myM8yogi
Well-known
The X100 is a step in the right direction. Much better than the m4/3 cameras in my opinion.
But my opinion is based entirely on a "paper" camera.
What makes or breaks it will be the implementation. It "looks" like it could be a nice dRF, but forget the "retro" styling, how will it handle? Will it be responsive enough? Is f/2 fast enough for you? Do you need other focal lengths? Is the sensor big enough in terms of light gathering and DOF control? How does the MF feel? How quick is the AF? Does either AF or MF work well enough in low light? Do you miss a DOF scale on the lens barrell? Is the build quality going to last more than a couple of years being thrown in a bag as a "take-everwhere" camera? Is the optical viewfinder big and bright enough? What is the eye relief like if you wear glasses?
I expect enough of these things will work well enough for plenty of people to buy the X100. At least I hope so. But for 1000USD there will still be plenty of consistent complaints from users.
Say what you want, but I think Leica delivered on the M9. Not as a concept for a niche-market. As a camera.
If you were starting from scratch, it could be a very good idea to get an X100 and a crop dSLR with a wide angle and telephoto zoom for the same money as an M9 kit. But that is hyppothetical. Who has 7,000USD to blow on a camera system and yet has no other camera in their possession to complement?
Au contraire, I think a key X100 market for Fuji will be dSLR owners tired of hulking around their black bricks and heavy "stable" of lenses. I think they are the people who will most appreciate a small, light, wide aperture camera with dedicated manual controls, and have enough photographic budget to spring for one. After purchase, I think they will find their dSLRs are increasingly sat at home. But at the same time they will still miss the benefts of the large sensor interchangable lens system that they became accustomed to with those dSLR behemoths.
So I think everyone has got the impact of the X100 completely a**e about face; the X100 will bring more customers to Leica, not take them away.
But my opinion is based entirely on a "paper" camera.
What makes or breaks it will be the implementation. It "looks" like it could be a nice dRF, but forget the "retro" styling, how will it handle? Will it be responsive enough? Is f/2 fast enough for you? Do you need other focal lengths? Is the sensor big enough in terms of light gathering and DOF control? How does the MF feel? How quick is the AF? Does either AF or MF work well enough in low light? Do you miss a DOF scale on the lens barrell? Is the build quality going to last more than a couple of years being thrown in a bag as a "take-everwhere" camera? Is the optical viewfinder big and bright enough? What is the eye relief like if you wear glasses?
I expect enough of these things will work well enough for plenty of people to buy the X100. At least I hope so. But for 1000USD there will still be plenty of consistent complaints from users.
Say what you want, but I think Leica delivered on the M9. Not as a concept for a niche-market. As a camera.
If you were starting from scratch, it could be a very good idea to get an X100 and a crop dSLR with a wide angle and telephoto zoom for the same money as an M9 kit. But that is hyppothetical. Who has 7,000USD to blow on a camera system and yet has no other camera in their possession to complement?
Au contraire, I think a key X100 market for Fuji will be dSLR owners tired of hulking around their black bricks and heavy "stable" of lenses. I think they are the people who will most appreciate a small, light, wide aperture camera with dedicated manual controls, and have enough photographic budget to spring for one. After purchase, I think they will find their dSLRs are increasingly sat at home. But at the same time they will still miss the benefts of the large sensor interchangable lens system that they became accustomed to with those dSLR behemoths.
So I think everyone has got the impact of the X100 completely a**e about face; the X100 will bring more customers to Leica, not take them away.
Last edited:
eleskin
Well-known
Dragging big cameras around (ouch!)
Dragging big cameras around (ouch!)
I have a friend who I went to graduate school with who traded all of his DSLR stuff in to pay for the M9. Why?
1. He wanted to go back to basics with a conventional camera layout (rangefinder, dials, aperture ring, depth of field scales, etc,,,. Multi button and function DSLR's for him (and me too) got away from what he really loved and the mental stimulation of the rangefinder method.
2. He is sick and tired of dragging heavy DSLRS all over the world.
Yes, the M9 is a hit and Leica delivered. However, we live in a free market world, and the big deal here is #2. where DSLR's are heavy and large beasts. I remember the days of film SLR's. YOu would always see journalists with Nikons or Canons and also the Leica M in their kit. The only thing that has changed is not using film and going digital. So here, there is a sizable market for compact pro cameras. Leica has done it, so will Fuji. Hopefully, Nikon, Canon, etc,,, will get it and produce some exciting products. For Leica this means one thing. COMPETITION!!
This is a good thing for them. These special edition money cameras are cool, but not affordable to me and most people, and the M9 is great, but $2K higher to where it really should be priced. Competition will give us more choice in price range and model types. Competition will make Leica a better company as well in that they wil be forced to think about real product at competitive prices, not being the Franklin Mint of cameras!!!
Dragging big cameras around (ouch!)
I have a friend who I went to graduate school with who traded all of his DSLR stuff in to pay for the M9. Why?
1. He wanted to go back to basics with a conventional camera layout (rangefinder, dials, aperture ring, depth of field scales, etc,,,. Multi button and function DSLR's for him (and me too) got away from what he really loved and the mental stimulation of the rangefinder method.
