eleskin
Well-known
I just thought I would pass on that the M9 made the cover of Amateur Photographer uK. What that exactly means is up for opinion. I opened a thread earlier asking which magazine would be first? the question has been answered. Now what will we see from Shutterbug, American Photo, Popular Photo?
Turtle
Veteran
more pictures of the same camera? I don't understand what the significance is of being on the cover of AP. The market decides whether the camera will be a success.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
AP reflects (and sometimes leads) widespread public opinion.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
I buy AP mostly for the articles on classic cameras. And I read it starting from the back page.
wakarimasen
Well-known
Turtle
Veteran
Roger, sure it has an influence, but in the reviews more than the cover shots I would think. Cant imagine many people will rush out and buy a $7k camera because it is on a cover.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
The cover is supposed to sell the magazine not the contents. The insides are meant to excite GAS by convincing you that you need camera X or gadget Y to make meaningful work. You should probably also head off on a trip or workshop really...
There is a symbiotic relationship between magazines and advertisers. Hence, they always sell the dream. Much of the web is the same.
Actually, I generally like Roger's bit at the end, but how many people really go and buy an old film camera based on a magazine article? Sure, it's a nice idea, but it's much easier to shoot digital and make it look like film later.
Mike
wakarimasen
Well-known
Just me then......:bang:
Nick De Marco
Well-known
Yes I saw that, bought it and read the article.
I agree with Roger about AP's important influence and also its high quality reviews. At the same time I always feel that the fact camera manufacturers advertisde in camera magazine and provide free cameras for people to try out will always mean they can get on the cover or lots of coevrage. However, the article makes clear that such an econmic reality does not diminish the criticism, as I thought the review was quite criticla of a number of aspects of the M9 - making it sound as if some of the 'problems' some have had with the M8 are not all over. On the other hand the reviewer was, himslef, a self confessed non rangefinder guy.
Whatever the reviews say, I can't justify buying and M9 now (and I am currently still infatuatied with my GF1, which I know is of course a completely different kettle of fish), but I am saving those little tokens in AP to try and win one!
I agree with Roger about AP's important influence and also its high quality reviews. At the same time I always feel that the fact camera manufacturers advertisde in camera magazine and provide free cameras for people to try out will always mean they can get on the cover or lots of coevrage. However, the article makes clear that such an econmic reality does not diminish the criticism, as I thought the review was quite criticla of a number of aspects of the M9 - making it sound as if some of the 'problems' some have had with the M8 are not all over. On the other hand the reviewer was, himslef, a self confessed non rangefinder guy.
Whatever the reviews say, I can't justify buying and M9 now (and I am currently still infatuatied with my GF1, which I know is of course a completely different kettle of fish), but I am saving those little tokens in AP to try and win one!
Yammerman
Well-known
I read the article and I didn't think Leica would be so thrilled by the carping about rangefinders in the conclusion. Maybe AP just don't think its on their readerships radar even though they put it on the cover.
On the other hand for the first time on Sunday I was stopped by a man who recoginised my MP. "Is that a Leica?" He said he was interested in the M9 to replace his bulky D700. He was going to get an M6 to see if he liked the concept and then if he did he would get a M9 for its compactness and supposed quality. That must be pleasing for Leica I would have thought.
On the other hand for the first time on Sunday I was stopped by a man who recoginised my MP. "Is that a Leica?" He said he was interested in the M9 to replace his bulky D700. He was going to get an M6 to see if he liked the concept and then if he did he would get a M9 for its compactness and supposed quality. That must be pleasing for Leica I would have thought.
Richard Marks
Rexel
Overall I do not think the review is too bad and the fact that it was written by a confessed non rangefinder enthusiast is actually quite good and probably adds a bit of ballance. Clearly there are some issues regarding moire patterns and noise above ISO 640 but it is implied that this is easilly dealt with in Light Room. All well and good but i would rather not do this. It could be irritating to have the simplicity of a rangefinder for low light situations and then spending the rest of the evening on the computer! One interesting thing though is that they have declined from giving it their traditional score. They explain that this is because it can not be compared to anything and "stands alone". This is a bit tame. But there again the magazine is giving away an M9 in a 125 years of AP competition. It would not look too good to be too severe! The same magazine gave the M8 quite a low score (I think around 79%?) as it faired very badly on value for money despite excellent image quality. Presumably the same might have occured to the M9. Read between the lines. Certainly the image quality is highly regarded and "excels" and is "among the best Ive seen from a digital camera of this format". I am not exactly sure what is meant by 'format' in this context.
Certainly not a bad review by any means but I am still not reaching for my cheque book.
Best wishes
Richard
Certainly not a bad review by any means but I am still not reaching for my cheque book.
Best wishes
Richard