definitive and definately flawless (unlike the m8)
an old leica was a highly engineered piece of kit mechanical and whatnot
a new leica is pretty much the same body (nice but not really a mechanical necessity) and technology that isn't on par with the attention to detail they've put into their film bodies
it's like having a rolex without any hands, yeah nice body and lovely watch but not really upto scratch
i suppose i equate technological engineering with mechanical, in the essence of if their film bodies were mechanically excellent why aren't their digital bodies technologically excellent? and still paying a premium?
edit (whilst explaining this thread to my gf i came across what was probably my original point)
for £4850 (jacobs) the technology inside should be exceptional if not definitive and definately flawless (unlike the m8)
In what way?
And how do you know?
An 18MP Kodak KAF-18500 CCD seems pretty 'technologically excellent' to me (although I've not seen what it'll do yet)