Abbas Rafey: Another sony 24 mpIf there are people pay for what they don't know then leica don't bother about red dot, NFC, 4k and so on.With this price you can go to perfect cam with top glass too.
DR, I was referring to DR... all reviews I've read have nothing good to say about pre-M240 DR... you have taken test shots? Wow... that must be the ultimate way to get undeniable results. Let me tell you a common secret: all modern cameras take "very good" photos. If you add a bit of bias, they even look amazing... My GXR takes better photos than M8 and M9, especially in higher ISOs. I've taken test shots, too!
(Cont'd)Let me say, here, that I recently started to get a real interest in digital Leicas; I played with them and had first hand experience, they felt very good in my hands, albeit non-ergonomic and on the bulky/heavy side, and the more I was finding out about them the more I was getting disappointed. No, I was not expecting AF and fancy features, just an IQ worthy of the brand & price, worthy of the lenses, but, alas, besides M240, that's a Leica followers' myth... and I'm certainly not paying $8000 just to obtain an M240 with an IQ matched by every respectable full frame camera today, stripped of even a responsive-enough LV!
You must be joking. Firstly, DxO results are not useless; I regard them higher than a single person's "opinion"; secondly, all reviews I've read mark Leicas' DR (e.g. M9) pretty low compared to the competition (e.g. imaging-resource.com, www.techradar.com). Leica M240 is about where the competition is, nothing spectacular, but the rest are pretty average if not below that. You'd better accept that Leica does not sell technical superiority but a brand, lenses, and social "image". If you choose to discount all opposing views as useless then you might be called "fanatic, in denial".
(Cont'd)The Leica sensors have very mediocre DR. D800 has an impressive 14.4 EV DR (DxO Mark) vs 13.3 of Leica M240 and a poor 11.7 of M9. Resolution-wise, only the M240 can stand tall at the competition. Overall, Leicas are sensor-wise OK but certainly not the stuff of legend...
Atsel: I hope to see a new sensor in the next iteration of Olympus cameras in 2015.
You can say that again..
Dedicated to all of you, who bashed Pentax for releasing the K-01 design, this is your "photographer's design camera". Enjoy the circus abomination...If one replaces the Pentax logo with 'Pantax', or 'Peintax', and sell it from door to door as a Pentax imitation it would make more sense...
I can agree that M240's sensor is about as good as today's ones, to help the conversation, but not M9's.Voigtlander lenses are very good to excellent depending on the model and cost a small fraction of a Leica lens; absolutely worthy.People waited for many weeks to receive a new Pentax K10D, back in 2006/07 when released, I don't think Leica has monopoly on eager buyers. Leica is also a small company and often cannot keep up with demand; Canon sells many times over Leica but is a large company so no trouble supplying.I'm afraid, there is no way around the cost, though...
The sensor is rather small, the body is rather big, the lens is rather dark.
(cont'd)Leica lenses are outstanding performers, no doubt about that. However, other makers' M lenses, including Voigtlander and Zeiss, are close enough, or -sometimes- better, at a fraction of the price, again. There is no reasonable argument, that I've heard, justifying a Leica purchase, based on performance superiority. Granted, if I find a cheap-enough Leica M-E then I might buy one, but this is no argument or proof that others should follow me. After all, I might be a trend-victim, a fashion-victim, a deluded moron who buys vanity and social status. Leica needs to reinvent themselves if they are to continue to command respect from the photographic community.
Chris Niccolls, conducts frequent photo gear reviews for CamerastoreTV on youtube. I won't send you a link; look for him, if you are interested. I have to believe my own eyes from the DPR test scenes and others on the web that Sony RX1/R, A7/R/S, D800, even the lower res 6D, sensors are all superior or at the very least as good to any Leica sensor available at a fraction of the Leica price. If you believe sensors used on Leica cameras are superior, well, no more arguing is warranted, good for you.
Mike FL: How about Rolex releases a special edition by removing the Rolex logo. How is that sound?
Rolex are not expensive compared to other Swiss watch brands, they're just very popular as "expensive" watches.
jon404: Naive of me, but does the price include a lens?
And, can't tell from the photo, but isn't it too big to fit in a man's workshirt pocket? A la XZ-1, RX100, GR, etc...
Well, to give you an idea, the almost identical Leica M240 weights 680g body only, the same weight with 6D DSLR, and has the volume of Fujifilm X-Pro1; i.e., it is large and very heavy considering it is not a DSLR. The price includes a plastic body cap, which one should try not to lose it because it might cost $150 to replace. Yes, it is very "naive" of you to ask such "meaningless" questions about a Leica. Leica customers spend as much as Leica asks them and say "thank you" in return for allowing them to own a "legend". Feel like one?Oh.. I nearly forgot... and they take "amazing", "great", "superb" photos, in the hands of the "right" person.
