Is the M9 price falling with the stock market?

[jsrockit]

M-E ISO160 is not high dynamic image. It is just like digitized slide.

Back to real life, in my family and among people who is using my photography all of talks like these are totally irrelevant. Nobody cares as long as image is in focus and exposed well.
M-E does it better and it doesn't feel too digital 🙂.
And nobody need huge prints among us, we are not mansion people...

But obviously, M-E and M4-2 is not the high end combo for forums dwellers, even at RFF...

Ok, I think we agree... and agree about needs. However, huge prints are for mansion people, but Leicas are not? 😉

 

[jsrockit]

A Fuji xpro2 is a much better camera than a Leica M9 because the x has more advanced technology which gives a much better image quality and it costs almost half the price, new.

I understand one may prefer the ergonomics of a Leica M9 but you are buying lesser image quality. That does not mean you will produce lesser pictures.. a good picture is more than image quality.

Well, I prefer the X-Pro2, but if you want to use Leica M lenses and like a mechanical rangefinder, the Fuji won`t scratch that itch.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

A Fuji xpro2 is a much better camera than a Leica M9 because the x has more advanced technology which gives a much better image quality and it costs almost half the price, new.

I understand one may prefer the ergonomics of a Leica M9 but you are buying lesser image quality. That does not mean you will produce lesser pictures.. a good picture is more than image quality.

It is a heavy cropper. And this is it. Limited to its own and not so suatable for manual focusing lenses. And it has no rangefinder.

It is like Nikon F3 is better than Leica M6, but people are still buying M6.

 

[colker]

Well, I prefer the X-Pro2, but if you want to use Leica M lenses and like a mechanical rangefinder, the Fuji won`t scratch that itch.

It seems I could use those Leica lenses on a Fuji...can I? Main reason for a Leica is manual focus and zone focusing. I don´t care for autofocus. Fuji looks like a rangefinder but Fuji lenses have no distance marks on the lens. What´s the point of an optical vf if you don´t zone focus?

My pick is the xe3 because it has no OVF. I will have a Leica for OVF... and a film one because we should develop film. It´s a mistake to depend entirely on adobe or any other of those companies.

Leica is right in dumping live vision, screen and playbacks... If there is one thing that bothers me deeply is anyone asking me to see the pics right away. I don´t see the pics until I develop them somehow. I don´t want to see if I nailed focus and repeat... I can´t repeat.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Ok, I think we agree... and agree about needs. However, huge prints are for mansion people, but Leicas are not? 😉

My M-E was 3K USD new from official Leica dealer in Moscow. Where are people living is small apartments in Moscow and St. Peterburg who owns digital Leica.

If you have huge hallways then big prints are needed. For one million GTA cookie cutters big prints ain't better, either.

 

[colker]

A Leica M9 costs nothing new. It was discontinued years ago. Although we can debate your doubtful statement about image quality - many M9 users prefer the way a ccd sensor renders-, it is rather silly to compare new prices and technology of cameras that are several generations apart.

You are right. Let me rephrase: a Fuji xpro2 , new, costs half the price of a USED Leica M9 and it has a much better sensor. Better from an engineering and light sensibility POV.

The ccd love is denial most of the time. My D700 which has a great ccd sensor at 200 asa fails miserably above 1000 asa.
Digital images are supposed to be tweaked at photo shop or other programs. Get your cmos image and work those colors.

Cell phones produze great images w/ CMOS but i can´t use a phone to shoot fast and capture moments. It does not work for me. If it did i would use it.

No, it is not silly to compare old and new cameras. People compare a Leica M3 w/ an M6 or M7 all the time so why not compare a ccd x cmos cameras? Oh... but one of them is not a Leica and Leicas are "magical". Actually it´s a camera. It´s engineering and design. Great design most of the time but poor engineering sometimes. If the CCD won´t let me take a great picture because of its limitations.. that does not make it lovely but a limited, crappy tool. if you want to pay 2 times for it instead of a better tool.. well, it´s a free world i guess. ( i didn´t even mention the corroded ccd issue)

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It seems i could use those leica lenses on a Fuji...can I? Main reason for a Leica is manual focus and zone focusing. I don´t care for autofocus. Fuji looks like a rangefinder but fuji lenses have no distance marks on the lens. What´s the point of an optical vf if you don´t zone focus?

If you like 35mm lens, you need Leica 24 lens on this cropper. And here is next to none Leica 24mm lens at 35 Leica lens price range. Skopar 25 is the only one which makes sense.

And if you like 28 lens here is next to no Leica lens for cropper to be 28mm lens.

Leica lens or any lens on cropper is not the same lens as on FF. Part of the image, character is cropped.

 

[colker]

My M-E was 3K USD new from official Leica dealer in Moscow. Where are people living is small apartments in Moscow and St. Petersburg who owns digital Leica.

If you have huge hallways then big prints are needed. For one million GTA cookie cutters big prints ain't better, either.

I print to hang on places other than home. All the people I know who print big are placing their work on public spaces to be seen by the general public.

 

[colker]

If you like 35mm lens, you need Leica 24 lens on this cropper. And here is next to none Leica 24mm lens at 35 Leica lens price range. Skopar 245 is the only one which makes sense.

And if you like 28 lens here is next to no Leica lens for cropper to be 28mm lens.

Leica lens or any lens on cropper is not the same lens as on FF. Part of the image, character is cropped.

