I wouldn't say that it's a guaranteed win for Leica on the glass - the DP has generally had decent glass, and I compared M9-P with Merrill at the relevant point. However, the Sigma is F2.8 and APS-C, so depth of field control etc... Have both. It's not like the quattro is that expensive for the quality it delivers.

nawknai:

I see people driving Ferraris with some frequency. And I see them parked on the street.

Never seen anyone driving an F50 though, or a Koenigsegg or a Veyron--though that last I've seen in a showroom.

HowaboutRaw: I'm sure we'd both agree that a degree of common sense is essential if you want to visit many of the more interesting locations that lend themselves to good photography. My original point was simply that a camera like this is realistically outside my price range and I don't think that owning a digital Leica, - athough I have owned a couple of 35mm Leicas in the past, is worth considering. Nice as this camera undoubtedly is, it won't make me more creative and I would personally be very concerned about walking around many city areas in the US, Europe, or anywhere else with $8000 hanging around my neck and goodness knows how much more value stuff like lenses and maybe a second body in my bag. Not for me I'm afraid, even if the camera in question was half the quoted price!

Venture-

Right, I'm not terribly excited about this camera and think it expensive for what it does.

However I really like the results from good Leica M lenses and very much like shooting with a range finder. And this body is the only digital option right now, expect maybe an M9.

To me this is a pretty discreet $8000, unlike say a Nikon $6500 D4s.

I had my pocket picket by a swarm of kids in Italy, so yeah crime does happen. (And I knew what they were attempting.)

I see this camera, well the older version, in public with some frequency in my US city. And almost no one takes note.

HowaboutRaw-

I'm not going to add anything more. I honestly have nothing against Leicas apart from the price!

There ARE places where people DO drive the Veyron on the street. I saw one going up Alton road in South Beach one day. It was all chrome. I didn't know they made paint like that. I'm sure you would find them on the streets in Monaco, Dubai, and possibly Tokyo too.

Scottelly:

As I said, I've seen Veyrons in a show room in my city, but I suspect they're being driven in certain suburbs and certain wealthy townships. I imagine they're used for special events within the city sometimes--you know to show off what you're arriving at the party in.

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

Ah, the R-D1... I never should have sold mine. Now THAT was a camera series that truly deserved to be continued.

If they were to revive the R-D1 now, I feel it would sell like crazy.

PA:

At about $2200 for the body with a 16MP APSC CMOS sensor, right you are.

But Epson isn't paying attention.

Could even get Leica to offer say a $3500 FF body.

No Screen! I called it!

http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/16/6182703/leica-m-edition-60-announced

You've obviously never used LCD, especially not one with good tap to focus. Your eyes are MUCH more buried in the camera when using a viewfinder.

chj,

"tap to focus", on an M body? Um.

Then even with EVFs and AF, a camera is more stable held to your eye than out in front of you manipulating an LCD screen control.

probably is more stable, but your original comment is about "keeping your head up and eyes peeled", which is much easier with a good touchscreen

chj,

"eyes peeled"?

It is interesting to note that in another context, placing value on what others think is considered greatness...

I got your point and I do not care about what either of you think about others' thoughs but I thought it was intellectually interesting how context changed meaning. And I thought you'd like to think about this.

oh well... red pill please...

I was referring to the context of caring about what others think of your expensive camera.

Besides, this camera doesn't have a red pill. :-)

LOL. Don't worry, my life is pretty good.

"The majority of photographers" - just who exactly are you referring to here? Professional wedding photographers? Real estate photographers? These types of photographers are outnumbered by a large margin by society in general. In this day and age, practically every person with a smart phone has become a 'photographer'. Take a look at the flickr camera popularity stats and the iphone and smartphones have been leading for years by a large margin. So, when we look at it like that, then the majority of 'photographers' DO in fact use smartphones. Just walk down any street any where in the world, I can almost guarantee you will see more people shooting on their phones than anything else. Smartphone apps useless? If they were useless then images taken with them wouldn't be gracing the covers of magazines like TIME and others. Perhaps you haven't seen those. By almost any rational thinking, a million photo apps offers more creative freedom than zero apps - and Leicas have zero apps built in.

markie1977:

No, the majority of camera image takers use smartphones, just like in the 1980s when most photos started to be shot with auto P&S 35mm film cameras.

