Why all the attacks?

[PhotoKhan]

Oh well, I don't know why there's ever need for more than these two justifications for buying anything:

"it does what I want" and "I can afford it".

Pretty much summons it.

I wonder why Leica fans have to come up with those myths to further justify their options, then...

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)

 

[bikinchris]

I haven't used it so I can't know for sure. Unfortunately I doubt it would be more quiet than my Canonet, since the latter has a leaf shutter. Leaf shutters are also better for handholding at slow shutter speeds, since the inertia forces are canceled out unlike in a blade shutter. But I'm fairly confident the differences would be marginal. But this is all pretty academic seeing how I can't afford an M9!

Actually, I remember the Canonet and I would like one of those more than the M9 if it was digital. Our high school yearbook staff used a Canonet. That was back in the days of something called film, or was it glass plates?

Btw, the leaf shutter also allows flash synch at all shutter speeds.

--
Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does.
Chris, Broussard, LA

 

[David Hughes124436]

Leica being bashed and Leica owners being called snobs, suckers, show-offs, etc. and yet it is the Leica owners who are the aggressors. Amazing. Funny how our society likes to blame the victims, like when a women gets beaten and raped, she gets chastised for the way that she dresses. Very nice.

Weird, Here's me thinking that striking the first blow or starting a thread was being aggressive. But it isn't, or so it seems.

Still, all the time I see threads starting with people saying nasty things about Leicas and their owners I'll go on thinking that it's not Leica owners who are aggressive,

Regards, David

 

[David Hughes124436]

Actually, I remember the Canonet and I would like one of those more than the M9 if it was digital. Our high school yearbook staff used a Canonet. That was back in the days of something called film, or was it glass plates?

I still have one and think they are heavy and large. The little Olympus CRF's are better, lighter etc. (And dirt cheap.)

Btw, the leaf shutter also allows flash synch at all shutter speeds.

Yup it's usefull but then again it makes lnterchangable lenses expensive.

Regards, David

 

[Charlie Self]

Leica being bashed and Leica owners being called snobs, suckers, show-offs, etc. and yet it is the Leica owners who are the aggressors. Amazing. Funny how our society likes to blame the victims, like when a women gets beaten and raped, she gets chastised for the way that she dresses. Very nice.

Weird, Here's me thinking that striking the first blow or starting a thread was being aggressive. But it isn't, or so it seems.

Still, all the time I see threads starting with people saying nasty things about Leicas and their owners I'll go on thinking that it's not Leica owners who are aggressive,

Truly, it's terrible when people start up threads stating the M9 is expensive, or has a coarse LCD and such insulting fare. Even worse, "About the Leica M9..."

--
Charlie Self
Meandering Mind: http://charlie-self.blogspot.com/
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

 

[Tom C11968]

Here is a 100% crop at ISO 3200, I think the detail is very good for a crop camera at that ISO, RAW or not. A few years ago cameras didn't even have ISO3200 let alone produce this kind of quality. Is it perfect, no, but it should produce a nice 8x10 or larger.

You may have seen worse but they do not cost $7,000 either. This has nothing to do with camera envy, whether I can afford one or not, if it's a Leica or another brand, if I want a rangefinder or not or bashing Leica. For me it's about charging a premium price for a camera of limited use that the image quality is average at best with todays current cameras.

Look at the detail on this image shot at ISO 3200 from a pre-production 7D. Keep in mind that this camera is 1/4 the price of a Leica.

Was that a RAW conversion too? Or are we looking at the typical Canon NR at work? Judging by the lack of detail, I'm guessing the latter. I've seen high ISO shots from the M9, but those were mostly RAW conversions with most/all of the noise still in place.

http://stepheneastwood.com/Canon/amy_7t/1_img_9893.htm

Compare the samples from the $700 D500 that many images were taken with a low end 18-55mm lens and you will see they are at least as good if not better then the Leica and does have better ISO performance.

And I know many 35mm digital cameras that outperform MF cameras in this department, while those MF cameras cost a lot more.

True, but the sensors are a lot larger that increases the price, how much I don't know. Their prices have been dropping over the years but so far the Leica still remains the same and I don't see that changing. The good news is they will probably get better with each new release.

The point is, if you want a digital rangefinder and/ or just the smallest 35mm digital camera out there and/or a more silent FF camera, it's still your best bet. Since Leica isn't making huge profits (at the contrary), you can't blame them for asking these prices either. You can blame them for producing cameras the way they do, but since that is one of the unique selling points, I doubt that's going to change dramatically.

I agree and if a true rangefinder is what you are looking for then Leica is the camera to buy. I still believe the price is on the high side in todays market for a digital camera, especially not knowing how long the digital components are going to last. I did read in another post that Leica will keep parts available for 20 years, if this is correct then investing in a well made body may not be that bad, but you still have the problem of technology improving at a rapped pace. Just an example. their are some that bought the M8 and now will upgrade to the M9, unless you can recoup a substantial amount of money from your M8 the cost of the rangefinder experience is very costly.

