Actually, it is the Leica bodies as well and they do not suck. They are built like a bank vault which it not necessarily appealing to the average amateur, but very necessary to the professional and even the amateur that wants a long lasting camera body that can take a beating.
I bought my first film Leica many years ago and then succumbed to the SLR's. A few years back, I bought a factory refurbished demonstrator M8. Leica's are intuitive uncomplicated cameras that simply take superb images. No deep menus. As you remarked, the glass is unparalleled and combined with the Leica sensor and firmware gives the Leica that certain look which combines IQ with contrast, color and texture that is different from the competition. Not necessarily better. It is just different.
I've found that owning a Leica is a long term thing and in the long run, I doubt if it is any more expensive than owning a Canon/Nikon replaced every 3 to 4 years by owners that must have the latest bells & whistles.
THE DREADED SENSOR CORROSION ISSUE?I went to LensRental's article which had several images of the problem.It looks suspiciously like the Leica M9 sensor corrosion problem with the tell-tale "fisheye" spots. Leica replaced my sensor at no charge as an act of good customer relations. I also had the same issue on the sensor of my old Nikon D70s, although no one recognized it at the time as glass corrosion (yes, glass corrodes).
I wonder if Canon will be as responsible when it comes to customer support.
What many of you fail to realize is that Leica has no aspirations to be a cookie cutter camera giant. Canon, Nikon (at least some), Olympus and Fuji all make very fine cameras. Leica has never made cameras for the masses. The very first Leica I was unlike any other camera in the world and was predicted to be an absolute failures. So here we are 90 years later and the Leitz/ Leica camera company is still going strong in its own small way. It has a loyal customer base.
Leica knows it's market. Customer relations are excellent, IMO. It is an excellent camera and a unique shooting experience providing superb images again and again.
Will I buy a M240? No. The M9-P satisfies me very much. It is built to last and I love the fact that its functions are basic, and the images are tack sharp with the right balance of contrast and color; that illusive Leica look that non-Leica people believe is a fiction. Believe me, it is very real. The M240 and 240 Monochrom appear to be worthy successors.
First, colored cameras from Pentax, followed by various color schemes from all the rest, culminating in a red, white and blue homage to the French by Leica to add to their olive drab Safari models.Now comes the ultimate insult to our intelligence. A very bad idea by Hassleblad is copied by Fotodiox, an otherwise sensible accessory company to turn a slick and pocketable camera by Sony into a hopeless lump guaranteed to rip the seams out of any pants pocket you are silly enough to attempt to put it in.
Attention Fotodiox: the Sony RX100 doesn't have a grip for a reason. It's pocketable unlike most of its competition. I don't own one, but it's small profile has me very tempted; but without the lovely looking cherry wood lump.
My challenge image of Rustic Cottage in Iceland was DQ';d for not including information about the HDR used. I was invited to respond with the required information. I attempted to do so by clicking on the challenge administrator's link provided and was told that I am not authorized. Since the challenge is now closed I cannot access the challenge to add the information.
For general information this is the response I intended to make supplying the requested information.
Reply to Challenge Administrator
Re.: Rustic-HDR ChallengeThe challenge link is no longer open for access. I am unable to comply with your request. But for your information, I used HDR Efex Pro II and applied minimal HDR manipulation in as much as I believe that excessive use of HDR manipulation would have spoiled the image.
You may re-enter this image as my entrant with this information, or don't as you please, in as much as I am not able to access this challenge, it being posted as full 100 out of 100.
Re.: TRANSFER SPEED:, Their website only says class 10 speed transfer rate.I've been packing an iPad or a Macbook Air with my camera equipment and use only class 10 cards, so aside from the convenience of not carrying extra hardware, I'm not sure there is an advantage to the wireless route for me, at least.
With Ricoh dropping its excellent but very different GXR, it looks like the Ricoh brand will be relegated to quality point and shoots and the more sophisticatedequipment will carry the Pentax brand.