I already accounted for what you think is an original point.

Yet again: Almost no smartphones shoot raw, this means that almost all smartphone photo applications aren't exactly photo enhancement software. Another point I already made above and you ignored.

I suggest you learn the value of A. Reading and rereading, and B. shooting raw.

No one in his effing mind cares that a Leica M240 or a Canon 5DIII doesn't have built-in apps. And both of those cameras would be the choice of real photographers in anything like a challenging shooting situation.

I suggest you learn some things about smartphone cameras, software and things like interchangeable lenses and big sensors.

No one is saying that smartphones can't ever take a good picture, though many people are saying that Time magazine is a joke.

No not a lot more expensive than a D4 or 1D, but far less capable and less value for money.

But the real difference with saving up for a film camera (especially a rangefinder) was once you did you really didn't need to replace it until it wore out.

You'd get essentially the same features and IQ as the new model.
Yes things like built in meters came along and in SLRs AF, but the basic IQ was the same and most of the features were the same.

it was a different time and the cameras were better value for money as they had much longer lifetimes, even if they did cost more to start with.

jtan163:

The D4S does not take Leica lenses though. (Albeit one can buy Zeiss manual focus lenses for the Nikon. And Sigma Arts look promising.)

By your logic of not replacing SLRs, then the Nikon F would have been in really wide use in the late 1980s, it wasn't.

The fact remains that a high end Nikon SLR from the 1980s was about that same price as the M6, and the Nikon body had more features back then too.

Now you do have a point that sensors improve radically over say 3 years, so that inspires replacements.

Yea but most people who want a DSLR don't run and buy a D4.

I mean, you go to a camera store and ask: I want a decent DSLR. Sure, here's a huge selection for about $1000. Or even for $300. Hm, nice, but maybe I'd rather have a rangefinder. Sure, we have those too: a $5500 one and a $8000 one.

Not the same thing.

As for lenses, well... Nobody will convince me that prices of basic 35mm at $5000 and 50mm at $4000 aren't high.

Seriously, $12000 for a camera with a 50mm lens. I'm not saying overpriced as that's subjective but definitely pricey and keep getting pricier.

samfan:

But Leica Ms weren't ever priced the same as a basic Minolta or Olympus SLR, and both Canon and Nikon had mid priced SLRs starting in the 1970s.

People who bought Leica M6 bodies also bought whatever the top of the line Nikon, Canon, or Leica R was at the time. (Not that the the best Olympus or Minolta in say 1985 was cheap.)

I too think the M-240 is expensive, particularly for something that will have a significantly outdated sensor in 5 years, but the same point is true of a Nikon D4S.

If some party, say Sony which owns the right patents+designs from Konica, or Epson launched an M mount APSC rangefinder body for say $2500 that would sell, but many would still seek out very expensive Leica M lenses to use with it. And the M mount is public, Leica can't prevent stop its use on other bodies.

I pick APSC because that sensor size provides a way around most of the vignetting problems.

All I'm saying is that the price is really high and just keeps getting higher. Leica M cams were always expensive but back in the day Leica wasn't the only one making rangefinders. Unfortunately, now it is.

I mean, Epson R-D1 didn't cost as much as Nikon D2 or Canon 1D. I think it was around D200/30D level or slightly above and it was even more niche than the current M. Although granted, it was probably never intended to make any money.

We could really really use a rangefinder camera from someone else than Leica. But seeing how even DLSRs are now being laughed at for being deprecated, I guess that hope is lost.

samfan:

There were 3 versions of the Epson, one didn't get released in the USA.

All sold for between $2000 and $2300 before taxes and shipping and batteries. When I last looked on Ebay they weren't cheap in decent shape.

Yea the used ones are pretty expensive. The price of used old RF's - R-D1 and M8 almost doubled in the last 5 years, no kiddin'.