You are right. There is no equivalent and that´s another reason to say Fujis are not Leica substitutes.
Fuji should build a small, lightweight zoom for the xe3. Digital cameras are allergic to dust and everytime you swap lenses you open the door for dust to get in the sensor.

 

[colker]

It is a heavy cropper. And this is it. Limited to its own and not so suatable for manual focusing lenses. And it has no rangefinder.

It is like Nikon F3 is better than Leica M6, but people are still buying M6.

The F3 is not better than an M6. They are different animals. Fujis copy Leicas. They try to look like Leicas and pretend to be rangefinders. Sometimes they are much better but they are not what they try to look like.
Nikon F3 is an slr camera. It is almost the opposite of a Leica: it is good w/ tele and macro lens. Its viewfinder blocks everything outside the image and it´s absolutely precise and faithful to what you will get on film including out of focus parts of the image. Leica is good at wide angle lens and you are in touch w/ what you chose to be inside and outside the frame.

 

[jsrockit]

My M-E was 3K USD new from official Leica dealer in Moscow. Where are people living is small apartments in Moscow and St. Peterburg who owns digital Leica.

If you have huge hallways then big prints are needed. For one million GTA cookie cutters big prints ain't better, either.

You are only thinking of your specific needs... your family. There are other reasons that people photograph.

Good deal for a Leica, but still super expensive. I`m not judging. I`ve done it too. But if you can afford a $3000 camera, you can make some big prints.

 

[jsrockit]

It seems i could use those leica lenses on a Fuji...can I?

You can, but with a crop and a different MF system. It`s just not the same experience.

Main reason for a Leica is manual focus and zone focusing. I don´t care for autofocus. Fuji looks like a rangefinder but fuji lenses have no distance marks on the lens. What´s the point of an optical vf if you don´t zone focus?

Seeing outside of the frame?

 

[jsrockit]

The F3 is not better than an M6. They are different animals. Fujis copy Leicas. They try to look like Leicas and pretend to be rangefinders. Sometimes they are much better but they are not what they try to look like.

I think you have to bring the Contax G series (X-Pro) and RTS series (X-T) into the Fuji copy story too. The only blatantly Leica looking camera is the X100 series.

 

[jsrockit]

Fuji should build a small, lightweight zoom for the xe3. Digtal cameras are alergic to dust and everytime you swap lenses you open the door for dust to get in the sensor.

How much smaller can they make them?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

You are only thinking of your specific needs... your family. There are other reasons that people photograph.

Good deal for a Leica, but still super expensive. I`m not judging. I`ve done it too. But if you can afford a $3000 camera, you can make some big prints.

M-E is the gift to me from my mother at my 50th BD. Prior to this was going to sell some of my gear to get it .
Couple of months ago we spend 3K to buy photo gear from our daughter,

I think only 1% from those who takes images cares, have some reason for big prints,
My case is 99%. Which is family pictures, friends pictures, some prints to remote friends and as files to all of them.
My only specific is my illustrated stories here at RFF and in LJ in the past,
LJ part was widely copied on other sites to generate traffic, Without permission and copyrights,
I have also my photos published locally and at some web sites. Like Canadian National Geographics site.

 

[colker]

How much smaller can they make them?

Small like the zoom on the fuji x30.

The 18 -55 is big and brings too much attention while shooting.

 

[colker]

I think you have to bring the Contax G series (X-Pro) and RTS series (X-T) into the Fuji copy story too. The only blatantly Leica looking camera is the X100 series.

The X100 looks more like an old Yashica rangefinder to me w/ its fixed lens.
The x pro w/ its many lenses is more like Leica but yeah... the Contax is the basis for the xpro. Not Leica.

 

[colker]

M-E is the gift to me from my mother at my 50th BD. Prior to this was going to sell some of my gear to get it .
Couple of months ago we spend 3K to buy photo gear from our daughter,

I think only 1% from those who takes images cares, have some reason for big prints,
My case is 99%. Which is family pictures, friends pictures, some prints to remote friends and as files to all of them.
My only specific is my illustrated stories here at RFF and in LJ in the past,
LJ part was widely copied on other sites to generate traffic, Without permission and copyrights,
I have also my photos published locally and at some web sites. Like Canadian National Geographics site.

If you don´t print big why the need for a 3k prime lens?

 

[Michael Markey]

If you don´t print big why the need for a 3k prime lens?

You could ask that question about anything we buy .
Because we can ?
If you`re not dependant on photography for a living you don`t need to justify the cost as much … if you don`t want to.

It may be a waste of money but then many things are.

Why to people buy luxury cars just to go to the supermarket ?

 

[colker]

You could ask that question about anything we buy .
Because we can ?
If you`re not dependant on photography for a living you don`t need to justify the cost as much … if you don`t want to.

It may be a waste of money but then many things are.

Why to people buy luxury cars just to go to the supermarket ?

"We buy"? No... I am on a different path. I use whatever camera I need and this is not necessarily related to money making. My shelves are piled w/ weird contraptions, cheap cameras, expensive cameras, lightning, old Bolex... everything was used to create something in a timely manner.

"Because we can"? You can buy Leica like jewelry or Porsche but that´s how it became a symbol for decadence while Nikon was associated w/ creative photography.
You can buy ultra expensive lens just because you can... but the masses can laugh at M digital Leicas becoming paper weights.