Lloyd wrote a letter to Leica AG...

[jarski]

but... I still have some popcorn left

sry ot

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Some people (especially those of us trained in science and engineering) believe in progress.

Myself as trained in science in engineering, I guess you're affirming that I am a heretic and do not "believe in progress" (although I believe that false syllogisms do not a Truth make).

In at least some ways, Leica seems to agree: the Leica ASPH lenses have not "been like that" for decades. They now offer across-the-line performance, especially at wide aperture, that (with a few exceptions) simply was not available twenty years ago.

And what does that have to do with anything I've stated bound within the limits of this thread? (refresher: I've complained about this --and have bound my statements here to the limits of the following quote

I like to shoot wide open as I show for example in Landscape Photography at Wide Apertures, but the inability to check accurate focus even after shooting is a fundamental design flaw.

Hence, it seems worthwhile to offer camera bodies that, to a reasonable extent, can keep up with that progress when used in a critical manner. With some changes that would have little impact on its M-like character, the M9 might be made much, much better for critical use (that is, getting the subject in critical focus). Else, why bother with $4,000 lenses?

Agreed.

It's pretty obvious, if you read carefully, that critical users from Ken Rockwell to Dante Stella to Erwin Puts agree with this assessment (and yes, Rockwell is a critical user, if you read his lens reviews closely).

Why are you bringing "the lenses" as a counter-argument to what I've stated above? I'm assuming that you've read and understood what I've said. If so, I don't understand why you're mixing my talk of apples with that talk about pineapples (even though there's "apples" in "pineapples").


Let me put it another way: let's say you have Leica, the maker of office telephones, and Nikon, the maker of the iPhone. Stay with me.

Business executives use Blackberries and iPhones and Android phones, just like other people in industrialized Western societies.

Then there's this guy that complains that the Leica phones are stupid because you can't play videos, take photos, browse the Internet or use Skype, just like in his iPhone, which other business executives and lawyers do. The logic follows that the Leica phones are fundamentally flawed because there is no way to use them if you unplug them, and what's even worse, that LCD screen is not a touchscreen and you cannot play multimedia.

Then you come in and you argue that while iPhones are cool and professional executives use them, it's ridiculous to compare both Nikon and Leica phones because they are not meant for the same thing.

But --he'd respond--, they are used for the same thing: you take and place phone calls. Also, your boss uses his iPhone in business meetings at work, right? --he asks--, then, all employees have to use iPhones at their desks.

That's just nonsense --I'd say.

You don't like progress --you'd respond.

Yeah, you don't like to hear that iPhones are better and that retrograde phones don't need to be replaced by iPhones --he'd add--, you like to adhere to the Cult of no-iPhone.

Besides --you'd add--, your analogy doesn't hold, because iPhones are made by Apple, who also make computers, and Leica doesn't make computers.





Quite silly, isn't it?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

On the question of digital cameras costing more than a comparable film camera-

A new M6 that cost $2500 in 1991 would cost about $4000 in 2010 $'s. The MP and M7 are in that ballpark, especially given the slide of the dollar in the last year. The M9 is more, and of course is a Digital camera.

The Canonet QL17 GIII cost about $120 in 1971, and from the inflation calculator
"What cost $120 in 1971 would cost $638.70 in 2010."

The Canonet is the film equivalent of a Fuji X-100, a small compact camera with a fast/ moderate fixed wide-angle lens. So by the same reasoning, the digital camera cost about twice as much as it's film counterpart, adjusting for inflation.

 

[rxmd]

Some people (especially those of us trained in science and engineering) believe in progress.

In at least some ways, Leica seems to agree: the Leica ASPH lenses have not "been like that" for decades. They now offer across-the-line performance, especially at wide aperture, that (with a few exceptions) simply was not available twenty years ago.

The M9 offers across-the-line performance, especially regarding convenience, resolution and high ISO, that (with a few exceptions) simply was not available twenty years ago.

 

[SDH]

I own an M9 and love it - use it mostly with legacy lenses. That said, some of what Loyd says makes sense. the frame lines are crude, focus with longer lenses is tough, and the LCD is just plain humble. I don't think electronic framelines or some sort of electronic supplementary focus aid would ruin my RF experience and I hope Leica considers them. The rear screen should be upgraded as well to a modern high Rez screen.

 

[jsrockit]

On the question of digital cameras costing more than a comparable film camera-

A new M6 that cost $2500 in 1991 would cost about $4000 in 2010 $'s. The MP and M7 are in that ballpark, especially given the slide of the dollar in the last year. The M9 is more, and of course is a Digital camera.

The Canonet QL17 GIII cost about $120 in 1971, and from the inflation calculator
"What cost $120 in 1971 would cost $638.70 in 2010."

The Canonet is the film equivalent of a Fuji X-100, a small compact camera with a fast/ moderate fixed wide-angle lens. So by the same reasoning, the digital camera cost about twice as much as it's film counterpart, adjusting for inflation.

You forgot to add film to the cost of those cameras... But then again, with digital, you need a computer, etc.

 

[raid]

The EVF is one of the things I don't like too much about the X100 ... having never experienced one before I wasn't sure what to expect.

They have a long way to go yet IMO ... I don't mind the image in the finder itself but the way it judders when moving the camera isn't exactly inspiring!

