Review conclusion states: "Good photo quality, if you don't look too closely". I'm a little confused by this. I thought looking closely was how DPR determined photo quality? How does one determine what "good photo quality without looking closely" is?
donthasslethehoff: The hatred being thrown at Leica on this thread is profound. They are a for profit company. They apparently know who their customer is. They are a small but profitable company competing with much larger companies, and have found a niche that works for them.
Those who quip that this story should not be posted on DPR, kindly note that DP stands for 'digital photography' and that this is a digital camera.
Those who complain that it's too expensive will simply not buy it, but saying Leica is bad or evil or hates poor people or whatever else you're saying.... well, you're not thinking. This is a supply/demand thing and if your customer will pay $40k or $50k for a camera, you'd be a fool to not sell it to them.
Leica is not a mass producer. You ought not think of them that way. They are Tiffany, Ferrari, Gucci, etc.
I think the hatred you refer to is largely the result of the situation the world finds it in, and Leica is bearing the brunt of the negative feelings being felt by those who are frustrated that individuals exist who are wealthy enough to afford such extravagances. Inequality will always produce such bitterness.
Personally, I feel no grievance over the existence and price of this camera, but I do feel that the perceived relative value of lesser Leicas on the second hand market will be affected, acting against normal devaluation forces on used M9s and M8s. I have previously owned an M8, but I'm not sure I will ever be able to afford an M9.
What I do find joke-worthy is that a $50k camera should only include a 230k dot LCD from c.2005. But how many of these cameras will be actually used?
Your brand analogy might be accurate today, but perhaps people are protesting over how it has evolved. A Leica in the M3/M2/M4 era was not a luxury good. It was just an expensive, well-built camera.
It may only be an incremental improvement over the GRD-III, but I think Ricoh are to be applauded for their efforts. Make no mistake, this is a classy compact. The GR series from the film era won many fans, and it says a lot about Ricoh's philosophy that they are willing to cater so faithfully to those photographers.
I won't make any claims about cause/effect, but there seems to be a correlation between 'shooting with a GRD-III' and 'making photographs I like the look of on 500px'.