Anyway, so how much would a lowish-end APS-C digital RF need to cost to be profitable in small quantities today? $2000? I imagine it could be done - basically take a Voigtlander Bessa RF, make some holes on the back for the LCD and buttons and glue the guts from, say, Sony A5000 inside and there you have it.

Obviously doable since it's not far from what Epson actually did.

samfan:

Used R-D1 bodies don't look real expensive on Ebay, today in late Aug 2014, about 1000usd for a decent one. Not cheap, but not like an M9.

Klaus:

Okay.

you seem to be so damn smart, why aren't you rich yourself?

No? Realy? Read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donor-bought-rolex-watch-for-virginia-gov-mcdonnell-people-familiar-with-gift-say/2013/06/25/72ddffa2-ddd2-11e2-b197-f248b21f94c4_story.html

@RichRMA seems for me the build quality of X100, X100s (had both), X-Pro 1 (friends of mine had some) is really impressive.

PLAMBERT There's your 10% ;-)

nickimay:

You don't know much about lenses.

No Harley Davidson motorcycle has close to the analogous performance of a decent Leica M lens.

HDs are notoriously bad at taking photos.

@Tosic
Do you think a Ricoh GXR Leica M camera needs a logo to get value? Its technology, design, performance, and style is value enough that Leica M cannot reach. I'd really like to play with an M-E but at 1/6 of its price, and only as a secondary camera.

DXO and Leica are not in the same leaque

serious Fotographer dont bother with DXO lol

brendon1000:

DXO sensor scoring is useless, because DXO bases those scores on numbers derived from theoretical light sources, not measurements.

^^ While I would agree these tests are flawed calling them useless without having pointing to any better tool for comparing sensors is a not very helpful.

DXOMark testing is still reasonably valid in the absence of anything else as comprehensive.

You can see here than the M240 cannot compete with the D600 in high ISO just as DXOMark measured -

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2013-10-leica-fuji-nikon/

I cannot find any other reliable test for DR and color depth so I am going to rely on DXO Mark for that only.

Eheheh. No Sony sensor inside...otherwise it would work better

brendon1000:

No DXO sensor scores aren't reasonably valid and I've explained why.

What Popular Photography (US magazine) says about sensors is somewhat useful.

Don't cite DXO sensor scores in defense of either DXO scoring or the Nikon D600. (And I like the sensor in the D600/10 well enough.) One of the failures of DXO sensor scores is that they don't account for lenses used.

Right the Nikon D600 is better than the M-240 by about one stop, but then the Nikon runs into shadow banding above ISO 12,800, and Nikon lenses are nowhere near the optical quality of half decent Leica M lenses, and better lenses have a big impact on higher ISO shooting.

While the Leica M 240 is easily useable at its top setting of ISO 6400.

Many of the DXO numbers are made up from theory, not testing of the sensor--or lens. Get this thru your head; that's not testing; that's predicting based upon theorized numbers.

Do you have any sources to show that decades old Leica lenses can out-resolve modern Nikon optics ?

While I agree DXOMark could be better, there is nothing currently available even remotely close.

And about the high ISO capability, Ming Thein, Ken Rockwell have seen differently. Ken Rockwell claims the D600 is much cleaner than the Leica at higher ISO and he found the D600+Nikon 35mm f2 combo to be as good or sharper than the Leica 35mm f2.

Ming Thein also finds that the DR of Nikon is better at higher ISOs too.

All these guys findings are contrary to your statements.

brendon1000:

Resolution is not the entirety of lenses--also whenever someone brings that up it's a sign he/she doesn't know much about lenses.

Dozen year old good Leica M lenses do colour much better than all current Nikon lenses. And some of the Leica Ms from the year 2000ish are sharper too.

The print magazine Popular Photography does some useful sensor scoring.

I don't care what Ken Rockwell says, I'll go by raws I've shot with the D610/600 and the M-240. I'm less familiar with Ming Thein.

The Nikon D600 does have a good sensor in it, but the better lenses available for Leica M mount bodies vastly help with things like DR too.

So the only real way of testing the D610 against the M-240 would be with Zeiss and Sigma Art lenses mounted on the Nikon. That's real world testing of the same scenes, on the same day under the same conditions, not DXO scoring.