Jim Evidon: I usually avoid phone reviews on what used to be a digital camera site, but I decided to take a look at the review.
What I find is that digital phones are now where digital cameras were 10 years ago. As far as I can see, the only use for digital cameras in hand held phones is (1) use it if you need to catch the freeway accident you pass when your real camera isn't handy; i.e, it's probably better than nothing...a debatable point point. And/or (2) it's good for those people that really could care less about photography and like to engage in narcissistic exercises like taking selfies. Blech!
My 3 mgpxl.Nikon Coolpix 995, which I used nearly fifteen years ago, also produced amazing images and I got excellent 8x10's out of it. It was state of the art for consumer level cameras. But today, I use it as a paperweight. Yes I still have it out because I can't even give it away. Photography has moved well beyond it's capabilities and I can't understand cell phone users who marvel over the IQ of their phone cameras that are not serious tools but only a convenience add on for people who don't want to use a camera. The cheapest pocket sized point that costs 1/3 or less than an iPhone or Galaxy can shoot rings around them.
I usually avoid phone reviews on what used to be a digital camera site, but I decided to take a look at the review.
This is what happens when the bottom line becomes the only reason to operate a business. When you have the company run by the bean counters rather than by the product oriented management as was the case at one time, then the only thing that matters is increasing profit margin over what it was in the last quarter.
This is the demand of the investment community aka Wall Street. Theinvestment gurus on Wall Street make a prediction as to what the next quarter's profits and dividends will be. If the company doesn't make that mark even though it may have increased it's profits over the last quarter, the company is deemed to have failed and the stock price drops. This is what happens when the decisions are made by the street instead of the company's product division.
It is all going down hill fast and it seems to make no difference what product the company makes as long as it can cut costs to artificially inflate the profit line to keep the investors happy.
Welcome to the new reality.
I have the prior model which is not Di III. I'm not sure what the difference is. Can someone in the know please respond?
I find the lens perfect for general traveling. It seems sharp and responsive although I find the contrast and color rendition of the Olympus lenses to be superior as they should, considering the price. The Tamron lens is a good value, however.
And this was the camera that DP Review did flip-flops over only a week or so ago. Nikon D750, "the Gold Standard" indeed!
At least the D600 had an excuse; sloppy assembly procedures. This one looks like a major design flaw. And Canons latest and greatest (?) suffers from the same bad designing.
Maybe if the big four camera companies slowed down and stopped trying to come out with new useless gimmicks every six months and concentrated on making quality cameras, they might avoid such embarrassments.
I gave up on Nikon and the other of the big four a couple of years ago. My money now goes to Fuji, Olympus and Leica; all camera companies that build honest to God real cameras and superior lenses rather than the newest in gimmick machines that will be obsolete with the next model 6 months from now.
To unhoh07:Good for you and very well put. I got my M9 back from Leica and it looks like a brand new camera.
Frankly, I've given up responding to the Leica haters. They complain about Leica high prices. But Leica cameras are all metal assembled with very close tolerancesand finished beautifully. It is a camera that is built with the reasonable expectation that it should last as long as the photographer using it.
Other cameras are priced within the buyers limits. That buyer will no doubt go back into the marketplace in 1 to 3 years in order to but the latest innovations. But do those innovations create a better image? Probably not. Our Leica's are built like a tank and are free of all the trendy garbage that in the final analysis contributes nothing to the final image.
You will never convince the critics otherwise. They no not want to be confused with facts.There is a saying that seems appropriate. "Never teach a pig to sing. It is a waste of time and it annoys the pig".
just someone: Different approach than Nikon in handling faulty camera models. Haha
Simon,Turn around time for my M9 conversion to M9P specs. and with a new sensor was 4 weeks; the delay over the 3 week promise date was caused by the sensor back order. I now have my M9P camera in my hands and it is gorgeous, in so far as any camera can be gorgeous.