I never thought anyone buying a Leica is being ripped off, if they are satisfied with the camera, enjoy using it and gives them what no other camera can, then it's money well spent. All I'm saying is with Leica's reputation with cameras and lenses I was expecting more.

Most of what we see is the result of the Kodak sensor (noise, PF) and compromises due to the design. They improved over the M8 and no other sensor would fit in the first place. I'm not sure why people were expecting so much more.

I can't speak for anyone else but for me it was a FF camera at that price point is why I was expecting more. If the M9 were in line with todays offerings or even a little more expensive, I would never have asked what others thought.

I was under the impression that the GF1 and E-P1 could do street photography as well as the Leica at a much lower price point with image quality at the very least the same.

--
Tom

 

[fad]

All the other high cost German/Swiss technology I use every day, has incredible electronics, often far beyond its American/Japanese competition.

My boiler has a computer the homeowner is supposed to program a custom curve into. Oven/dishwasher have far more features than I will ever use. My next BMW will have unimaginable electronic options and features.

I'm sore at Leica because I have loved the idea of a Leica for many years. And now since I can easily afford one, they had no digital version, then they have produced two luxury cameras that instead of being feature-rich, are feature-deprived.

And they have taken the cult of the rangefinder, combined with the excellence of their lenses, and refused to apply any intelligence or creativity to anything beside picture quality in good light.

The idea of a small excellent camera needs to grow and expand in the digital age.

I bought the G1 not because it is cheaper, but because it has imagination and lets me take pictures I can't with the 1dsIII or the M9. The "different experience" of using a rangefinder is enjoying a technological marvel of the 1920's. That does not personally turn me on.

The rangefinder experience needs to be redefined for our times. Leitz seems not to have the cleverness to take that on, unfortunately. And I feel the poorer for it.

For those who want what's provided, rejoice and be glad. Those of us who were hoping for something better are simply expressing our disappointment.

German technology is different than Japanese. No frills, no extra lights and buttons. Just the bare minimum to build a long-lasting and well-made product. The idea being that the more things you add to an object design the more probability there is that something could potentially break.

Lon-lasting: with already lots of electronics parts, which are prone to last only a few years, I wonder if a digital M will last more than 5 years w/o (costly) servicing needed. And I used to shoot Leica with film, I know the springs and bolts will last for ever, not so sure about sensor and other parts.

But it's looking like a wonderful tool.
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

--
Frank
http://www.sidewalkshadows.com

ego sum via et veritas et vita

 

[Mentor_1]

It's not just the Leica thread,,, many threads are buggered by the trolls and it seems to be a growing problem. I have so little tolerance for the nonsense it boils my blood the way they can carry on. I have jumped in with nasty comments toward these trolls but it only seems to push them into even more nonsense and so they should be cut off for a week for the first, a month for the second and forever for the third. They obviously thrive on these inane utterances. Please now DPR in the name of sanity kill them off.
--
May the light be with you

 

[WBirch]

German technology is different than Japanese. No frills, no extra lights and buttons. Just the bare minimum to build a long-lasting and well-made product. The idea being that the more things you add to an object design the more probability there is that something could potentially break.

I do.
That German technology left me and others hanging and wasting alot of money.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[MaxiMax]

People like to discuss the "value for money" for any product. If Leica has received a lot of criticism is because there must be a reason, not because people simply like to troll Leica.

Leica cameras have always been of top quality - mechanically speaking. But in the digital era they have not been very successful in delivering the most important thing in photography, which is image quality. This is understandable as Leica does not have the advanced R&D or technical knowhow to design and produce their own image sensors, making them dependable on other manufacturers, like Kodak.

I think that most people are not happy with the idea of having to pay too much for a solid camera body that might deliver (let's wait for the reviews) less image quality than a similar compact camera for 1/10 of the price. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe the M9 will deliver the best image quality ever produced by any digital camera.

-MaxiMax

 

[iamphil]

It's an inanimate object. How does one attack that? I don't think it cares very much about what people say about it or the people trying to keep score or referee. Taking offense at it probably says more about the person being offended than anything else.

 

[Chris59]

You could probably buy what's left of Agfa for less than the cost of an M9.

 

[Charlie Self]

It's not just the Leica thread,,, many threads are buggered by the trolls and it seems to be a growing problem. I have so little tolerance for the nonsense it boils my blood the way they can carry on. I have jumped in with nasty comments toward these trolls but it only seems to push them into even more nonsense and so they should be cut off for a week for the first, a month for the second and forever for the third. They obviously thrive on these inane utterances. Please now DPR in the name of sanity kill them off.
--
May the light be with you

There you go. Control everyone, especially those who don't hold the same opinions you do.