When taking photos in very strong sunshine, such as in the desert, the EVF is needed to be able to do any composition and focusing at all.

 

[sper]

Myself as trained in science in engineering, I guess you're affirming that I am a heretic and do not "believe in progress" (although I believe that false syllogisms do not a Truth make).




And what does that have to do with anything I've stated bound within the limits of this thread? (refresher: I've complained about this --and have bound my statements here to the limits of the following quote






Agreed.




Why are you bringing "the lenses" as a counter-argument to what I've stated above? I'm assuming that you've read and understood what I've said. If so, I don't understand why you're mixing my talk of apples with that talk about pineapples (even though there's "apples" in "pineapples").


Let me put it another way: let's say you have Leica, the maker of office telephones, and Nikon, the maker of the iPhone. Stay with me.

Business executives use Blackberries and iPhones and Android phones, just like other people in industrialized Western societies.

Then there's this guy that complains that the Leica phones are stupid because you can't play videos, take photos, browse the Internet or use Skype, just like in his iPhone, which other business executives and lawyers do. The logic follows that the Leica phones are fundamentally flawed because there is no way to use them if you unplug them, and what's even worse, that LCD screen is not a touchscreen and you cannot play multimedia.

Then you come in and you argue that while iPhones are cool and professional executives use them, it's ridiculous to compare both Nikon and Leica phones because they are not meant for the same thing.

But --he'd respond--, they are used for the same thing: you take and place phone calls. Also, your boss uses his iPhone in business meetings at work, right? --he asks--, then, all employees have to use iPhones at their desks.

That's just nonsense --I'd say.

You don't like progress --you'd respond.

Yeah, you don't like to hear that iPhones are better and that retrograde phones don't need to be replaced by iPhones --he'd add--, you like to adhere to the Cult of no-iPhone.

Besides --you'd add--, your analogy doesn't hold, because iPhones are made by Apple, who also make computers, and Leica doesn't make computers.

Quite silly, isn't it?

You keep insisting that people aren't understanding your analogies, but your analogies aren't good. Harley Davidson can't be ridden in the rain, well you know what nobody is saying that you should be able to use a Leica underwater...all we want to do is focus it accuratly, or maybe check focus on the screen. Or hey maybe handle quick shooting with a buffer that can handle 18mp raws. Nobody is saying that the Leica M needs to be a D3S. But you know what, maybe it should be a little more LIKE a D3S since it's so much more expensive.

Actually, in the Nikon system when manually focusing there is a little dot that light up when the camera thinks it's in focus according to the focus point. It's in the lower left corner of the viewfinder. Would that really kill you if it was included in a Leica M? Would that be so terrible? Why would it be so bad if the battery lasted longer? OR IF IT WAS CHEAPER?!

But you're right, you can't complain about the M cause it is what it is. It can't be anything else. In that case I really hope you didn't download the new firmware released yesterday, because color fringing in the corners is just what Leica does, and trying to say that they should do something else would just be "not getting it."


But anyways, what are you going to do when the M10 is released? Obviously for you the M9 can't be inproved and it's "so silly" to act like it could be?

 

[sper]

A Leica M9 is about as expensive as a Nikon D3 using the comparison between an M6 and an F3HP. The M6 was ~$2500 when the F3HP was about $1200. Leica offered a $500 trade-in against the $2,500 price, bringing it to $2000. I bought a pair of F3HP's at the end of their production, at the SN 2M mark. One is still in the box, the 1983 F3AF is still going for the working pair that i use. The latter was not cheap when introduced. (M6 and F3 Prices from 1991 Pop Photo Ads)

Current prices of DSLR's:

http://www.penncamera.com/Digital-SLR-Professional-Prodlist.html

Price of Nikon D3S and 35mm 1.4 AFS: $6,800

Price of Leica M9 and 35mm 1.4: $12,000

NOT ABOUT AS EXPENSIVE, MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE.

And couple that with the fact that the M9 is really more like the D700 than the D3S, and you're really talking about a price disparity.

Serisously look up the price of a 50mm Summicron in the 80s vs the price of a 50mm Nikon lens in the 80s and the difference isn't that huge.

Now it's off the charts.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

You keep insisting that people aren't understanding your analogies, but your analogies aren't good. Harley Davidson can't be ridden in the rain, well you know what nobody is saying that you should be able to use a Leica underwater...all we want to do is focus it accuratly, or maybe check focus on the screen.

Price of Nikon D3S and 35mm 1.4 AFS: $6,800

Price of Leica M9 and 35mm 1.4: $12,000

NOT ABOUT AS EXPENSIVE, MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE.

:bang: :bang: :bang:

This keyboard is fundamentally flawed, it won't express for me exactly what I'm thinking.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

In 1991, the price of a Nikkor 50/1.8 AF was $64, and the price of a Leica 50/2 Summicron was $795. Ref- Oct 1991, Pop Photo.

In 1976, the Nikkor Non-AI series 50/2 was ~$75, and the Leica 50/2 Summicron was $260. Source: Aug 1976 Pop Photo, "Competitive camera".

Interesting that with 15 years of inflation, the manual focus Nikkor 50/2 non-AI is more expensive than the cheaper-to-make AF lens.

"What cost $75 in 1976 would cost $179.71 in 1991."

And with that, this thread is summed up.