Mike FL: It is interesting to see/know Leica has so many old stock CCD sensors for replacing ALL of Leica M9 / M9-P / M Monochrom / M-E sensors for life which means that one camera could need many sensors.
Actually, Leica did not have "so many old stock CCD sensors", as you put it. Wait time for sensors was running into many months.The fact that they now have a large supply means to me that a more recent order has been filled and they are now available.According to my phone call to Leica, the replacement sensors came in this week and my camera has now been shipped. total turn around time for me was less than a month including the wait for the sensor.
GodSpeaks: Interesting. I had something similar happen to the sensor on my Kodak SLR/n. On the images, it looked similar to the photo on the left above.Fortumately it wasn't a problem until the camera was 5 years old, by which time it was also showing other signs of creeping failuritis.
I also experienced the white spot phenomenon on my Nikon DSLR, and in less than 5 years. On the average, the problem seems to take about 3 years or so on the M9. It seems to be related to humidity according to some sources. Given that both my old Nikon and Leica sourced their CCD sensors from Kodak, the problem can likely be traced to that company and now it's successor KPE. Several other companies also used the Kodak sensor known for its superior performance before CMOS sensors came on the market.I wonder if owners of those other cameras are also having the white spot issue.
To SimonWilder:I suggest that you read the facts before making absurd statements. Leica encourages dust removal and even has recommended using an Arctic Butterfly. I have done so as often as needed; fortunately no more often that other cameras. For spots that cannot be easily removed by convention brush/air methods, they recommend, rather than do it yourself chemical swabbing, to send the camera to Leica for professional cleaning. Turn around time is no different than most professionals; about three weeks.Furthermore, while pro shops will charge for the service, Leica does it at no cost to the camera user.
Miron09: Leica owners I happened to know since the Seventies had many technical grievances, like wrongly adjusted meters, shoddy craftsmanship, etc. Leica never recovered from the Leica M5 mishap. The lenses sometimes offer exceptional quality, but the bodies were put together with second rate parts, in Portugal, Malaysia, etc.
The only Leica cameras that are not manufactured in Germany by Leica are those Leica branded Panasonic consumer grade cameras.The cameras are near identical except for the image processing firmware and software which is Leica specific. I have seen some information that indicates that the Leica branded Panasonic cameras are subject to closer inspection, but that may be only a rumor.
As for the M, X and T model cameras, if the camera says 'Made in Germany', it was.
Found this morning on the Leica website:
Additionally, I have seen a letter address to the Leica Users Forum(http://www.l-camera-forum.com) from Leica Product Management extendingsensor replacements to those already replaced that may have recurring corrosion as well as a refund to those customers who paid for replacement in the past.
I suspect that those of you who speculate that Leica will leave their customers in the lurch have been stung by past behavior of other camera companies; more likely those considered the big four. I have yet to see any such comments from people who actually own Leica manufactured cameras.
But I do expect to see continuing back biting by those who have nothing better to do than vent your spleen without any first hand knowledge of the subject you seem to hate . So pour it on if it makes you feel important.
Mike FL: I have great respect to Leica's optical, but the FF sensor M9 is really noisy @ISO.1600 as seen from the DP sample. Again, do not forget it is from a FF sensor camera while you check the sample:
Any thought? Disagree?
The M9 sensor is a CCD rather than the low noise current technology CMOS sensors. The main reason is that CCD's run hotter than CMOS and produce more noise. A few years ago when every camera had a CCD, we all thought ISO1600 was great.
Now the CCD sensor in the M9 is probably the best one ever madeexcept for the large format sensor they use in the Leica S2.
The new Leica M's now use a CMOS sensor capable of stratospheric ISO numbers in the multiple 1000's. Having said that, there are users who swear that the M9 up to ISO 800 or so makes a superior image. Not ever using a new M, I cannot comment except to say that my M9 does produce spectacular images. ButI only shoot at ISO 1200 or 1600 if I really need to. Frankly, shooting with an f2.0 or 1.4 lens really makes higher ISO's rarely necessary.