And yet again: I have no problem with the D610's sensor below ISO 12,800. It's the Nikon lenses that can't keep up.

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.

RStyga:

Sorry, but the M-240 has an excellent sensor, as did the M-9 for use at and below ISO 1000, which is great for a CCD.

You see, well maybe be not, lenses have a huge impact on sensor output. And there Leica leads Nikon by a lot. On the other hand Leica doesn't lead Samsung and Sigma by much anymore.

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.

RStyga:

What are you talking about?

The M9's sensor had excellent colour thru ISO1000, which is high for a CCD.

Clearly you didn’t use the M9.

The CMOS sensor in the M240 is far from “mediocre”. And again clearly you’ve not used the M240.

It’s not at all clear there’s a better 24MP full framed CMOS sensor. There may be next year, but that’s a different story.

Why don’t you trying the cameras before deciding you know.

Actually, for camera lenses, Leica is the best.

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.

RStyga:

I have no idea who Chris Niccols is, but would look at a link. (But no I won't watch videos, if Niccols has something to say he can write it up.)

The RX1 doesn't have particularly good image quality. It's not bad, but it's nowhere near an M240. It's not the greatest Zeiss lens in the world, also Sony and raw remains a problem.

Who cares about live view with the M240?

You can decide that Leica M lenses are too expensive for what you get, but that's only you.

@HowaboutRAW - You still haven't been able to show me any evidence whatsoever to show Leica lenses are superior. Lens color is highly subjective and while ill admit I like the lens color of Leica lenses some don't.

Also now with Photoshop and color profiles its a lot easier to match colors from different lens+ sensor combinations.

So if dxomark, ming thein, ken rockwell (I added him here even though he is biased but because he has done testing between Leica and Nikon) all say the M240 sensor is inferior to the D600 I tend to believe them rather than a user like yourself and me.

Regarding Leica lenses, I still have yet to see any real tests which show they are superior in sharpness to most lenses (not comparing color here which as I have stated before I do like).

brendon1000:

Well those lenses, the better Ms, be optically superior to Canon, Fuji and Nikon lenses, I suggest that you use an M.

Photoshop color profiles have nothing to do with what I'm talking about, and people who make claims like that don't know much about color.

So in other words you are saying you have no proof whatsoever and I have to spend $15k+ to get a camera and lens combo that has no AF or possibly any better IQ than a 3k camera combination ?

Thank you for the offer but i will pass ! :D

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.

(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.

brendon1000:

No, there's plenty of proof, and the results are easy enough to see.

And in 1985 it was really easy to hear that an $800 home CD player really didn't sound as good as a half decent turntable with a good cartridge.

RStyga:

The sensor in the D800 suffers from dynamic range problems above base ISO, these problems are easy to see.

The A7/RX1's sensor is very good, indeed probably a tiny bit better than the M240's, we can guess this because of the Nikon D610, however Sony has raw compression problems with those Sony models, so Sony defeats the use of many good Zeiss lenses.

Indeed the 6D has a very good sensor, but then of course the D4s's sensor is even better than the 6D. It's not news that some people would like Leica to use a lower pixel count to do better high ISOs in M bodies. (The Sony A7s suffers from raw compression.)

Right many Zeiss lenses are indeed good enough, don't know about Voightlander, seems unlikely.

Leica has re-invented itself, and attracts orders for cameras and lenses which people are willing to wait months to have filled. Can't really say that about Canikon, and both struggle to make money from cameras--not Leica.

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...

(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...

RStyga:

DXO sensor scores are useless, in fact the D800 has big dynamic range problems above base ISO, they're really easy to see on a decent monitor, whereas the Leica M240 simply doesn't have these flaws above base ISO.

The M9 is also excellent above base ISO. (And has very good DR at its top useable ISO of about 1000ASA.)

Frankly, the citation of DXO sensor scores as indicating anything is tiresome. (Well it does indicate a lack of interest in real sensor performance.)

DXO makes up the scores based on theoretical light sources, not testing with the gear.

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)
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!

