gb hill
Veteran
LOL!! and at what cost? Intergrated circuits have come a long way but 20 years of carrying around. What about the shutter. Wonder what the cost of a new shutter will cost? This is Leica we are talking about! I doubt the rear display screen will last that long. I'm just looking at possible long term expenses the camera will cost you. New electronics are made to be replaced in a few short years. Thats how companies stay afloat!
daveywaugh
Blah
I imagine even 'Leica pros' have a difficult time making the justification. I imagine a LOT of people have gone the D700 route, and spent the extra money on an M6 and loads of film (with money still in the bank). That's probably the best of both worlds. But of course the 'one system' concept is valid, and if digital is required then the M9 is the only real choice. Where's that R5 
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Two great cameras, but almost $4500 difference.
Toyota Corolla and the BMW R1200
Two great motorized vehicles, but almost $4,000 difference.
Why pay $4,000 for half the amount of wheels, no roof, no trunk, no power wheels, and no power seats.
Why won't anybody show BMW to stop selling expensive transportation when you can also get a perfectly good used Ford Taurus for a fourth of that!
How silly :bang::bang::bang::bang:
ZeissFan
Veteran
The D700 is a large camera. It's nearly 1 kilogram (995 grams)/2.19 pounds, and that's without a lens.
Add a couple of Nikon's large zooms and an extra battery, and you're probably looking at 6 to 8 pounds easily. Try dragging that around for an afternoon.
Great image quality, but it's about as subtle as a Hummer.
The Leica -- smaller camera (585 grams/19.8 ounces). Add a couple of lenses, and you still have a very portable kit. Downside: No zooms (not an issue for rangefinder users). Plus, it's gonna cost you plenty.
Note that the D700 body isn't exactly an impulse buy at $2,700, while Nikon's top of the line, the D3X, will cost you $7,995 (body only).
The D3x weighs in at 1,220 grams or 43 ounces (2.7 pounds).
Add a couple of Nikon's large zooms and an extra battery, and you're probably looking at 6 to 8 pounds easily. Try dragging that around for an afternoon.
Great image quality, but it's about as subtle as a Hummer.
The Leica -- smaller camera (585 grams/19.8 ounces). Add a couple of lenses, and you still have a very portable kit. Downside: No zooms (not an issue for rangefinder users). Plus, it's gonna cost you plenty.
Note that the D700 body isn't exactly an impulse buy at $2,700, while Nikon's top of the line, the D3X, will cost you $7,995 (body only).
The D3x weighs in at 1,220 grams or 43 ounces (2.7 pounds).
Pablito
coco frío
"35mm frame size" digital cameras can actually produce images as sharp and nuanced as medium format film. 16x24" or larger prints with the most extraordinary detail. And I'm talking about APS, which is SMALLER than 35mm frame size. Of course it does not look just like film, it's different. For normal light levels, the D300 is good enough for me until it breaks, whenever that may be. So I don't see any built-in obsolescence really. Like my Leica film bodies. I just need the d700 for low light color.
antiquark
Derek Ross
The D90 is $2000 less than the D700! Can you justify the D700?
The D60 is $500 less than the D90...
The CoolPix EZ123 is $300 less than the D60...
(And so on and so forth.)
The D60 is $500 less than the D90...
The CoolPix EZ123 is $300 less than the D60...
(And so on and so forth.)
b.espahbod
Optophile
Leica is Expensive
tonyj
Established
Some thoughts ....
Some thoughts ....
The M6 will last many moons. The D700 too ..... perhaps
They won't become any less capable than they are now, given a little TLC and the proper maintenance which includes the odd CLA for the M6 and the equivalent for the DSLR D700, whatever that is. Same for the M9 no doubt, although it actually may become even 'more capable', given that we are being told that Leica will 'support' it for many years to come.
I hope that does not include the time spent waiting to take possession of one.
Remember the time we all waited to get our hands on a D200 with the 18-200mm lens? Then it was replaced by the D300 before we could even consider ourselves fully conversant with its functions? Good for some, but frustrating for others. (Canon users can substitute D20, D30, D40 etc.).
The old and not so old film cameras didn't necessarily get too much better from a photographic point of view as time passed, they just got different ...... and photographically many have still not been surpassed.
Back to the original question. Perhaps the D700 is equal in most aspects to the M9, and much better in some important areas, but having said that, I think the M9 will still be a much desired and used piece of equipment when the D700 has gone the same way as the D100, the D200 and probably the D300 did before it.
Looking back I wish I had bought my M3 fifty years ago. it would have saved me a fortune on a bunch of other 'must have' cameras that I owned.
Same with cars I reckon ..... I should have bought that Rolls I once admired in a showroom window.
Some thoughts ....
The M6 will last many moons. The D700 too ..... perhaps
They won't become any less capable than they are now, given a little TLC and the proper maintenance which includes the odd CLA for the M6 and the equivalent for the DSLR D700, whatever that is. Same for the M9 no doubt, although it actually may become even 'more capable', given that we are being told that Leica will 'support' it for many years to come.
I hope that does not include the time spent waiting to take possession of one.
Remember the time we all waited to get our hands on a D200 with the 18-200mm lens? Then it was replaced by the D300 before we could even consider ourselves fully conversant with its functions? Good for some, but frustrating for others. (Canon users can substitute D20, D30, D40 etc.).
The old and not so old film cameras didn't necessarily get too much better from a photographic point of view as time passed, they just got different ...... and photographically many have still not been surpassed.
Back to the original question. Perhaps the D700 is equal in most aspects to the M9, and much better in some important areas, but having said that, I think the M9 will still be a much desired and used piece of equipment when the D700 has gone the same way as the D100, the D200 and probably the D300 did before it.
Looking back I wish I had bought my M3 fifty years ago. it would have saved me a fortune on a bunch of other 'must have' cameras that I owned.
Same with cars I reckon ..... I should have bought that Rolls I once admired in a showroom window.
Last edited:
dfoo
Well-known
Justify. What do you mean justify? Who do I have justify anything too?
Vince Lupo
Whatever
How many shutters have you replaced in your cameras over the years? Not that I'm saying that it can't or won't happen, but in the 32 years that I've been using cameras (and I'm talking a LOT of cameras and a LOT of photos, as I'm sure you've probably done too), I can only think of two instances in which I've had to replace a shutter, and neither one was electronic. So I'm not really worried about that too much.
Can't really speak about the electronics - I've had some of my digital cameras and electronic flash systems etc for a number of years and haven't had any problems with them -- here again, not to say that it can't or won't ever happen....it is to be expected, that's for sure. Part of the cost of doing business...
Last edited:
JonasYip
Well-known
Two great cameras, but almost $4500 difference.
Like others who have replied, I don't really see the two cameras as alternates to each other, so I'm not sure why I would compare the prices.
But if I were to do so, I "luckily" get to compare not with the D700 but with my workhorse D3 (and D2x <- D1x <- D1) in which case the price differential doesn't look all that bad. Much easier to justify
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
I'm equally puzzled by the choice of words too. Justify? To whom?
Now, if you mean "to buy without remorse from spending money in something that's just a hobby", then I understand your question.
I did buy my D700 and put me in debt for some months. I didn't have to justify it to anyone: oddly enough, my wife was happy that I got a digital camera to photograph our baby (who came just a few months after it).
As for the M9... Thanks, I can wait for a long time, just as I waited for Nikon to come up with a relatively affordable FX body. Not that I can't justify it (because I don't have to). It's more like I don't see the point.
And, in any case, I can always swing for a used M9 in some 5 years.
aizan
Veteran
depending on what comes out next year, i could find it very difficult to justify buying an m9. the nikon d700x/d800 would take care of my medium format quality portraiture and landscape needs, while an aps-c compact would take care of my 35mm rangefinder needs.
fbf
Well-known
I can only say the D700 is great...It's fast, great dynamic range, superb high ISO performance, almost perfect AF and metering. I couldn't justify buying it until I realize how cheap it is even comparing to m8.
I will wait for a cheap m9 but I won't sell the d700.
