luxborealis: My initial reaction was "What a rip-off" $224 more for the tripod collar/mount - that make the total package over $1600. To compare it to the $2100 ƒ2.8 - the extra $400-500 is worth it.
If they were to just make the tripod collar included in the lens, economies of scale would drop the price well below $200. It tells you that in this case, Nikon is more about marketing and price points than photography. I know they are in competition with Canon, but really, this is petty.
HOWEVER - The lack of a collar is also a general comment on photography. Fewer photographers these days are willing to go the extra mile by using a tripod. By far, most who buy this lens will never use a tripod or monopod. Are VR and higher really that good that a tripod is no longer needed? For some work, yes. For most, photography is a weekend hobby that doesn't warrant the additional quality possible with a tripod - so why bother including a tripod collar when most won't really need it.
Canon 70-200mm F4L and quit flimsy 350D combo worked fine on tripod for me. Handling of lens can be slightly improved by using the collar, but it is definitely not crucial.
P.S. 3rd party collars will become available with time. You can get one for Canon for as little as $15
Amazing quality, portability, speed, and price make Canon 70-200 F4L an amazing lens. F2.8 quality at lighter package for a fraction of the price- how better does it get? This lens is good enough argument to choose Canon rather than any other system, or, rather, was.
I believe Nikon 70-200 F4 will be just as good. If I was a Nikon guy, today would be a great celebration. Congratulations and happy shooting!
thanda: If this camera gives me prints that are more than anything, I do not mind spending just 8k for a camera and some more for a lens. But the question is, Can I able to shoot and print that are more than anything? I do not know...
If you look for the most amazing resolution to print, the film is the way to go. A $200 6x6 camera like Bronica with an OK film directly printed to paper (no scanning) will smoke Leica big time. Very BIG TIME.
A smaller film camera like a proper SLR (think Olympus OM + 50mm) will be quite close, good modern film camera (Voigtlander + 40mm 1.4) will be extremely close (in both cases the limiting step is the lens).
Oh, and these pictures will have more "cool" spirit than Leica. Really.
It's a nice camera with an amazing resolution, nice optics and a very special feel to it. Well, the price, however, is funny indeed. A voigtlander bessa with proper lens and good film will match the performance for a 1/10th of price, not to mention DSLRs.
However, the photography is not about the resolution or detail captured. But then the only improvement over M9 is resolution.........
Biowizard: I have long beein waiting for a decent camera to be produced with a bare, monochrome sensor. For B&W work, especially when using deep filters (eg red to darken blue skies and accentuate clouds, or blue to do the opposite), such a camera will produce images of 4 times the resolution of images produced by a Bayer-filter camera. Plus, when shooting with pale or no filters at all, such a sensor will be between 3-8 times as sensitive to incoming light.
For those who prefer monochrome work, a camera like this is long overdue. Those hereabout who are sneering at the concept, are simply showing complete ignorance about how their "colour" megapixels are actually generated: by blurring, mixing and and interpolating. Not by recording.
Shame I can't affort the asking price ... but maybe Olympus will come out with something similar now that the precedent has been set.
Well, let's wait and see how it performs in real life, though I sure hope you are right. More than 90% of pictures I take end up as B/W :)
JacquesBalthazar: I have been using Ms since the early Nineties (M6), and l lusted for one for 15 years before that. It was really "outdated" at the time. Objectively, the Leica M was seen by many as "outdated" already in the Sixties... So you either look at it that way, or accept that the M's concept is in a place and time of its own. I accept that. The big problem with the M these days is not its "outdated" core design, as that design (optical rangefinder, mechanical precision, modus operandi) is precisely why people love it, but the big problem is the sensor.
In the film days, the M's excellence was upgraded every time Kodak, Fuji or Agfa came out with a new film. From the Tri-X of the early days to the Velvia or Portra of the end of the millennium, things just got better and better, even if you were using a 1956 M3.
In this century, the M's superb construction and wonderful mechano-optical engineering is plain overkill in view of sensor obsolescence.
Even worse, why pay so much for camera with a sensor that is terribly outdated? A 2nd hand DSLR for $300 will outperform it. I am not a technology and shoot a 7year old design camera, but this is just atrocious.
johnparas11zenfoliodotcom: So i want to have this leica... And reading the comments of the users... Can i just turn off the Af, and not use the video of my DSLR, ..put the dslr on manual mode...
Say my nikon d90 or d40x... Put a 20 or 24 0r 50mm prime...
Will i also, stop and take time to focus on what i am photographing?
Will such exercise give me the same feeling? Hhhmm...
Will cutting off the roof of your Golf give the same feeling as driving Lambo convertible? Hhmmmm
DSLRs are terribly useless for manual focus because of terrible viewfinders (tiny and dark- top of the line 1Ds has a worse viewfinder than £10 Olympus OM 10. Try it!). RF is even more different.
Bevardis: Rangefinder system is outdated? Please, with some training you can be just as fast as any SLR lens, if not even faster. And also >100% viewfinder is such an amazing thing.
Taking pictures with RFs is nothing like SLR in many respects- not better, not worse, but just so different.
It is such a shame no affordable camera exists.... Even at $9000 M9 body offers inferior performance to entry level DSLRs for $500. Solution- do the film and dream of Canonet D :)
The thing about RFs, is that they are not sports cameras and DSLRs are so much better for this. As I've said, Leica (and RFs in general) are nothing like SLRs and shouldn't be used like that.
Now think about street-sort photography. You walk for 1h in city and suddenly see something really good. In such cases MF is sooo much better. From personal experience it is much easier to capture such moment with Oly OM 10 + 50mm 1.8 MF SLR than with 5D + 24-70. Not to mention nicer DoF and less intrusive size. Or, even better, with Voigtlander RF (Leica is just tooooo overpriced).
However, if you decide to use RF like a SLR, you will inevitably be left dissapointed.
@obaliy, I think it is photographer's problem, not camera's. The pictures do not leverage on the main advantages of RF and look like quite standard SLR (snapshots)
Rangefinder system is outdated? Please, with some training you can be just as fast as any SLR lens, if not even faster. And also >100% viewfinder is such an amazing thing.