Richard G
Veteran
Looks a bit like Leela from Futurama.
fstops
-
Thanks dude.
Why would people not pay $1500 more and get the new Leica M digital over this ME thing?
If that is not absurd then what is?
If you're in the market for a digital Leica $1500 is not a lot of money.
Richard G
Veteran
Frame line selection is mechanical with the lens, not due to the optical reader. The optical reader allows specific coding of different lenses of the same focal length and of course, the properties of light fall off with a 25, for instance. It may be your 90mm Tele Tessar that is on or your Ultron 28.....
nico
Well-known
I don't really get it:
the new M, despite the new features, costs as much as the M9 and also less than the M9P ... and the ME - a (maybe not so much) stripped down M9- costs about $5,500 ...
I really don't understand this pricing policy ... there must be something missing to me ...
the new M, despite the new features, costs as much as the M9 and also less than the M9P ... and the ME - a (maybe not so much) stripped down M9- costs about $5,500 ...
I really don't understand this pricing policy ... there must be something missing to me ...
fstops
-
Yup. For some reason people will not pay $1500 more to get the Leica Milestone...
Unless of course that re-branded Olympus EVF costs $2000 more which would be really funny.
Teuthida
Well-known
Leica is following a tried and true two-tier strategy they've used in the past with their film Ms. The M2 was introduced as a no-frills cheaper alternative to the M3. the CL was introduced along with the M5 for the same reasons.
What doesn't correlate is the exponential increase in imaging brought on by digital technology. With the m3/m2 or M5/CL variations you simply had lesser features but the same basic performance. With the M/ME, you have relatively new technology vs. old, "obsolete" technology.
Maybe this is Leica's way of saying they aren't going to chase the technology ad infinitum, and that the level of imaging offered by the ME and the M9 is a performance base they are comfortable projecting into the future.
What doesn't correlate is the exponential increase in imaging brought on by digital technology. With the m3/m2 or M5/CL variations you simply had lesser features but the same basic performance. With the M/ME, you have relatively new technology vs. old, "obsolete" technology.
Maybe this is Leica's way of saying they aren't going to chase the technology ad infinitum, and that the level of imaging offered by the ME and the M9 is a performance base they are comfortable projecting into the future.
denizg7
Well-known
kinda a dissapointed at the m-e...
its an ugly repaint of the m9.. the m9p is better than this exterior wise...
kinda disappointing with the whole M and ME
Yeah of course if you gonna put a cmos sensor it can record videos. but video recording is just a filler feature for us leica shooters and defeats the purpose.. Just shows if sensors are made in japan for digital cameras you don't need brass top and bottom plates of what resembles a german camera...
i would rather buy a digital japanese rangefinder with a better japanese sensor and an m mount at this point
its an ugly repaint of the m9.. the m9p is better than this exterior wise...
kinda disappointing with the whole M and ME
Yeah of course if you gonna put a cmos sensor it can record videos. but video recording is just a filler feature for us leica shooters and defeats the purpose.. Just shows if sensors are made in japan for digital cameras you don't need brass top and bottom plates of what resembles a german camera...
i would rather buy a digital japanese rangefinder with a better japanese sensor and an m mount at this point
Eric T
Well-known
This is a sad day for Leica. Where is the imagination in Leica management?
At least Fuji and Sony are listening to us with great products.
At least Fuji and Sony are listening to us with great products.
jtm6
Well-known
I'm holding off on judging the color until I see one in person. The ME we see is a slick marketing representation of what it looks like. I bet it looks a lot better in person, albeit a departure like the Titanium.
If Fuji releases a FF rangefinder-like camera body that can take M lenses, I'll probably get one because I'll have no choice if i want to go digital with my M lenses (unless it is priced above the going rate for a used M9, M9-P, or ME).
bensyverson
Well-known
Leica obviously made a deal with Sony to get that 24MP FF sensor. I wonder if that deal included a guarantee that Sony would hold off on a FF NEX for a couple years.