I will wait for a cheap m9 but I won't sell the d700.
dfoo
Well-known
Which apc-c compact is a rangefinder?
aizan
Veteran
err, close enough for me, especially if it has a built-in optical viewfinder, though unlikely.
BillBingham2
Registered User
If it was bringing in the money, heck yes. It's would have to be a business decision. The D3 is LARGE to carry all day long and the D700 is only a bit smaller.
From the sidelines of using cameras for fun it's a big no. I'm OK with the small sensor tiny sized cameras. Perhaps once the M11 comes out in November of 2011 the prices of the M9 will be......
B2 (;->
From the sidelines of using cameras for fun it's a big no. I'm OK with the small sensor tiny sized cameras. Perhaps once the M11 comes out in November of 2011 the prices of the M9 will be......
B2 (;->
Novem
Member
I guess If I was thinking of buying a M9, I could think about the price of the Leica S2. I
could get one lens for the S2, or an M9. That makes the cost for a M9 not too bad in
perspective! Now about getting the body for the S2...
could get one lens for the S2, or an M9. That makes the cost for a M9 not too bad in
perspective! Now about getting the body for the S2...
jke
Well-known
Justify or rationalize?
The former implies some sort of moral or ethical puzzle, which could indeed be the case with a purchase, but my sense is that the question here, since it compares one purchase to another (rather than a purchase instead of a charitable contribution or donation of some sort,) asks whether anyone can rationalize spending the higher price, given a reasonably objective comparison of their functions.
That the M9 should create such a wrestling match should make Leica happy. Imagine being assigned by a company to design a product that would test a customer's will power or powers of rationalization vs. products selling for $4000 less.
The former implies some sort of moral or ethical puzzle, which could indeed be the case with a purchase, but my sense is that the question here, since it compares one purchase to another (rather than a purchase instead of a charitable contribution or donation of some sort,) asks whether anyone can rationalize spending the higher price, given a reasonably objective comparison of their functions.
That the M9 should create such a wrestling match should make Leica happy. Imagine being assigned by a company to design a product that would test a customer's will power or powers of rationalization vs. products selling for $4000 less.
Mephiloco
Well-known
Their film counterparts weren't cheap when new either, and are now for the most part, obsolete. I think people are exaggerating how quickly digital camera become obsolete. My primary digital is a Canon XTI, which came out in 2006. I paid $400 for it in 2007 with the battery grip, 3x 1gb cards, 5 batteries, an all the packaging materials. I'd probably get around that much for it now. The camera is by no means near obsolete to me. Newer cameras have more features, but that's the same with everything. I also have some digital point and shoots that are still usable, but I choose not to use due to poor battery life.
I don't know why if you were a photographer you would blindly stray from digital, considering how the sensors have gotten so much better than they were a few years ago, and to argue that film provides more 'latitude' in this day and age is unfounded. Film stocks are disappearing every year while it's becoming easier and easier to get comparable (in most cases: better) results with digital.
All of that being said, I primarily shoot film, but I'm not naive enough to say it's because it's a better medium. I shoot film because I like the workflow and like developing my own film and I like manual focusing. If someone were to give me an M9, I doubt I would use my M2 nearly as much.
I don't think the M9 is expensive for a digital camera, I think it's expensive for a camera, period. If you're a working photographer I'd like to think it's rather easy to justify the cost of a D700 or a D3 just by the shots you otherwise wouldn't be able to capture without one
I don't know why if you were a photographer you would blindly stray from digital, considering how the sensors have gotten so much better than they were a few years ago, and to argue that film provides more 'latitude' in this day and age is unfounded. Film stocks are disappearing every year while it's becoming easier and easier to get comparable (in most cases: better) results with digital.
All of that being said, I primarily shoot film, but I'm not naive enough to say it's because it's a better medium. I shoot film because I like the workflow and like developing my own film and I like manual focusing. If someone were to give me an M9, I doubt I would use my M2 nearly as much.
I don't think the M9 is expensive for a digital camera, I think it's expensive for a camera, period. If you're a working photographer I'd like to think it's rather easy to justify the cost of a D700 or a D3 just by the shots you otherwise wouldn't be able to capture without one