photolando: I've been shooting jpegs most of my pro career. I have never once had a problem with "jpeg artifacts". I've sold 24"x30" and have seen larger made from jpegs. They look fantastic. And yes, I shoot raw as well if I feel it is needed so lets not start that stupid amateur argument.
Maybe this is aimed at pixel peepers because I've yet to hear anyone really complain all that much about the look of a jpeg image. Ever!
" it's not like the camera manufacturers don't know how to improve their jpg output. " Exactly.... The poor M9 jpegs have been followed by better ones from the later M240. Why didn't they get it right first time?
" quite a few cameras... show lots of artifacts or other problems leading to sub-par image quality. Examples are the Leica M9 (lousy jpg but very good dng output)"I save my Leica files as 18mb DNGs which make good sharp JPEGs via P'shop Elements able to withstand a lot of enlargement. If you were to complain about dust specks inside the camera or noise in dark corners of the image I would certainly agree but those are other grouses.Phil
The new GM5 might just be a better camera as it has interchangeable lenses and the size is comparable. The drawback of interchangeable lenses is that you have to carry them with you to use them! The whole outfit would be much heavier than the LX100. I use a compact coupled rangefinder camera with various lenses and the outfit bag is heavy, no zoom lenses included.Phil
Sir Nick of High Point: Sweet! Part of me wishes that they would delete the LCD screen. The whole Leica philosophy involves keeping your head up and eyes peeled, not buried in a useless tiny screen.
The screen isn't quite useless. I can tell whether I have clipped off any vital subject corners. One of the cheap compact cameras has a five inch screen, which would be a great help.Philip
I have been using a secondhand M9 for a couple of years as a lighter alternative to a professional slr. It's easy to learn (I bought a book but don't need it often). At the widest end I use cheapish Voigtlander lenses and my Leica 28mm, 40mm and 90mm are all twenty to forty years old because that's all I can afford. The results are very good. It lacks a zoom lens, autofocus, + a built-in flash as found in the cheapest compact cameras . If I want to take sports pictures, motor racing, flower close-ups etc I use a different camera. I use the Leica because I like it. I taped over the red Leica ikon but a few knowledgeable people know what it is. The value of the outfit keeps me careful where I go.Philip
Pablom: The red dot is the reason for 90% of Leica sales.
No, it's the quality of the pictures and the durable build of the cameras and lenses which are the reasons.Phil
rogerstpierre: For the price, Leica should provide a free stick-on Red Dot in the box ;-)
I cover up the red dot on my M9 to make the camera less eye-catching.Phil
shigzeo: I wonder if I am alone in wanting a digital M that is as light/thin as an M2, or better yet, a really stripped down one the size/shape of the CL.
What essentials would you like in a stripped down digital Leica? What would you delete from an M240? I hope you aren't going to delete live view. Isn't the new Leica T suitable (value for money apart). In short, no it isn't.Phil
onlooker: I wish Canon, Nikon, or Pentax would make a rangefinder like this, with lenses to go with it. Then mere mortals could buy it.
I am not sure where the hatred for the M comes from. It's a fabulous, simple camera, with fabulous, simple lenses. I can't afford them, but it doesn't make them bad.
I use old Leica film camera lenses on an M9 and the results are good and sharp, unless I forget to focus, or shake the camera. The only images that need heavy corrections (that I encounter) are by Voigtlander 12mm,15mm & 21mm whose image corners are vignetted and discoloured (corrected readily in Cornerfix then Photoshop.)Phil
photoshack: I enjoyed shooting several weeks with the M and some fabulous lenses (about $14k of camera). It was a joyful experience, like drinking someone's 40 year old scotch with no penalty. The images are beautiful...but not worth the $$. The durability and output is all that matters to me and my Canon package was equal and superior in many ways to the Leica gear.
So...dot or no dot...I don't go for jewelry, rolexes, gucci or any of that status stuff. I can probably afford to spend it on those things...but they are not valuable to me so I don't. If someone gave me this Leica, I'd probably sell it and buy something that I can really use or go on a vacation with the proceeds :-)
I use the M9 on walks round places of interest every week or two and on holidays in the UK but I won't take it overseas. The outfit weighs a lot which comes out of my baggage limit and I don't care for the risk. I take a small cheao camera overseas and this works for me.What's this about cats and phones?Phili
lucinio: Maybe it was rational to invest a such amount of money to buy a camera n the old time of films.. Even to day you could use a 20-30 years old mechanic film camera without problems. But in digital age, when a camera became obsolete in 2 - 3 years ?
