Comment in DXO Comments re: Leica M Digital

Comments like that are irritating because they only come from people on the internet. Only like one out of a thousand people even know what a Leica is, and from the comments I've received over the years most people assume it's a really old film camera, even when I'm carrying a digital Leica.

My reasons for using a Leica are

1) It's quiet
2) Hand holdable at 1/8
3) Can focus in the dark
4) Very light weight and compact
5) Prime lenses are sharper and faster
 
swoop said:
Comments like that are irritating because they only come from people on the internet. Only like one out of a thousand people even know what a Leica is, and from the comments I've received over the years most people assume it's a really old film camera, even when I'm carrying a digital Leica.

My reasons for using a Leica are

1) It's quiet
2) Hand holdable at 1/8
3) Can focus in the dark
4) Very light weight and compact
5) Prime lenses are sharper and faster
Click to expand...

funny...these are some of the very same reasons i use the fuji xp1/xe1...
 
JSU said:
If there wasn't a Leica M9, I might be tempted by the X Pro-1 / XE-1. Still, they are APS-C format cameras and not rangefinders.

The X Pro-1 is seemingly larger than the M9:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#213,258

;)
Click to expand...

a bit bigger but much lighter.
aps-c works for me...

so far, the fujis are the closest camera to a rf feel that i have used.
i pretty much shoot the same way as i did with rangefinders.
 
I use to be a member of a Canon Fan boy forum and talk about people being full of themselves. The very idea that someone would dare mention that Nikon or any other brand was equal to the Canon was reason enough to tried for heresy. Oh and don't even think for a moment that L-glass isn't god's gift to photography as that could get you burned at the stake as a heretic.
 
back alley said:
a bit bigger but much lighter.
aps-c works for me...

so far, the fujis are the closest camera to a rf feel that i have used.
i pretty much shoot the same way as i did with rangefinders.
Click to expand...

After buying an x100 while my M9 was getting its sensor repaired I sometimes think maybe if I had bought a Fuji first I may have never bothered with the M9.
 
I think there's a bit of thruth in its words
sesesnape.gif


But I also think... who cares? :D
 
L Collins said:
Posted by Joe Blow:

Leica film cameras remain wonderful mechanical instruments capable of outlasting your grandchildren, and the optics are almost uniformly excellent. But the mistake is to extrapolate the dated concepts of the film age to the digital era.
Click to expand...

If an M6 was a wonderful camera (compared with an F5, produced at the same time); what is wrong with an M9 compared to a D800?

One has manual focus and half the size, but none of these so essential things as fast motor drive, 20-300 mm zooms etc.

I don't have an M9 (by now) but I would like to know what exactly makes it such a poor camera, in the opinion of this gentleman.
 
Back in 1968 I bought my first Leica M2 with a 50 mm Elmar. I dreamed of buying more lenses, but could not afford them as a student.

Now I can afford them, and I have a M9 with a 50 mm Summilux. I still have my M2, and I buy the lenses I want as I am at the end of my professional career.

Whats wrong with this? We live in a world where there is difference in income, between occupation, age (experience) and even gender. Some people spend their surplus money on golf, boating or other sports.

Some of us spend it on Leica cameras and lenses.
 
jschrader said:
If an M6 was a wonderful camera (compared with an F5, produced at the same time); what is wrong with an M9 compared to a D800?

One has manual focus and half the size, but none of these so essential things as fast motor drive, 20-300 mm zooms etc.

I don't have an M9 (by now) but I would like to know what exactly makes it such a poor camera, in the opinion of this gentleman.
Click to expand...

It's inability to shoot clean images at high iso. It's poor dynamic range. Color fringing with wide angle lenses. But if you can't understand that the real problem is that only rich people can afford them, and that what you're getting isn't even a very good or versatile investment, then you're missing the point. M240 is finally a good investment, but still a shame that most young or working photographers can't have them.
 
How many other digital true rangefinders are there?

If you want to shoot a true manual rangefinder and a digital one at that, you have no choice but to buy a Leica. Sure, there are other motivations for buying a Leica DRF, but this is mine. I tried to convince myself I could make DSLRs work for me in general use, but that proved to be the fallacy, not the perceived superiority of Leica as a brand.

As to whether there are genuine alternatives for DRFs, I have yet to fine one. Shooting an X100 or Xpro-1 is not the same for many very simple and mechanical reasons.

There is a lot of Leica snobbery around, but the author of that piece has made the mistake of assuming it is universal and to the exclusion of everything else.
 
Meh... There's always a critic. What can this (higher price) camera do that this (cheaper camera) and (software, which can be debated between cheap vs expensive, pirated vs legit) can't? This is why I hate the digital age. Full of insecure people worrying about all these details in photography except for taking pictures.

That said... I would gladly trade in my Canon EOS system for Leica, but imagining all the criticism I would get entering a new price bracket for a camera sounds rather... dull. I already get lip for how expensive a Canon Full-frame EOS is, but I never see cameras in terms of currency. Rather... as tools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom