Leica gets it...

[Paul Luscher]

The only problem I have with the new M (much as I'd like to get one) is that it's a $7,000 camera with pretty much the same features as a $1,000 camera--the EM-5--which is also small, light, very quiet, and takes great photos. So on a cost-benefit basis...

 

[Roger Hicks]

The only problem I have with the new M (much as I'd like to get one) is that it's a $7,000 camera with pretty much the same features as a $1,000 camera--the EM-5--which is also small, light, very quiet, and takes great photos. So on a cost-benefit basis...

Dear Paul,

Sorry, I don't know the EM-5. Is it a full-frame camera with an optical rangefinder? If not, what features does it share with the M?

Cheers,

R.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

Well, that's the thing. It really doesn't seem necessary to update something that is so complete. I know it sounds ridiculous, but how much more will the next model need?

There are a few things i'm certain of:
1. Death
2. Taxes
3. My inability to meet women
4. Leica is not done selling you a 'better' version of whatever they are currently saying is "perfect"
5. Cats are awesome.

 

[Kent]

Ah, thank you. I was merely going on Leica's own information. Of course, it could be that I misunderstood. From memory (I'm too busy to check), they say that the sensor was developed in Belgium; the chip is manufactured in France; and the sensor is assembled in Germany.

Ah, OK. I confused "manufactured" and "assembled". By "manufactured" I understood "put together".

You're right! That's what Leica also told me.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Ah, OK. I confused "manufactured" and "assembled". By "manufactured" I understood "put together".

You're right! That's what Leica also told me.

Well, I also conflated 'chip' and 'sensor', so I could have been clearer.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Vickko]

.... yes.... but one small difference....from what I can tell, the Leica image files seem to be better that what other cameras produce (acknowledging the high ISO "lack" of performance).

Now, is that "better performance" worth the $6000 difference?

Am I anywhere near the photographer to be able to benefit from that difference?

Or, do I just like to "own the potential"?

🙂

The only problem I have with the new M (much as I'd like to get one) is that it's a $7,000 camera with pretty much the same features as a $1,000 camera--the EM-5--which is also small, light, very quiet, and takes great photos. So on a cost-benefit basis...

 

[Paul Luscher]

Dear Paul,

Sorry, I don't know the EM-5. Is it a full-frame camera with an optical rangefinder? If not, what features does it share with the M?

Cheers,

R.

Live View,for one. And no, the EM-5 is not a full frame camera with an optical rangefinder. But I don't think full frame is an absolute necessity for a great photograph--yeah, yeah, I've heard all the arguments, but as digital technology gets better , I think that a 4/3 sensor will produce photos with the same resolution as"full frame," if they aren't already. All I know is that I get great photos out of 4/3, which I've been shooting for four years now.

And no, the EM-5 does not an have an optical viewfinder--has an EVF. But obviously, one doesn't need an optical rangefinder to take a great photo--the EM-5's autofocus is amazingly fast. Better yet, the EVF allows you to preview how the sensor actually sees the photo before you take it.

Point is, I am simply not willing to pay $7,000 for Live View (which I think is a little superfluous on a rangefinder anyway), or for a snap-on EVF. If I want those things, my EM-5 provides them at 1/7 of the New M price. Otherwise, my "old" M9 will do just fine.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Live View,for one. And no, the EM-5 is not a full frame camera with an optical rangefinder. But I don't think full frame is an absolute necessity for a great photograph--yeah, yeah, I've heard all the arguments, but as digital technology gets better , I think that a 4/3 sensor will produce photos with the same resolution as"full frame," if they aren't already. All I know is that I get great photos out of 4/3, which I've been shooting for four years now.

And no, the EM-5 does not an have an optical viewfinder--has an EVF. But obviously, one doesn't need an optical rangefinder to take a great photo--the EM-5's autofocus is amazingly fast. Better yet, the EVF allows you to preview how the sensor actually sees the photo before you take it.

Point is, I am simply not willing to pay $7,000 for Live View (which I think is a little superfluous on a rangefinder anyway), or for a snap-on EVF. If I want those things, my EM-5 provides them at 1/7 of the New M price. Otherwise, my "old" M9 will do just fine.

Few if any features are "an absolute necessity for a great photograph". On the other hand, if you already have (and are used to) full frame lenses and rangefinders, it makes little sense to compare a 4/3 camera with an EVF finder with the M9 or Type 240. I mean, why not buy a DSLR? Or a 4x5? Or a Holga? All have about as much in common with an M9 or M as the EM-5.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Paul Luscher]

Few if any features are "an absolute necessity for a great photograph". On the other hand, if you already have (and are used to) full frame lenses and rangefinders, it makes little sense to compare a 4/3 camera with an EVF finder with the M9 or Type 240. I mean, why not buy a DSLR? Or a 4x5? Or a Holga? All have about as much in common with an M9 or M as the EM-5.

Cheers,

R.

Well, I shoot both "full frame" and 4/3 (and how ironic the 35mm is considered "full frame" now, being that when the first Leica came out, 35mm was considered in the same light as 4/3 is now).

I don't see this as a case of apples and oranges. ALL cameras have one thing in common--they're made to take photos. So I think comparisons can be made. I'm used to shooting "full frame,"since I did so for most of my photographic life, but that did not cause me any difficulty transitioning to 4/3. My 4/3 photos, as far as I can tell are equally as good, to my decidedly unprofessional eye, as what comes out of my M9. Granted , if I blew them up to billboard size, there MIGHT be a difference, but for my purposes, they work as well as anything coming out of my M9.


And OF COURSE I can compare the EM-5 to the New M, when they both have many of the very same features. I can't believe that Live View on a Leica M is such a world-beating feature that I simply must spend $7,000, when the Live View on my $1,000 EM-5 works just as well. And I should point out that Leica is merely "catching Up" (as someone pointed out here) with features like Live View...which a company like Olympus has had on its cameras for four years, at least....

Look, Leica Ms are nice cameras--I should know since I've been shooting them for 19 years. Yes they are a unique camera, but they are not such a unique and special object as far as I'm concerned, that it is sacrilege to compare them to other cameras, or to conclude that other cameras offer a better deal for less money. I'm sorry, I'm just not that much into the Cult of Leica to spend time sneering at other brands or types of cameras as "not worthy and not even comparable."

To repeat, Leicas are nice cameras. Got an M9 myself, like I said. But there was a reason why in 1959, photographers started abandoning the "perfect" Leica M in droves, for the much less costly Nikon F....

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

.... yes.... but one small difference....from what I can tell, the Leica image files seem to be better that what other cameras produce (acknowledging the high ISO "lack" of performance).

Now, is that "better performance" worth the $6000 difference?

Am I anywhere near the photographer to be able to benefit from that difference?

Or, do I just like to "own the potential"?

🙂

While i understand the rationale, if you do believe the Leica files are better (i don't), i that's still like saying all medium format photographers and photographs are inherently better than 35mm photographs. And, all 4x5 is better than 6x7. And, 8x10 is better than 4x5. Simply not true, although with digital the differences are 'different' versus film grain issues, where more grain can often be seen as more beautiful than less grain.

I keep going back to earlier interweb days, when the Altphotos site was still alive. There were scads of 'poor folk' shooting the crap out of 'rubbish' cameras in Russia and Czech and Poland, commonly putting the Leica crowd to shame. There are talented people with Leicas. There are talented people with other cameras. There are untalented people with both. Talent wins. The other issue is perhaps in getting the untalented Leica folks to realize their pictures don't get an extra 3 points of 'quality' simply because they were snapped by a German camera.

