New Leica release

No ISO100? I'll have to leave it then :p
 
Interesting but ultimately pointless (in real world use) technical exercise. Especially the new Summicron. But hey, photographers aren't really the target market for Leica any more.
 
As above. Interesting but pointless. It might improve on the dated M9 in some respects but a D800 sensor in the M9 body would outperform it by a landslide even if you just immediately converted everything to black and white.

It's sacrificing manual control over the image in a system where manual control is everything, it would seem. Sure, the system is more about in camera control than post-processing control, but don't Leica users always rave about the colour transmission of their lenses as part of why they're worth so much more?
 
So, am i reading this right? It only shoots in Black and White?

Why would someone choose this over the M9 or the M9P?
 
Every time Leica release another pointless special edition, it make me like them just a little bit less. However, their lenses are still near-perfection in primes, and the M9 is still in a 1 and a half horse race with the Japan-only RD1x. The Hermes edition is a possible contender for the most ridiculous yet...

as for the M9 monochrome - I get the idea but for most real world prints I can't help feeling the printer will see anything that an M9 and Silver Efex together wouldn't do. Even the most vivid Leicaphile might want to shoot colour occasionally....
 
To be fair, I can see why it would be technically very good due to the lack of filters on the sensor etc

Lot of money though, I suppose if you are a bit price sensitive Leica prob isn't for you!
 
Mikey. said:
So, am i reading this right? It only shoots in Black and White?

Why would someone choose this over the M9 or the M9P?
Click to expand...

Because it gets rid of the bayer colour filter array over the sensor which means better high ISO performance and sharpness and I think eliminates moire as you don't get the glitches in the colour algorithms that you do with the bayer arrangement.

However ISO performance still doesn't seem like anything to write home about so it's typically disappointing for a Leica camera.
 
Ksanti said:
Because it gets rid of the bayer colour filter array over the sensor which means better high ISO performance and sharpness and I think eliminates moire as you don't get the glitches in the colour algorithms that you do with the bayer arrangement.

However ISO performance still doesn't seem like anything to write home about so it's typically disappointing for a Leica camera.
Click to expand...

Yes i get that a "cleaner" sensor would produce "cleaner" images, but i doubt there would be a much of a noticeable difference over the standard cameras and given thats it has limitations the standard body doesnt have (only shooting in b&w) is it really worth the additional outlay for an image that wont be a great deal different and only in b&w?

I'll stick with lusting after a M9 P :love:
 
Mikey. said:
Yes i get that a "cleaner" sensor would produce "cleaner" images, but i doubt there would be a much of a noticeable difference over the standard cameras and given thats it has limitations the standard body doesnt have (only shooting in b&w) is it really worth the additional outlay for an image that wont be a great deal different and only in b&w?

I'll stick with lusting after a M9 P :love:
Click to expand...

Oh no, it's not worth it at all. I really don't see much worth in the M-system to begin with, but western photography enthusiasts aren't the target really, it's China nowadays.

The image will be substantially different but in a bad way. Without the colour data you can't process your images into black and white with anywhere near the degree of control you could before.
 
Ksanti said:
Oh no, it's not worth it at all. I really don't see much worth in the M-system to begin with, but western photography enthusiasts aren't the target really, it's China nowadays.

The image will be substantially different but in a bad way. Without the colour data you can't process your images into black and white with anywhere near the degree of control you could before.
Click to expand...

I think the M systems appeal, for me at least, is with the lenses rather then the bodies.

I love the feel of a rangefinder, somehow i feel more involved in the process with one. But Leica is asking stupid money for these camera's now, i bet a fair amount of them never take a single shot, there store on a shelf to be passed from collector to collector, the Monochrome being the latest one. Shame really.
 
Yes, as a new Bessa owner I think the sensible money is a Leica lens on a Voigtlander body. it would take a few hundred rolls of film before you started seeing any economy from going with the even the M8, much though I hate to admit it.
 
Mikey. said:
I think the M systems appeal, for me at least, is with the lenses rather then the bodies.

I love the feel of a rangefinder, somehow i feel more involved in the process with one. But Leica is asking stupid money for these camera's now, i bet a fair amount of them never take a single shot, there store on a shelf to be passed from collector to collector, the Monochrome being the latest one. Shame really.
Click to expand...

