Everyone is different.
Leica lenses are very good, but I don't see anyway to justify saying their digital cameras last longer than any other brand.
Well, the independent reviews show people inside the Leica facility doing the work. They're not made by Leica, although they obviously allow access. It's not Leica content. You seem to imply it's fake marketing video; while it obviously serves a marketing purpose the videos are real.
Indeed people are different. Some folks like to convert old cameras to monochrome for the 'obvious' gains.Everyone is different.
I couldn't imagine paying thousands of dollars for a camera that was only monochrome (B&W) capable.
Even though B&W is considered artsy by many, and good for select images, it's a technology that's been outdated for years.
Besides that, any full-featured camera is capable of producing monochrome, and post-processing programs can do wonders for the images.
But, as I said, everyone is different.
I differ. If I have a device that still functions as I want it to, then despite age I still use it, and greatly value it for its longevity. I do not get tired of looking at any device that has served me reliably for 40 years, and still does so.
Indeed Leica has always stressed lenses. Even in the 1950s Leica made the sharpest lenses as opposed to Zeiss who made the lenses with highest contrast. My 1950 vintage 50mm f/1.4 was definitely sharper than Nikon, Canon, or Asahi of the period. It even holds its own wide open relative to contemporary offerings. For example:
Outdated? Must have missed that
The missing Bayer filter has a significant impact on resolution. I would still own that Q2M if I had been able to explain owning that and a Q2 to my wifeBesides that, any full-featured camera is capable of producing monochrome, and post-processing programs can do wonders for the images.
I live in Germany and i find that most of their tech is nonesense.My Braun egg cooker is 40 years old. No way Asian product unless made by Seiko would last that long.Leica equipment cost more because people are willing to pay for the name, and because Leica is a German company.
Any mainstream product, made in Germany, is expensive.
We own a Mercedes SUV, not really any better than several vehicles made in Japan or Korea, but quite a bit more expensive.
I own a Braun Series 9 razor, the most expensive electric razor. Made in Germany.
Even a Braun made Oral-B electric toothbrush is probably more expensive than it should be.
Naturally, each of these products are some of the highest rated, but at the same time, expensive
It all goes back to the simple fact that unless you live in Germany, anything you buy that's made in Germany will be expensive.
I'm a firm believer, everyone should spend their money on anything they want to spend it on. I'm simply a person who wouldn't spend several thousand dollars on a camera that's only capable of producing monochrome images.Outdated? Must have missed that
The missing Bayer filter has a significant impact on resolution. I would still own that Q2M if I had been able to explain owning that and a Q2 to my wifeBesides that, any full-featured camera is capable of producing monochrome, and post-processing programs can do wonders for the images.
It is a luxury, no question, to have such a camera and I felt the need to go back to one that can do color and B&W. But it was a great experience as it forces you to look at the world differently. Like the time when I shot B&W film.I'm a firm believer, everyone should spend their money on anything they want to spend it on. I'm simply a person who wouldn't spend several thousand dollars on a camera that's only capable of producing monochrome images.Outdated? Must have missed that
The missing Bayer filter has a significant impact on resolution. I would still own that Q2M if I had been able to explain owning that and a Q2 to my wifeBesides that, any full-featured camera is capable of producing monochrome, and post-processing programs can do wonders for the images.
From the Leica site:
Sure enough, you focused on the back row...Indeed Leica has always stressed lenses. Even in the 1950s Leica made the sharpest lenses as opposed to Zeiss who made the lenses with highest contrast. My 1950 vintage 50mm f/1.4 was definitely sharper than Nikon, Canon, or Asahi of the period. It even holds its own wide open relative to contemporary offerings. For example:
Quite possibly. Leica range finder focus for fast moving dance can be difficult.Sure enough, you focused on the back row...Indeed Leica has always stressed lenses. Even in the 1950s Leica made the sharpest lenses as opposed to Zeiss who made the lenses with highest contrast. My 1950 vintage 50mm f/1.4 was definitely sharper than Nikon, Canon, or Asahi of the period. It even holds its own wide open relative to contemporary offerings. For example:
Right. Since Leicas are basically jewelry, it's the process that matters, not the results.
I have been using Leica since the 1960s for serious photography work with hundreds of published images. Results mattered since for a few years it was my only camera.Right. Since Leicas are basically jewelry, it's the process that matters, not the results.
Take a Sony A7R4 at launch price and add a lens that is roughly equivalent to the lens on the Q2 (that'll be the hard part). Then look at the price. You may want to reconsider your statement.
I don’t think they really need to say anything.
