Digital M7

[Taipei-metro]

Why? What will it proof? Exactly nothing. Just that the XT combo is cheaper, not better, or more suited to his style of shooting, or more joy to shoot with. Money doesn't matter. It's fricking hobby, and I can spend my money as I please on whatever I want.




Why? Because it's a Nikon sensor? Because it is a measly 6MP? Works for me.




Jealousy is such an ugly thing....




Better stop right there, Taipei-Metro. You're damn close to a line you shouldn't cross, not here anyway.

That's it,
I'm outta here, boyz.

I'm crossing the line of no returnnnnnn...


The M7 digital, is it out yet?
'Good night and good luck!'
Mr. Grapenut, who says it?


Taipei.

 

[MP Guy]

Either Joe or I are about to put an end to this soon.

 

[back alley]

taipei,

calm down, you're getting carried away now.
i edited your last post. no need to bring world politics into this.

 

[Trius]

Joe: I hadn't followed this thread, but decided to see what was new. Sigh. I say pull the plug on it before I declare my Oly 35 SPs the king of RFs cuz they're so cheap.

Earl
Go Leafs Go!

 

[loretdem]

Mr Taipei-metro is obsessed with the cost of photography. The money spent on photography is much more important to him than any other aspect, including the value of creating images (priceless, anyone?). His point is: why spend US$6000. to take hobbyist pictures of your children and pets that you are rarely going to enlarge more than 8x10" when you can do the exact same for much much less money? It is a good point at face value but he obviously does not understand the many different reasons why people choose to do things the way they do. And he does not realize how condescending (read snobbish) his attitude is. By his logic we should always buy everything we need at WalMart and nowhere else. His idea of priceless is enjoying time with his daughter which is a beautiful notion of course but if he had to pay money for that joyful time I think he might reconsider.
Mr Taipei-metro has the passionate heart and soul of an accountant. He's not really a photographer although I'm sure he owns cameras and takes pictures with them. If he were a photographer he would understand why photographers do what they do and choose the tools and materials that they choose. Some photographers, even amateurs, shoot 8X10" transparencies of landscapes with a large view camera. That idea probably would make his head explode.
Mr Taipei-Metro's command of the English language is not very good and he may have trouble expressing himself clearly on this forum. Nevertheless his attitude comes through loud and clear. He is entitled to his opinion. What could've been a valid point either got lost in translation or in his overzealous contempt for expensive tools and the people who use them.
And I'm sure the "view from Taipei" is much better than that.
-Carlos

 

[Flinor]

Joe, it's time.

 

[rami G]

loretdem said:
Mr Taipei-Metro's command of the English language is not very good and he may have trouble expressing himself clearly on this forum. Nevertheless his attitude comes through loud and clear.

I wasn't following the whole discussion in question, but I did have a chance to see enough to agree with much of what you (loretdem) said. However, I think that last comment was not called for. Many of us, "foreigners" living in or outside the US, have a perfect command on couple of other languages besides English. Few Americans (statistically) speak more than 1 language, rearly any more than two. However, as foreign graduate student in the US I must say that such comments are widespread, and although you did not say anything offensive, simply mentioned a fact, I think the point does not add anything to your reply, but is quit offensive. In the globalized English speaking community of the interned it feels, often that there are first class and second class citizens, depending on their command of the English language (sure there is a third class which we would simply not encounter), ignoring the fact that there are many out there that can read and write great texts in other langauges that for most of us are accessible only through their translation, if at all. Sorry for the "load" reply, just happened to be sensitive to it, due to few unhappy experiences.
BTW, your comment about the price of spending time with daughter was very funny. ; >)

 

[Nikon Bob]

What you are describing here is a niche-manufacturer - which is what they are.They are surprisingly small, with a turnover about 110 million Euro. Such a company can be very viable, even with a very narrow customer base - look at Morgan for instance producing totally unsuitable cars at horrendous prices for real fanatics, but with a long waiting-list and the only surviving independent British car builder. The worst mistake such a company can make is trying to produce for the mass market. They would be crushed by the giants.

The point is that I think that rather than enlarginging or maintaining the size of that niche market that they have, Leica appear to be bent on reducing it further. If they are in financial trouble with their current pool of buyers how would reducing that pool help? Anyway. time will tell if their strategy is the correct one or not.

Bob

 

[RML]

The point is that I think that rather than enlarginging or maintaining the size of that niche market that they have, Leica appear to be bent on reducing it further. If they are in financial trouble with their current pool of buyers how would reducing that pool help? Anyway. time will tell if their strategy is the correct one or not.

Good point but.... In a way it seems like decreasing their niche, going from film M to digital M. But if they can come up with a digital M that does deliver, it might do very well sales-wise. If they can expand their lens manufacturing into the realm of digital (not just for the digi-M but also for other mounts), this too could boost their sales. IMO Leica is more than capable to produce lenses in mounts for Canon, Nikon or Minolta. I've been wondering why they don't do so. In that respect Taipei-metro's comparison with Sigma is excellent.

 

[pfogle]

Taking a longer point of view it's hard not to think that all photography (except specialist amateurs) will end up digital - I mean, how many of us use an abacus for our arithmetic now?

On the other hand, I can't see how the RF 'niche' market will disappear, as it's such a useful tool and works in a way that isn't easy to reproduce using any other technology - well, perhaps it will be 'optical viewfinder' rather than RF, as in the AF Hexar and the G1/2.

So, from that perspective, I'd think a digital Leica is inevitable, with the proviso that it won't be made be Leica, unless they get their finances sorted! It's the film users who will end up being the declining niche market

 

[loretdem]

I wasn't following the whole discussion in question, but I did have a chance to see enough to agree with much of what you (loretdem) said. However, I think that last comment was not called for. Many of us, "foreigners" living in or outside the US, have a perfect command on couple of other languages besides English. Few Americans (statistically) speak more than 1 language, rearly any more than two. However, as foreign graduate student in the US I must say that such comments are widespread, and although you did not say anything offensive, simply mentioned a fact, I think the point does not add anything to your reply, but is quit offensive. In the globalized English speaking community of the interned it feels, often that there are first class and second class citizens, depending on their command of the English language (sure there is a third class which we would simply not encounter), ignoring the fact that there are many out there that can read and write great texts in other langauges that for most of us are accessible only through their translation, if at all. Sorry for the "load" reply, just happened to be sensitive to it, due to few unhappy experiences.
BTW, your comment about the price of spending time with daughter was very funny. ; >)

rami G,
You are absolutely correct and normally I wouldn't make a comment like that. The only reason I added that at the end of my post is because I've had a previous "discussion" with Taipei-metro in a separate recent thread here in RFF about this very same topic. He mentioned then that his English was not very good and that he might not be clearly stating his point(s). So I ended my post here with that comment about his English almost as a disclaimer so as to give him the benefit of the doubt, in case what he was communicating was being lost in translation. Sorry if my comment caused any confusion or unintended offense.
-Carlos

 

[t_streng]

Just the fact that you cant afford this kind of equipment doesnt make it a bad camera.
Photography is not about maximising the relation between image-qualiyty and cost.
And if you believe it or not-there are differences between cheapo lenses and good lenses. If the difference in price is worth it? everybody should decide on its own.
But its just a matter of missing knowledge, if you believe all lenses are equal

Do I have to do the math for you?
$2,900 + $2,995( 28 Cron) = how much? $5,895

For nearly $6,000 to produce such a image is a total WASTE of money.

just a guy from Taipei.