You say that but then to me they're much less useful lenses than what you give up by going with the M system. Without the autofocus you lose all hope for action photography and you lose the 70-200s, you lose the chance to shoot 85 1.4 or 85 1.2 as you have no hope of focusing it anyway.

I get why some people prefer rangefinders and it is a refreshing way of shooting at times, but I've never seen it being worth the credit Leica gets from its owners and a lot of it seems like a slightly different form of Apple brand loyalty.

Also the lenses haven't seemed that fantastic to me. I know a friend with an M9-P and 35 f/2 Summicron (don't know if he has any others) and none of the samples I've seen from him have made me think 'wow, I must have a leica'. It might be a comment on his photography but looking at the difference between a full frame camera and a crop camera is so noticeable that with the price gaps you'd expect it to scream at you in ways it just doesn't.

The noctilux in particular was given tidal waves of praise when the fringing that thing kicks out are disgusting to my eyes even stopped down to the more usual f/1.4 range, and the old one was soft and lacked contrast, but nobody seemed to care and since it was Leica they just said it was how it looked.

The M system certainly has its merits for street photography and perhaps its specificity to a genre I don't particularly enjoy is why I don't feel any draw to it, though I'll say the majority of my favourite street images were taken on DSLRs, not rangefinders. The days of DSLRs (short of the gripped D4/1D style bodies) being totally alien on the street are more or less gone and there's much less of a reaction nowadays I find. Unless you whip out a 1DS and a 70-200 there isn't much of a reaction change between Leica M and other cameras.

I do like the look of the S system, on another note, but I imagine if I ever got to the point of needing medium format quality I'd be shooting hassleblad.
 
Ksanti said:
You say that but then to me they're much less useful lenses than what you give up by going with the M system. Without the autofocus you lose all hope for action photography and you lose the 70-200s, you lose the chance to shoot 85 1.4 or 85 1.2 as you have no hope of focusing it anyway.

I get why some people prefer rangefinders and it is a refreshing way of shooting at times, but I've never seen it being worth the credit Leica gets from its owners and a lot of it seems like a slightly different form of Apple brand loyalty.

Also the lenses haven't seemed that fantastic to me. I know a friend with an M9-P and 35 f/2 Summicron (don't know if he has any others) and none of the samples I've seen from him have made me think 'wow, I must have a leica'. It might be a comment on his photography but looking at the difference between a full frame camera and a crop camera is so noticeable that with the price gaps you'd expect it to scream at you in ways it just doesn't.

The noctilux in particular was given tidal waves of praise when the fringing that thing kicks out are disgusting to my eyes even stopped down to the more usual f/1.4 range, and the old one was soft and lacked contrast, but nobody seemed to care and since it was Leica they just said it was how it looked.

The M system certainly has its merits for street photography and perhaps its specificity to a genre I don't particularly enjoy is why I don't feel any draw to it, though I'll say the majority of my favourite street images were taken on DSLRs, not rangefinders. The days of DSLRs (short of the gripped D4/1D style bodies) being totally alien on the street are more or less gone and there's much less of a reaction nowadays I find. Unless you whip out a 1DS and a 70-200 there isn't much of a reaction change between Leica M and other cameras.

I do like the look of the S system, on another note, but I imagine if I ever got to the point of needing medium format quality I'd be shooting hassleblad.
Click to expand...

You're trying to apply logic to something that defies logic. Leica no more makes sensible cameras than Ferrari makes practical vehicles for transport (and most owners cruise around central London in them). Or Rolex makes the best devices for telling the time.

It's how these things make you feel about using and owning them. Photographically, Leica is an irrelevance, and has been for decades.
 
Ksanti said:
You say that but then to me they're much less useful lenses than what you give up by going with the M system. Without the autofocus you lose all hope for action photography and you lose the 70-200s, you lose the chance to shoot 85 1.4 or 85 1.2 as you have no hope of focusing it anyway.

I get why some people prefer rangefinders and it is a refreshing way of shooting at times, but I've never seen it being worth the credit Leica gets from its owners and a lot of it seems like a slightly different form of Apple brand loyalty.

