While I'm a Fuji fan, this simply is not true. There is a huge part of Leica's fanbase that aren't into the Fuji due to it not having a RF, not having true manual focus lenses (in most cases), and for not being as elegant. Leica does not compete with Fuji in the same way other manufacturers have to.
They serve different market segments.
Technologically, APS-C is the new full frame. I can't see spending $7k on a camera. If it enabled me to make money, that would be one thing. I've bought $150,000 tools before, because they enabled profits. But I can't justify $7k as a hobbyist, when the Fuji provides images that are indistinguishable (from gear costing tens of thousands) when printed and hung on my wall. Walk out the door and take a few shots with an M, and it's already depreciated more than the entire cost of an X-E1 body.
Technologically, APS-C is the new full frame. I can't see spending $7k on a camera. If it enabled me to make money, that would be one thing. I've bought $150,000 tools before, because they enabled profits. But I can't justify $7k as a hobbyist, when the Fuji provides images that are indistinguishable (from gear costing tens of thousands) when printed and hung on my wall. Walk out the door and take a few shots with an M, and it's already depreciated more than the entire cost of an X-E1 body.
You think Steve is in love or something? I wonder if his girlfriend in the pics is jealous!
airfrogusmc
Veteran
They serve different market segments.
Technologically, APS-C is the new full frame. I can't see spending $7k on a camera. If it enabled me to make money, that would be one thing. I've bought $150,000 tools before, because they enabled profits. But I can't justify $7k as a hobbyist, when the Fuji provides images that are indistinguishable (from gear costing tens of thousands) when printed and hung on my wall. Walk out the door and take a few shots with an M, and it's already depreciated more than the entire cost of an X-E1 body.
It aint the new FF to me and never will be. I see in a 35mm FoV on FF. I spent a lot of $$$ on the 35 lux because thats important to me. I don't want to spend even more a 21 lux to give me about the same FoV I can get with my 35 lux on my MM. And I think if you have an M now and took a few images with it you might be able to get even more than what you paid for it maybe the cost of the Fuji in profit because there those out there that don't want to wait. So if like the Fuji rock on. Trying to rationalize cost is insane.
OK, call me insane then.
I'm not criticizing anyone's choice here, I'm just justifying mine.
And the market has spoken with regards to the new full frame. Tell me how many APS-C cameras have been sold in the last 4 years vs. full frame.
I'm not criticizing anyone's choice here, I'm just justifying mine.
And the market has spoken with regards to the new full frame. Tell me how many APS-C cameras have been sold in the last 4 years vs. full frame.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
OK, call me insane then.
I'm not criticizing anyone's choice here, I'm just justifying mine.
And the market has spoken with regards to the new full frame. Tell me how many APS-C cameras have been sold in the last 4 years vs. full frame.
Threes Company was the highest rated show on TV. Popular doesn't mean good. The reason I chose Leica was the lack of things the herd gravitates towards. I spent almost 8K on a camera that is B&W only. And I love it. The best 8K i've ever spent. Most want a camera that does everything for them. Thats clearly not me.
Whatever dude. Like it or not, there are far more people shooting APS-C, and it's quite easy to see why. The incremental difference in performance is minimal, but the cost differential is large. There are plenty of people that want that last little bit of performance and are willing to spend the bucks. There are many more multiples of people that don't think it's worth it.
Jubb Jubb
Well-known
each to their own.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Again I couldn't care less what others shoot. The reality is Leica moved to FF.
Nikons top professional camera moved to FF. Canons been FF. FF is not going anywhere.
Less performance in what way? I want a range finder that is FF has more DR and is dedicated B&W. There is only one of those. The funny part is there is still a waiting list for it. I waited 6 months for mine so I must not be alone.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I agree with the "Threes Company" statement - heck, the only redeeming character on that show was Mr Furley. . .