My used M9 cost about as much as a used D4 slr, but the only cheap Leica lenses are old ones, which are not as sharp as their modern ones (see Erwin Puts Leica Compendium for more information). I use Voigtlander ultrawide lenses as Leica ones (if there are such) would be prohibitive. My sharpest lenses are a 28mm Elmarit and a 90mm f2.5 Summarit, both 20 years old but very good.They cost me £1200 together. Is that such a lot for prime lenses?Philip
I certainly wouldn't take a Leica M on holidays because things get stolen if you are not very watchful. I take a Panasonic G5 M4/3 on holiday and the results are quite sharp but don't stand as much enlargement as a full-frame image would. The zoom isn't very wide, however and the Leica can use lenses as wide as a Voigtlander 12mm (full-frame).Phil
Obsolete? My M9 takes pictures that are excellent sometimes....The only trouble I have is a possible talent-shortage.No camera does everything perfectly. The Leica is good for most things.If I want to photograph a flower with a macro lens I use my old Nikon slrs. If I want video my Panasonic G5 will do it. The nice thing about the G5 is the viewfinder shows you if the camera is not held straight; pity the M9 doesn't. It doesn't have zoom lenses either. If I could get a full-format slr the size and quality of a Leica M240 I might be tempted.Phil
PowerG9atBlackForest: Omitting the icon (other companies desperately do want one) is some form of self-destruction, another sign of schizophrenia at Leica?
I covered up the red logo on my M9 with black tape to make it less eye-catching; I don't want people to be aware my outfit is worth stealing.Phil
Guy Parsons: Good to see people willing to do things the hard way.
Wet plate was the only way in the olde days and an "extreme" photographic collection of wet plates from then is the Holtermann Collection held in Sydney, Australia, http://blog.sl.nsw.gov.au/holtermann/ for info and links.
Amazing things done back then, his largest wet plates measured an amazing 1,36 x 0,95 metres, yes, metres. That's about 53 x 37 inches.
The detail in those old Holtermann plates is superb, basically grainless and limited only by the lenses of the day. Get into zoom mode in a few of them and see the detail.
The magnification required to make a 20x16 enlargement from a 10x8 negative is times two; this would yield only a tiny print from a modern point and shoot. The definition of plate camera lenses did not need to be anything special but they did have a wide field that covered more than the negative in use to allow the rising front and other movements to be used, provided the lenses were stopped down to f22 from their maximum of f5.6 or f8. It was a slow and deliberate process. It was exactly that when I used a 5x4 Linhof with colour transparency film, which had to be sent round to the processing lab to be developed. Only then did I find out if the shot was a good one. I gave up using my 120 rollfim Plaubel because the outfit weighed too much for comfort. Now I use an M9.Philip
Black Box: Nothing in these photos is worth any attention. And nothing that can't be added in Photoshop. He uses an ancient process? So? Does he also use an old bottle of Bayer Heroin to treat his kids' cold? Or rides a horse to work? Yet another mediocre photographer trying to get some attention by "standing out from the crowd".
LEARN TO PHOTOGRAPH, DAMNIT!
"Wet collodion doesn't grab me. I find the results quite depressing in mood and feel. BUT, I totally respect the people who do it because it takes time and skill."I entirely agree. Using a bellows camera with B+W rollfilm is another slow out of date process, if more readily available and the results sharper defined. I think digital is better. I use Photoshop to address its limitations. Is that Faux?Philip
AngryCorgi: Given that f/5.6 on a 20MP 1" sensor introduces diffraction-based softening, am I correct to assume the excuse for the RX100 mk1 holds true here too?: "This was the best compromise FL/aperture we could use."
But is it a given? Is diffraction at f5.6 the same at all focal lengths of the zoom?Philip
justmeMN: DPR: "Each of these cameras is smaller too, which is a major criteria we hear from camera shoppers again and again."
Again and again, camera shoppers in North America and Europe choose DSLRs, rather than smaller (poor selling) mirrorless cameras. Most people aren't infatuated by a camera's small size. Other factors are much more important. Nikon estimates that they are going to sell 6 million DSLRs this fiscal year.
"For most people once a camera wont fit in a pocket the size basically becomes irrelevant."I used Nikon equipment for 30+ years and was intending to buy a used D3 until I tried one in Calumet. I was put off by the weight of the camera and three lenses so I bought a used M9, which is much easier to carry with extras. It has its drawbacks of course but it's easy to use and the results are sharp (if I remember to focus!).Phil
Timmbits: Does it really cost hundred$ of dollar$ to add a tilting screen and to unblock bracketing in it's internal software? Meet the D5300. This is why I no longer buy Nikon. You KNOW the D5300 could sell for the price of a D3300, because they have identical production costs, but you can't have it for that price. Pay a couple hundred extra if you want the $1 in extra hardware and the unlocking of the software.
Value for money? When I saw the prices for Leica T with its Japanese lenses I thought it was a rip-off. A used Leica M9 makes much more sense. Not that I have handled the T. The price of M240s seem to be falling. Now there's a camera.............Philip
Jogger: Its better to shoot RGB and manipulate the colour components to render teh final BW image.. similar to how you had to use colour filters in the past. The RGB array is also better for dynamic range.. particularly preserving highlights.
Why spend heavy money on a digital camera that can't produce colour images. Black and white is so last century. If you need monochrome it can be found in PhotoShop. I don't need it............. My M9 suffices.Phil