RSyga:

Nope, DXOMark isn't publishing results of tests, they're publishing results of modeling. Not at all a matter of opinion these be facts.

And I've shot test shots thru ISO 1250 with the M-9 and the dynamic range of the D800, above base ISO, is a joke by comparison.

Both the M9 and M240 have amazing image quality--the Leica M lenses sure help.

The Nikon Df also has amazing image quality, if you put a Zeiss lens on it.

You're deluding yourself if you only think Leica is simply a status symbol.

I suggest that you read the Imaging-Resource review of the M9, it doesn't say what you claim, though it is a very limited review so normal people wouldn't treat it seriously.

Same point about the TechRadar review, it doesn't say what you claim.

Both of those reviews say the M9 has amazing IQ.

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!

RStyga:

No, the D800 DOES NOT have good dynamic range above base ISO. The problems are real easy to see. And the D800 is a modern DSLR.

The Ricoh GXR is a decent camera, and you can use M lenses on one of the parts.

It's not a particularly good high ISO system--the Ricoh GR being better.

Most Pentax lenses aren't real great, nor do Nikon and Canon SLR lenses do colour especially well. So there be some problems with several camera/lens systems, I can go on.

You're plain wrong about D800. Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UBTE4xpvpk
Most lenses cannot be great when they cost 1/20 of a Leica lens. I'm sure Pentax can make a good lens if a $2500 budget is offered... your argument is mute.

RS:

Why would I watch a video, my raws prove the problems with the D800's dynamic range, and other photographers have also noted these problems.

I suspect for that kind of money Pentax could make a good lens, but the problem is there are many very good lenses for $500 or less, including the cheap kit 50mm that comes with the Nikon Df. However no Pentax could not make an extraordinary lens for $2500, nor Nikon, or Canon either.

The Samsung NX 30mm f/2.0 is nearing Leica optical quality, that's $300, but right APSC.

Pentax doesn't quite understand somethings about colour, nor Nikon, either, that's part of the problem holding both back from making excellent lenses.

"mute" means silent.

You can dig around in the DXO scores to discover the modeling being done in place of hardware testing.

Yes, mute. empty of arguments talk, essentially silent.

Watch how a pro photographer compares in a shoot out D800 and a Hassellblad with actual photos side by side, if you can get past your self-serving 'tests'. D800 regarding DR is almost as good as its medium format counterpart; not bad for a DSLR with "bad" DR...

Only a Leica follower could have so much bias to claim that Canon, Nikon, Pentax can't get a lens right (!!!) and pick at random a Samsung (???) lens as having near-Leica quality.... no other comment, here!

Thanks for your "input". A good waste of time but, hey, other forum members can read the thread and make up their own mind.

Best,

RStyga:

The problems with the D800's dynamic range don't show up at very low ISOs, no one disputes this. Until this year (2014) all medium format digital SLRs weren't really to be used much above ISO 400.

It's well known by people who follow camera lenses, that some, not all, of the Samsung NX lenses are optically extraordinary.

Indeed Nikon, Canon, Pentax: they haven't come close to the optical quality of good Leica and Zeiss lenses. Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus are a good bit closer.

But it's really the Sigma Arts (which I've not used) and the best Samsung NX lenses that have matched Leica and Zeiss.

You don't appear to know much about very optically very good camera lenses, which would be the point of buying an M-240.

And the bigger problem is you don't want to learn, instead resting on useless DXO sensor scores, and making base ISO dynamic range claims about the D800, and I've never said the D800 has DR problems at base ISO.

"mute" doesn't mean empty.

Look HowaboutRAW all your facts are figures are in your head and found no where else.

No where have I seen testing to show the D800 is inferior to the competition at higher ISO.

I would love to see a lot of 'testing' with your D800 and Leica cameras but you haven't posted anything here for me to see.

So all we have to go on is your hearsay and tests which contradict most other info out there.

If you have some proper links where we can see the problem for ourself we will be more convinced. Currently its your word against everyone else !

brendon100:

The fact remains that DXO sensor scoring is mostly made up from models not tests, you can confirm this for yourself by actually reading the DXO website thoroughly.