So, back to the point.... Are Leica M-digital's pictures better than Canon's or Nikon's? If they are, it seems to be a moot benefit, as professionals don't seem to need or want Leicas. It's hard to convince me that Dr. Dentist Crentist somehow needs an $8000 camera when people are shooting 'lesser' cameras under more stringent conditions and in more demanding situations. Yeah, you can say you "prefer a rangefinder," but come on. If everyone were honest, i'd bet a good number of those people who claim so have convinced themselves of it just as a way of differentiating themselves from 'the riffraff,' or because they just find fascination in odd gadgetry. Heck, i was one of them who had dalliances. And, i tried to convince myself it was worthwhile. The lenses almost make it worthwhile.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Well, I shoot both "full frame" and 4/3 (and how ironic the 35mm is considered "full frame" now, being that when the first Leica came out, 35mm was considered in the same light as 4/3 is now).

I don't see this as a case of apples and oranges. ALL cameras have one thing in common--they're made to take photos. So I think comparisons can be made. I'm used to shooting "full frame,"since I did so for most of my photographic life, but that did not cause me any difficulty transitioning to 4/3. My 4/3 photos, as far as I can tell are equally as good, to my decidedly unprofessional eye, as what comes out of my M9. Granted , if I blew them up to billboard size, there MIGHT be a difference, but for my purposes, they work as well as anything coming out of my M9.


And OF COURSE I can compare the EM-5 to the New M, when they both have many of the very same features. I can't believe that Live View on a Leica M is such a world-beating feature that I simply must spend $7,000, when the Live View on my $1,000 EM-5 works just as well. And I should point out that Leica is merely "catching Up" (as someone pointed out here) with features like Live View...which a company like Olympus has had on its cameras for four years, at least....

Look, Leica Ms are nice cameras--I should know since I've been shooting them for 19 years. Yes they are a unique camera, but they are not such a unique and special object as far as I'm concerned, that it is sacrilege to compare them to other cameras, or to conclude that other cameras offer a better deal for less money. I'm sorry, I'm just not that much into the Cult of Leica to spend time sneering at other brands or types of cameras as "not worthy and not even comparable."

To repeat, Leicas are nice cameras. Got an M9 myself, like I said. But there was a reason why in 1959, photographers started abandoning the "perfect" Leica M in droves, for the much less costly Nikon F....

Sure. And you can compare Ferraris and Rolls Royces. Or McDo and real food. Or boots, shoes and sandals. Sacrilege? No. Different? Yes. 'Value for money' is an intensely personal concept. I don't think anyone's sneering: just saying what they prefer, and pointing out that an RF isn't a DSLR, which in turn isn't a mirrorless...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Lss]

Yeah, you can say you "prefer a rangefinder," but come on. If everyone were honest, i'd bet a good number of those people who claim so have convinced themselves of it just as a way of differentiating themselves from 'the riffraff,' or because they just find fascination in odd gadgetry.

Is preferring something just a lie?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Is preferring something just a lie?

Depends on how much you prefer it; how much you care about anything; how honest you are with yourself; how much you are prepared to treat others as being as honest with themselves as you are with yourself...

After 40+ years of photography; after using RFs for well over 30 years as part of earning a living; as one experienced in quite a few types of cameras and formats... No, I have no problem in saying that I prefer RFs.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Paul Luscher]

Sure. And you can compare Ferraris and Rolls Royces. Or McDo and real food. Or boots, shoes and sandals. Sacrilege? No. Different? Yes. 'Value for money' is an intensely personal concept. I don't think anyone's sneering: just saying what they prefer, and pointing out that an RF isn't a DSLR, which in turn isn't a mirrorless...

Cheers,

R.

Prezactly. I prefer my M9 for certain things, and I prefer my EM-5 for certain other things.

As for me, Leica-wise, I will wait till the NEW New M comes out in a few years. You know, the one with the "Ansel Adams Mode," David Duncan Douglas Mode," Eisenstadt Mode," and so on. You just press the button, it does the rest....

 

[dct]

Indeed, look at Mercedes-Benz cars, for example the "S" class. If you only read the designation, say the very common 280SE, you cannot tell for shure what model it was, because several types did share this designation. But of course there is a type table, based on chassis construction. Writing 280SE-W116 you would specify exactly the one model produced from '72 to '79.

Same for Leica. The actual new one is clearly a M-240!