jsrockit
Moderator
Call off the dogs, I've ordered a M-P Typ 240. Thank you all for your input!
Lucky you... enjoy!
Call off the dogs, I've ordered a M-P Typ 240. Thank you all for your input!
Lucky you... enjoy!
This. I've been down that path many, many times with cameras, musical instruments and other things. I tend to go with what seems rational instead of what I really like, and in the end I end up with the latter after a lot of pain.
Maybe I should just cut to the chase, suck it up, get a late model Leica and enjoy it.
You only pay for it one time. You use it for a very long time. Longer if it isn't what you wanted.
I don't get why some advocate using a crop sensor camera over a full frame. Why would I buy a fuji if I want my 35 to be a 35 and my 50 to be a 50? The user experience of manual focus using a rangefinder patch over AF and live view are just as important to me. With regard to iso performance, the M9 at 400 and 800 is all I need as I shoot it like i've got film in it. Did I mention the CCD look? I can tell the difference between my Nikon full frame files and my M9's. If I want high iso and speed I'll use my Nikon's which are also obsolete according to some but strangely along with my M9 still continue to capture good photographs. If some need the latest gadget to do so then perhaps a rethink is required regarding technique and not equipment.
Congrats on the 240 Ken.
I don't get why some advocate using a crop sensor camera over a full frame.
Why would I buy a fuji if I want my 35 to be a 35 and my 50 to be a 50? The user experience of manual focus using a rangefinder patch over AF and live view are just as important to me.
With regard to iso performance, the M9 at 400 and 800 is all I need as I shoot it like i've got film in it.
Did I mention the CCD look? I can tell the difference between my Nikon full frame files and my M9's.
I don't get why some advocate using a crop sensor camera over a full frame.
I could make the same argument about why people would bother using full frame when there are medium format options available. FF vs APSC is hardly a big difference. Only downside would be the existing lenses you already have not being the same focal length.
I don't get why some advocate using a crop sensor camera over a full frame. Why would I buy a fuji if I want my 35 to be a 35 and my 50 to be a 50? The user experience of manual focus using a rangefinder patch over AF and live view are just as important to me. With regard to iso performance, the M9 at 400 and 800 is all I need as I shoot it like i've got film in it. Did I mention the CCD look? I can tell the difference between my Nikon full frame files and my M9's. If I want high iso and speed I'll use my Nikon's which are also obsolete according to some but strangely along with my M9 still continue to capture good photographs. If some need the latest gadget to do so then perhaps a rethink is required regarding technique and not equipment.
Congrats on the 240 Ken.
I'm expecting my wife's ghost to smother me with a pillow tonight. LOL.
Call off the dogs, I've ordered a M-P Typ 240. Thank you all for your input!
Did you read the thread title?
yes
These were talked about.
can I not give an opinion then?
The key word being "I" ...most are talking to the OP who was asking about two cameras.
And 'I' gave MY opinion about one over the other
It was mentioned... and for every CCD lover there is a CMOS lover.
I have both, like both and use them both.
Each to their own but in the end Ken made a choice for himself and I'm sure he'll be happy with it as you obviously are with your fuji
With X-Pro2 you get better image quality, better in camera processing, much less noise to name just a few.
Would you use a Canon 10D today? It had been in the past a top digital camera.
The X-Pro2 has better IQ than the M9? 🙄