(my opinion mind you . . )
But ya know, part of the reason I shoot Leica is because I started on a rangefinder as a boy - a Konica Auto S3 - and right now, having tried the other rangefinders, I found I preferred how Leica felt in my hand. Everyone's different though - horses for courses and all that. I haven't spent 8K yet on a camera but I gotta wonder. . . Do you love the camera because you spent 8K on it or would you have loved the camera regardless of how much it was or what brand it was?
The reason I ask that question relates back to your comment on "the herd".
Just seems to me that if you really did enjoy the camera for what it was; just a tool, then you wouldn't care what "the herd" were doing or where they were headed and there would be no need to mention the cost of a camera. It is what it is - just a box to take photos.
I chose Leica because it was the right camera for me and not because it was different than what others wanted/had/desired.
Cheers,
Dave
Sure, the key word is 'professional.' If a pro can justify the cost, and justify the incremental performance difference, more power to them. A lot of times pros must use pro cameras for jobs just because their customers expect them to, when a prosumer camera would be easily up to the task.
Who said you are alone? There are a few hundred of you so far.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
That's worth pondering Dave. I spent $40 on a Contax 139 Q, and it's great. Do I love it because it only cost $40?
I spent $40 on a Contax 139 Q, and it's great. Do I love it because it only cost $40?airfrogusmc
Veteran
I spent 8K because it works perfectly with my vision. If it cost 10 cents it wouldn't matter. Its what works for me and thats all I care about. Shoot what you want but to say the Fuji killed Leica or to imply that APS-C is the new full frame and its the right choice because it popular I will take exception to. The herd has never been driven my vision or what I shoot with.
I shot with 500 C/Ms for decades. I shot a lot with Leica Ms a long time ago and all kinds of large format cameras. Deardorffs and Horsemans. For mew and where I'm at now what I shoot with fits me and my vision. If it didn't I wouldn't shoot with it.
I shot with 500 C/Ms for decades. I shot a lot with Leica Ms a long time ago and all kinds of large format cameras. Deardorffs and Horsemans. For mew and where I'm at now what I shoot with fits me and my vision. If it didn't I wouldn't shoot with it.
As I stated, Fuji and Leica serve two different market segments. Your choice is right for you, of course.
As far as "implying" that APS-C is the new full frame, I didn't do that. I flat-out stated it.
Also didn't say it was the "right choice because it was popular."
As far as "implying" that APS-C is the new full frame, I didn't do that. I flat-out stated it.
Also didn't say it was the "right choice because it was popular."
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I assume you're talking about the Monochrom. It has the same dynamic range as the M9, because it has the same underlying sensor. Only difference is lack of a Beyer filter, and Beyer filters do not decrease dynamic range (in fact, if correctly interpreted by your RAW developer, Beyer filters can significantly increase DR). If DR is what you're after, you'll do better with an Olympus EM5, a Pentax K5II, or, I'd guess, an M240.
segedi
RFicianado
I see finer gradations, perhaps more tonality in the new M image. It's a bit deceiving though as the shot isn't identical. There is a shadow on the M-E version under the eye on the right. That combined with the yellow tones mixing with the skin tone gives a different look. And not a better one in my opinion.
And there are differences in the exposure. Differences in metering maybe. If you look at the new M image, top left corner there looks to be more vignetting as well. I don't think it's as well corrected as the M-E, but firmware should take care of that.
Overall, the differences might not make much of a difference. But, there are other advantages to the new M over the M-E which should sway anyone wanting to drop a lot of money to buy the latest offering.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I can pull so much more usable info out of the shadows than I ever could from the M9 oh and I forgot to mention killer 6400 ISO from the MM
airfrogusmc
Veteran
As I stated, Fuji and Leica serve two different market segments. Your choice is right for you, of course.
As far as "implying" that APS-C is the new full frame, I didn't do that. I flat-out stated it.
Also didn't say it was the "right choice because it was popular."
Actually if you look at the trends from Leica, Canon and Nikon they are all moving to more and more FF models. You did bring up popularity?