The M9 sensor, is a CCD, correct; limited to ISO 1000 in 2014 at $5500 (used)? Sure... ask elsewhere for donations, though.The M240's sensor is inferior to RX1, for example. Not by much, granted, but when you pay an arm and a leg this is not acceptable. I'm not planning to waste thousands of dollars to determine the obvious. I'd prefer to trust, for example, Chris Niccols, who spend a great deal of time with most Leicas. This is real-life testing, not specs comparisons. As for the great Leica lenses, the difference in quality is not justified by the insane difference in price. I'm sure, the Voigtlander 35/2.5 is not that far for the Leica 35/2.5, in real life shooting. What about the shooting lag when using M240 in LV? What sort of street photography can do you? I think I'm wasting my time here... Whoever wants to waste $K feel free, and be happy with a dinosaur... If I find an M-E at $2K, sure, I'll probably get one but I'll have to be on drugs to spend $6K on it.
M-9's sensor was mediocre for the price, compared to other full frame sensor on the market. M-240 has a CMOS, chich much improved at high ISO,but, again, inferior to current full frame sensors on the market. For that price I expect the best; anything else is mocking me as a customer. Leica is far for the best.
Brendon1000, don't have to try hard to prove the self evident. Leica sensors are mediocre to OK. CMOSIS, osmosis, just "Leica"-tech... not the strong point of these cameras. Hopefully, one day, they will wake up in Germany, under a visionary CEO, see Cosina's, and start making cameras for real.
SirSeth: Looks like a nice camera. I'd like to try one. The cost is more than my net financial worth, but heck, I'll take two. ;) Do they make one with a Brazillion Rosewood grip? This sure makes the Pentax 645Z look like a deal to me if I were really wanting medium format.
The 645Z is more than a great deal. It's a technologically amazing camera with superb egonomics, excellent construction quality and weather resistance, and what a price!!
PowerG9atBlackForest: Omitting the icon (other companies desperately do want one) is some form of self-destruction, another sign of schizophrenia at Leica?
I think that Leica has offered nothing pioneering in the digital era to deserve the appreciation it has been enjoying since the film era. On the contrary, besides their greatly performing lenses, there is no performance superiority to match the Leica name today. If Leica had purchased Foveon, for example, and put their asses down to improve and make it a bug-free, solid technology, I would certainly applaud it as a continuation of a great legacy. Is there any Leica pioneering, innovative image algorithm that I missed? Unfortunately, what they did, instead, is adding sapphire glass covers on obsolete-technology LCD screens, making limited edition items, polish pieces of aluminium for 45', or securing exclusivity of a rather mediocre full frame sensor made by some obscure company (in 2014), and generally act like pompous asses in a continent that has lost the digital camera race by the Japanese.
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 :-)
If I wanted to buy a beautifully built RF film camera with character and style I still would not buy a Leica, but a Zeiss Ikon. It's cheaper and better in almost all respects. I have an SW but it's not an RF. I like what Cosina has done with the Voigtlander/Zeiss brands and admire it. Leica is not commendable in the way of treating their customers (i.e., like a herd or rich idiots with a neurotic fashion-victim tick). Zeiss products are expensive too, but not insanely like Leica's, and still command a cult status in the market. How says that a lower price comes at the expense of either quality or status?
Aaron801: I look at it this way: a large part of the appeal of this camera is the level of quality, right? That extra quality is presumably something that's attractive because it means that the camera will outlast an ordinary digital camera. But... since it's digital (and not film camera) and since the tech for these things is evolving so quickly that rather than being some sort of heirloom that your kids and grand kids are likely to keep and use, it's much more likely that this thing will be a doorstop in 8 years time (and probably less than that). The extra level of quality that this thing is made with is then really not all that useful, no? I'm not advocating buying cheap, disposable level gear, but it makes more sense to me to buy digital cameras that are well made enough to last just past the point where you might upgrade them but not decades into the future. As an investment, it seems about as smart as it would have been to buy some sort of diamond encrusted, platinum cased LED watch...
@Wanderer23 That's my point, too. An Ikon SW is very expensive but I don't try to convince people, like JDThomas does (look at his numerous Leica posts, plastered all over the Forum), of how "great" an Ikon SW is, because it is not, and -even less- swear at people who disagree. He seems to be wearing blinkers... I already stated that digital Leicas take very nice photos, technically, but not as good as others, much less expensive brands. Photographers love to use other cameras exaclty the same personal way others love to use digital Leicas. We are talking about a *product* here. So, let's relax and take a chill pill.
Forums are places to discuss and argue. Get over it, JDThomas.I think the "flying fwck", "knucklehead", and "no real experience" are arguments enough for me to make my point of how stupid a Leica user can get. I bow to your photographic genius...