Apologies if business talk style comes off as brusque. Legitimate, economically based Leica criticism sure stirs up some passions. I've owned Leica (and acnafford to). I admire their engineering and have said so many times.
Obviously those "passions" distort some reality s stated i this thread.
We were told that Leica's did not go to war (they did; Leica says so)
That Leica is not really a luxury brand (Leica advertises itself as a luxury brand)
That the M9 sensor was state of the art (it was not by all objective tests)
That CCD renders colours differently than CMOS (cannot; all sensors are monochrome)
...
In the end the consumer-grade sensors can produce identical images because traditional Leica attributes are a wash with this homogenization. Leica's choice of sensors appears to be a business decision contributing to this, not fighting it. That is my major takeaway from all this.
I find this an interesting business shift and market phenomenon. Some people feel threatened by it. Oh well.
I'm not the least bit put off by business style talk... but yours wasn't, it was demeaning and confrontational from the onset in this thread. So... let's review your "reality" by reviewing your
actual statements...
The schmucks who purport to buy Leica's for their IQ, which is definitely not supported by the sensors...not even close (Ming Thein's S2 review is a killer)...are only giving street cred to the status brand effort ("See. The old school RF geeks still like them"). When the RFF crowd reach up to pay luxury prices, it only feeds the Leica marketing effort to give the stars who use Leica the impression they are continuing the workaday, photojournalist credibility that built the brand. It's the mystique and nostalgia that sells. You are helping them. They've got you doing their work.
We here who are members of RFF who buy Leicas are schmucks who shill for Leica without any true understanding of why we own them? You don't see that as being insulting? I'm all for "business talk... but that ain't
it.
The M3 was built tough because it had to be tough. It went to war!
You didn't say
Leicas went to war, you said
the M3 went to war. The M3 was introduced in 1952. It was, in fact, used by a few journalists covering conflicts, but was introduced AFTER the end of WWII and was NOT purpose-built for anything but the civilian post-war market. They proved themselves as compact, rugged and reliable, but the 1:1 viewfinder wasn't well accepted by those in pho-jo who wanted a 35mm frame in the finder. By the time Viet Nam heated up, the M2 was the preferred body for most journalists. The M4 was introduced in 1967 and quickly became the body used my most photojournalists and military photographers who shot Leica. The U.S. Navy and Army bought M2 kits in the early 1960s, and by 1970 most of those had been retired and replaced by M4 or KE-7A kits. The M3 as a model just didn't see much action. There are at least a couple of us here who used those Navy kits while we were in the service.
Leica was never a value brand save for their outstanding durability; a rugged, enduring photographic tool.
Apparently from your posts, that it remains a rugged, enduring photographic tool is no longer a valid reason to buy Leica?
That the M9 sensor was state of the art (it was not by all objective tests)
I would take issue with that... I've said this several times in this thread but apparently it's gotten lost. I'll say it one more time... no off-the-shelf FF sensor was competent to be used with the short back-focus of the Leica. The engineers had to come up with a new design to accommodate the M bodies. While the sensor may not show well against whatever other sensor you want to do "objective testing" with, there is no other sensor that will work in a Leica body. It was, in fact, "state of the art" as a result of it's unique abilities.
From Luminous Landscape:
"Many will remember as well that Leica had said that a full-frame M series would be very unlikely. The reason for this is the extremely short back focus of rangefinder lenses. This is because there is no mirror housing and therefore the rear of the lens lies very close to the focal plane. With a full frame sensor, it was believed, there would be no way to allow for coverage at the edges and especially the corners, because of the acute angle of the light rays, especially with wide angle lenses and lenses of retrofocus design. These peripheral rays end up striking the corners of the photo site wells rather than the silicon at the bottom of the well.
Somehow though the engineers at Kodak were able to pull it off though the use of microlenses over the sensor as well as the positioning of the photo sites at the periphery of the sensor."
I have made part or all of my income in one area or another of photography since 1971. I was a Navy photographer from 1974-1979. I've used most brands along the way in both film and digital. I'm not particularly thin skinned about equipment. Cameras are tools. Like most of us, I have preferences; I like using some better than others. I like using coupled coincident-rangefinder cameras when I can. I really don't care much what anyone says about any particular brand or model, but when someone comes along with opinions that are promulgated as "immutable truth" that "proves" their point; that they're confrontational about the dogged presentation of those "truths;" and their "truths" really don't rise to the level of significance they seem to think that they do, I get annoyed.
I am annoyed when this same tactic occurs in politics as well. Occasionally something that every camp does is suddenly elevated by a strident voice as being a practice that is suddenly inappropriate and finger-pointing begins. Apparently, you haven't closely examined the advertising programs and marketing structures of any of the other major brands who do exactly the same things you ascribe to and rant about Leica for... but because Leica prices their equipment higher, it's suddenly bad? If they've figured out how to make money in this economy, they're brilliant. You can bet that the other manufacturers are following their success closely.
Now, I'll grant you that the Dx0 numbers for the Leica sensors are not as high as other brands. I'll NOT allow, however, that I think that's a problem. The cameras perform admirably in the real world. There's a point in computer technology where it's appropriate to ask the question "how fast is 'fast?'" We seem to be at that point with cameras as well. Measures of performance vary. My M9P makes brilliant 24"x36" prints. That's better than I could ever get out of 35mm film. I don't know what else you can ask of a 24x36mm sensor.
Sorry, but... you're continuing to stir a tempest in a teapot. Your premise is that because the Dx0 testing numbers for the Kodak CCD sensor in the M9 are less than that of other more recent sensors that the
M9 product is inferior. DxO numbers alone do not make images nor do they translate directly into making prints in the real world, and your arguments still don't hold water. In use, the
M9 product's performance is more than adequate. In fact, there's nothing in its class for it to be inferior to. There ARE no other full-frame coincident, coupled-rangefinder cameras on the market at any price by any other manufacturer. The sky still isn't falling. And this thread has
really continued on far too long now.