--
Charlie Self
Meandering Mind: http://charlie-self.blogspot.com/
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

 

[WBirch]

You could probably buy what's left of Agfa for less than the cost of an M9.

LOL.
Heck, a few ounces of gold these days @ $1,000 per oz would do it.

 

[JortS29]

Here is a 100% crop at ISO 3200, I think the detail is very good for a crop camera at that ISO, RAW or not. A few years ago cameras didn't even have ISO3200 let alone produce this kind of quality. Is it perfect, no, but it should produce a nice 8x10 or larger.

Yes but it's comparing a file with tons of NR applied with what appear to be direct RAW conversions (no/hardly any NR done) under different circumstances. Apples and oranges. I have ISO1600 files from a tiny 1/2.5" sensor camera that would make fine 8x10 prints. Ofcourse they have sophisiticated NR applied. But what could those files tell us in relation to other cameras? Not much to nothing.

You may have seen worse but they do not cost $7,000 either. This has nothing to do with camera envy, whether I can afford one or not, if it's a Leica or another brand, if I want a rangefinder or not or bashing Leica. For me it's about charging a premium price for a camera of limited use that the image quality is average at best with todays current cameras.

Look at the detail on this image shot at ISO 3200 from a pre-production 7D. Keep in mind that this camera is 1/4 the price of a Leica.

Was that a RAW conversion too? Or are we looking at the typical Canon NR at work? Judging by the lack of detail, I'm guessing the latter. I've seen high ISO shots from the M9, but those were mostly RAW conversions with most/all of the noise still in place.

http://stepheneastwood.com/Canon/amy_7t/1_img_9893.htm

Compare the samples from the $700 D500 that many images were taken with a low end 18-55mm lens and you will see they are at least as good if not better then the Leica and does have better ISO performance.

And I know many 35mm digital cameras that outperform MF cameras in this department, while those MF cameras cost a lot more.

True, but the sensors are a lot larger that increases the price, how much I don't know.

The sensor size is only a small portion of the price increase, the majority of that increase comes from the far lower sales volumes. Which also explains the majority of the price differences between FF sensors and small sensors such as used in phones and compact cameras.

Their prices have been dropping over the years but so far the Leica still remains the same and I don't see that changing. The good news is they will probably get better with each new release.

Sales of FF cameras and DSLR's in general have mutiplied many times over the past years, allowing prices to drop dramatically. Leica sales haven't increased similarly.

Most of what we see is the result of the Kodak sensor (noise, PF) and compromises due to the design. They improved over the M8 and no other sensor would fit in the first place. I'm not sure why people were expecting so much more.

I can't speak for anyone else but for me it was a FF camera at that price point is why I was expecting more. If the M9 were in line with todays offerings or even a little more expensive, I would never have asked what others thought.

I was under the impression that the GF1 and E-P1 could do street photography as well as the Leica at a much lower price point with image quality at the very least the same.

From what I have seen, the Leica beats them by a margin in the noise department (when shooting RAW). We'll have to wait for the first RAW comparisons (Imaging Resource?) to make a fair judgement there though.

 

[Marty4650]

Because these are cameras, not fine pieces of furniture, or handmade violins made during the renaissance by skilled craftsmen.

These are no longer mechanical devices that need to be built to last a lifetime. Maybe that was true 40 years ago. But today these are electronic devices that mount lenses, and you'll be lucky if you can use a camera body for more than 5 years without being hopelessly behind the state of the art.

Would you buy a Dell Computer for $10,000 if it was hand crafted of the finest materials and was built to "last 50 years?"

And what if that Dell was really built well, but didn't perform as well as an $800 Gateway that came in a plastic case?

Leica is supplying their market with status symbols for very wealthy people.

People buy Leica cameras because they can.... and you can't.
And that's worth something to them.

It's like owning a Rolex or a Rolls Royce.

It's why rich people own private jets, and live on their own islands in the Carribean.

And they actually do feel guilty about this, because they will invent all kinds of convoluded reasons why their cameras are "really better" and "worth 25 times more than yours." Even if they are slower, have more noise, must be manually focused, have frightfully expensive accessories, and you have to disassemble the camera to change a battery or memory card! These all become "pluses" that justify the higher cost!

The truth is, they don't have to justify anything to anyone.
They want something.
They have the money.
And it's THEIR money, afterall.

So quit whining.

My Leica M3:



--
Marty
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/

Panasonic FZ30, LX2, TZ5
Olympus E-510, Zuiko 14-42mm, 40-150mm, 70-300mm, Hexanon 40mm, 50mm

 

[Elliot H]

two mothers are watching their sons march in a parade - one says to the other , " look my kid is the only one marching in step "

a mother gave her son two shirts for his birthday, son goes to his room, changes into a new shirt, comes out to show mother; mother says "oh my, didn't you like the other one"?