We know now that Sony could offer a mirrorless interchangeable lens FF for under $2800. It wouldn't have a RF, and it wouldn't be assembled in Germany, but that might not matter if it's $2500 vs $5400....
Personally I'm thrilled at the introduction of any new rangefinder, but at these prices I'll have to "settle" for shooting with my Ikon.
We know now that Sony could offer a mirrorless interchangeable lens FF for under $2800. It wouldn't have a RF, and it wouldn't be assembled in Germany, but that might not matter if it's $2500 vs $5400....
Personally I'm thrilled at the introduction of any new rangefinder, but at these prices I'll have to "settle" for shooting with my Ikon.
brokencivilian
Established
I don't get why this camera is receiving so much hate. I mean, I do get it. But what has been said here is, if you can afford leica you can afford the 1500 to step up. But, that being said, for some 1500 is a fair bit of change. So I'm not going to hate that they made a "lesser" camera. Because it is only a lesser camera to people who what to think of it in that way.
For myself, any digital m mount leica would do. Hey, if they released a crop sensor m8ish camera for 2-3k I would probably hop all over it. that being said, 5-6k for full frame digital M? seams reasonable even though its still pricey.
For myself, any digital m mount leica would do. Hey, if they released a crop sensor m8ish camera for 2-3k I would probably hop all over it. that being said, 5-6k for full frame digital M? seams reasonable even though its still pricey.
ChipMcD
Well-known
If the M-E replicates most of the performance of the M9 at a lower price, what's not to like? I have an M9 and am still gaping at the image quality after a year. Wishh that Leica could have hit the same price point with the Monocrom. It'd still hurt, but maybe...
bensyverson
Well-known
I just question their ability to pull this off. In 2009, they were competing against only two FF cameras: the 5D Mk II and the D700. They were the only game in town if you wanted a smaller more discreet package. Now you have a raft of FFs, Sony's lineup, and a few very attractive APSC cameras from Fuji.
Basically, you have to REALLY hate EVFs or APSC to even consider paying $5500 for a camera with relatively bad high ISO performance and zero modern conveniences. If you're a real purist you're shooting film anyway.
Basically, you have to REALLY hate EVFs or APSC to even consider paying $5500 for a camera with relatively bad high ISO performance and zero modern conveniences. If you're a real purist you're shooting film anyway.
fstops
-
The ME is really what Leica had to offer (M users) for this Photokina, the M-Milestone actual release is so far ahead in the future that one might as well consider its true announcement next year.
And now that also explains the $1500 price difference between ME and M-Milestone, because you cannot buy a M-Milestone for a very long time and ME is the only "current" Leica you can get!
Clever? Yes, but also very shady and ripoff -ish strategy.
Harry Caul
Well-known
If I had to guess, the issue is that they didn't design a lesser camera. They didn't design anything. They took 3 year old technology and are trying to pass it off as something new again. Even if the quality of the M9/ME is still competitive, it is irrelevant to the people who see Leica as sitting on their laurels... or worse dressing up old tech in new case. I don't think you would have seen the same reaction as if Leica simply sold the M9 for a discount alongside the new M...
What do I know, though... my only Leica is an M3 with v1 Summilux
willie_901
Veteran
Except SONY has nothing to do with the sensor. The new Leica sensor is made by a small company (43 employees) in Belgium called CMOSIS.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Other sites are reporting the sensor is made by a Belgium semiconductor company, not Sony.
~Joe
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Why not a software menu to select the frameline size, by the user? I'm not insinuating that's what it's using, I'm merely making an alternative SWAG.
~Joe
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Yeah, why not get the camera that does stuff you don't use if it's only $1500 more- you'll look like such a putz with the cheaper one... I suppose I need to get rid of my M9's now, so I don't look like yesterdays fish...
leicashot
Well-known
People need to realise that the Leica is not about the latest and greatest specs. It's about everything a Leica has always been. The day the Leica M comes down the RX1 prices, where will this premium brand be?
If you don't want to pay more and get less, but a Toyota or camera-equivalent. no need to complain about it.
If you don't want to pay more and get less, but a Toyota or camera-equivalent. no need to complain about it.