The dynamic range problems with the D800, that's above base ISO, are easy to see, and others have noted this fact online, and I'm sure elsewhere too.

I don't share my raws, so you can't see my testing.

You can find ISO 800 shots with say the Nikon Df and the Nikon D800 using the same lens, under the same lighting and the color trouble is real obvious with the D800.

No one who has used them thinks that the good Leica M lenses are matched in optical performance by Nikon ED lenses.

The Nikon D4s, D4, Df and D610 don't have DR problems above base ISO. And the D810 is much better than the D800 in this regard too.

RStyga:

You should really read the TechRadar and Imaging Resource reviews before you cite them.

As I pointed out already, both think the M9 has excellent image quality.

And more importantly both think the M9 has good dynamic range when shooting raw. Now this may have confused you: IR doesn't think the jpeg dynamic range is very good, but of course the M9 shoots raw.

Then IR also thinks the D7100 bests the M9 for noise control and higher ISO dynamic range, not a great surprise.

"The Leica M9's RAW file scored much better than the matching JPEG, with total dynamic range rocketing to 11.9 f-stops from 7.84 (an improvement of over 4 f-stops), while the score at the highest quality level increased about 1.9 f-stops from 6.81 to 8.67 f-stops. This score is still a little below average compared to the best APS-C sensors, but much better than the camera JPEGs."
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/M9/M9A5.HTM

Am I reading this wrong, too?

Spent an arm and a leg for a full frame camera only to compare it with APS-C cameras and, then, fall behind, even there?

HowaboutRAW,
I saw that Leica just released an $8K 100/2 lens for the S system; it must be *really* good, eh? You can also buy a Pentax 645Z with that money, but, hey, whoever does the latter is ignorant of what Leica lenses can do, right?

I think Leica should support "impartial" people like yourself...

RStyga:

Right the S lenses are very good. Better than the good Pentax medium format lenses. And it the Pentax lenses are plenty good.

I'm sure many people considering a Leica S body and a Pentax 645z body will say the Pentax + lenses is good enough.

The Leica S body is a good bit smaller and lighter than the Pentax 645z. The Leica S2 is smaller than a Nikon D4.

But when you start commenting about less expensive medium format bodies, you need to remember that the Leica S body is a good bit less expensive than a Hasselblad, this may change in 3 weeks when a new S body is likely to be announced. And Hasselblad just uses very good Fuji lenses, which can't really get to the amazing level of a Zeiss.

The 50mm f2.0 Leica M sells for a bit more than $8000, and if I had the money I'd buy it in a second for use with the M 240.

Impartially, if you want/need that extra magic to the light and colour in your images, you use Leica and or Zeiss lenses--not Pentax.

I was looking at the Leica Summicron-M 50mm f/2 review by Photozone and realised that it is not a perfect lens as you imply. High vignetting wide open (needs to be auto-corrected at the expense of increased noise), some issues with bokeh, and -the destructive- RSA. I also checked the Leica Summicron-M 35mm f/2 ASPH review there: bad vignetting wide open and OK bokeh with highlight issues. I didn't feel any chills reading the reviews, I have to say; very good lenses, far from perfect, and insanely expensive for what they offer.

Now, if you are happy to overlook all these issues and prices just to get that great colour that no other lens maker can produce (and, perhaps, not many photographer can see) then you might, just might, have some issues yourself, in all due respect.

RStyga:

I don't remember much vignetting from the 50mm f/2.0 when wide open, now there are two Leica Summicron Ms of 50mm f/2.0. So I suspect you're looking at a different lens.

Don't know anything about the 35mm f/2.0 Leica M.

Other lens makers can get very similar colour results to high end Leica M lenses, just not Canon, Nikon or Fuji. On a good day Olympus can do it, Samsung too. Probably SigmaArt, but I've not used those lenses, and then of course Zeiss.

(Confirmed there's a $2500 Summicron 50mm M f/2.0 lens--not the one I'm talking about.)

Your sweeping statements about Canon/Nikon/Fuji scream ignorance and bias. I don't think we can have an intelligent conversation here. Happy Leica-ing...