2. He is sick and tired of dragging heavy DSLRS all over the world.
Yes, the M9 is a hit and Leica delivered. However, we live in a free market world, and the big deal here is #2. where DSLR's are heavy and large beasts. I remember the days of film SLR's. YOu would always see journalists with Nikons or Canons and also the Leica M in their kit. The only thing that has changed is not using film and going digital. So here, there is a sizable market for compact pro cameras. Leica has done it, so will Fuji. Hopefully, Nikon, Canon, etc,,, will get it and produce some exciting products. For Leica this means one thing. COMPETITION!!
This is a good thing for them. These special edition money cameras are cool, but not affordable to me and most people, and the M9 is great, but $2K higher to where it really should be priced. Competition will give us more choice in price range and model types. Competition will make Leica a better company as well in that they wil be forced to think about real product at competitive prices, not being the Franklin Mint of cameras!!!
Yes, the M8 menus are great as are the X1s. The E-P1 was horrible. Sure, we don't know about the X100's menu, but I'm pretty sure we can deduce that it will be pretty bad. However, the Fuji has a complete set of dedicated dials, switches, and buttons which the u4/3 cameras tend not to have; that should minimize the bad menus.
Well, the VF is vaporware, that's true. However, the concept is exciting and the u4/3's do not have intergrated VFs, so...
Last edited:
Steve Ash
Established
Competition
Competition
Eleskin,
Do you really believe that Leica is lacking competition? Leica's prices might not fit your budget, but that does not necessarily mean that they are making a lot of profit. You can convince yourself by looking at their financial report.
I would like to see them lowering their prices too but I would not like them to compromise on quality like others.
Regards
Steve
Competition
Eleskin,
Do you really believe that Leica is lacking competition? Leica's prices might not fit your budget, but that does not necessarily mean that they are making a lot of profit. You can convince yourself by looking at their financial report.
I would like to see them lowering their prices too but I would not like them to compromise on quality like others.
Regards
Steve
Alnitak
Established
No, apparently you weren't catching what I meant by saying the VF in the X100 appears to be innovative. My only point was that it was a mistake to imply that there weren't optical VF options for the other current small cameras. As for the X100, until we *see* and use it, I don't think we can judge how great it is, no matter how great it looks on paper. The newest EVFs for the Olympus system are extremely good, and we know they work. I love what I see so far of the X100, but I am bit concerned about a .5x VF--but that could just be my personal bias.
Alnitak
Established
While the MF RF's are appealing, they still are quite a bit larger than the camera size I prefer.
In the current crop of modern 24x36mm digital cameras, the M9 rules the roost as the most competent and compact package.
In the current crop of modern 24x36mm digital cameras, the M9 rules the roost as the most competent and compact package.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree that we have no clue about the Fuji other than in concept. However, I believe I was speaking about internal VFs the whole time, not external ones...
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I wouldn't worry about that.
In industrial and scientific optics (steppers, high-end fluorescence microscopes, aerial photography, machine vision), and in cinematography, Zeiss has plenty of credibiilty. The recent Zeiss efforts in 35mm rangefinder lens and camera design are -- in comparison to these other areas -- a cute little hobby.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Leica is selling M9's as fast as they can make them. That suggests that the price is not $2k higher than it should be. A free market world, as you say.
c.poulton
Well-known
It would be interesting to have a real comparison between the cost of a M9 today and the cost of, say a M3 or M2 in 1960 - in real terms, accounting for inflation etc - is the M9 really that expensive?
will-i_am
Well-known
but a digital isn't going to last 50 years
Roger Hicks
Veteran
UK prices (taxes always included)
M3 body 1963 £121:19:6d + meter and lowlight booster (approx) £19
M9 body 2010 £4995
Inflation factor from UK retail price index (approx.) 16x
£122 x 16 = £1952 or £141 (inc. meter) x 16 = £2256.
On the other hand you now have digital. Take an MP (more comparable) at £2899 and it's a bit under 30% more expensive in real terms.
Cheers,
R.
myM8yogi
Well-known
Will, who knows whether Leica will still be servicing the M9 in 50yrs?
They certainly have a precedent for maintaining service of 50yr old technologies.
Note that I am not suggesting maintenance of the exact same electronic parts - but the M9 as a functioning camera. I don't even think that anyone within Lecia could answer such a speculative question.
And for a meaningful comparison, you must also ask whether Leica will be servicing analogue Ms in 50yrs time.
They certainly have a precedent for maintaining service of 50yr old technologies.
Note that I am not suggesting maintenance of the exact same electronic parts - but the M9 as a functioning camera. I don't even think that anyone within Lecia could answer such a speculative question.
And for a meaningful comparison, you must also ask whether Leica will be servicing analogue Ms in 50yrs time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Or if Leica will exist in 50 years.
Last edited by a moderator:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
cam
the need for speed
touché
The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I'd be astounded if M9's were still getting factory service for electronic components in 15 years.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Given that they've promised 20 years' support, I wouldn't be surprised. Or are you accusing them of lying?
Cheers,
R.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Time will tell.
20 years is a long time for a microprocessor-based consumer product.