Also the lenses haven't seemed that fantastic to me. I know a friend with an M9-P and 35 f/2 Summicron (don't know if he has any others) and none of the samples I've seen from him have made me think 'wow, I must have a leica'. It might be a comment on his photography but looking at the difference between a full frame camera and a crop camera is so noticeable that with the price gaps you'd expect it to scream at you in ways it just doesn't.

The noctilux in particular was given tidal waves of praise when the fringing that thing kicks out are disgusting to my eyes even stopped down to the more usual f/1.4 range, and the old one was soft and lacked contrast, but nobody seemed to care and since it was Leica they just said it was how it looked.

The M system certainly has its merits for street photography and perhaps its specificity to a genre I don't particularly enjoy is why I don't feel any draw to it, though I'll say the majority of my favourite street images were taken on DSLRs, not rangefinders. The days of DSLRs (short of the gripped D4/1D style bodies) being totally alien on the street are more or less gone and there's much less of a reaction nowadays I find. Unless you whip out a 1DS and a 70-200 there isn't much of a reaction change between Leica M and other cameras.

I do like the look of the S system, on another note, but I imagine if I ever got to the point of needing medium format quality I'd be shooting hassleblad.
Click to expand...

They are though.
 
HoppyUK said:
You're trying to apply logic to something that defies logic. Leica no more makes sensible cameras than Ferrari makes practical vehicles for transport (and most owners cruise around central London in them). Or Rolex makes the best devices for telling the time.

It's how these things make you feel about using and owning them. Photographically, Leica is an irrelevance, and has been for decades.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I couldn't have said it any better :thumbs:

How can a Rolex tell the time any better than a Swatch? With that, how can a Leica take a photo that's better than a Nikon? It just isn't possible.

However, there is something about the experience that makes a difference. While I don't see the logic in the experience of Rolex watches (who needs a wrist watch anyway); the experience of firing-up a Ferrari, stuttering out of a parking lot, being nervous around town, and hoping to be able to throttle it before it loses control, that's something worth having every now and then.

For that same measure, the experience of using a Leica; but take better pictures it will not aid in that regards. Is it worth the multiple of times more than your top of the line SLR, no way.
 
Wail said:
Frankly, I couldn't have said it any better :thumbs:

How can a Rolex tell the time any better than a Swatch? With that, how can a Leica take a photo that's better than a Nikon? It just isn't possible.

However, there is something about the experience that makes a difference. While I don't see the logic in the experience of Rolex watches (who needs a wrist watch anyway); the experience of firing-up a Ferrari, stuttering out of a parking lot, being nervous around town, and hoping to be able to throttle it before it loses control, that's something worth having every now and then.

For that same measure, the experience of using a Leica; but take better pictures it will not aid in that regards. Is it worth the multiple of times more than your top of the line SLR, no way.
Click to expand...

Nice one Wail, I'm sending you a digital rangefinder high 5! Sounds like you have a Ferrari too?
 
Driving is much more about the experience though, photography is much more about the end result. Again, Ferrari owners are for the most part buying them as status symbols rather than being passionate drivers.

And a Ferrari is undeniably a better performer than a transit van, whereas the Leica system is nothing of the sort.

Rolex is better than swatch because of the build and in something which has a purpose which is unaffected by the equipment beyond how durable it is and how good it looks, the Rolex is across the board a better watch than the swatch.

However a camera's role is to take photos and the Leica fails at that in ways that neither the Ferrari nor Rolex fail at driving or telling the time.

And again, the lenses really haven't seemed to be substantially better from what I've seen outside of build quality, either at huge prints (when the 36MP of the D800 is arguably a bigger boon) or at normal sizes.

I accept your point that it's the experience and not just the end result, but I guess I just feel the number of Leica fans is disproportionate to the number of people who actually value the experience over the end result (and as such people exaggerate the quality of the end results from Leica to justify their choice).
 
:lol:

Not a Ferrari, I think they're for late 20s to 30s; an Aston Martin is my mistress; and while she is sexy and fun to drive, she doesn't get me from A to B any better than a Ford / Lexus (or any other car would). However, the fun getting there is surely different.

As for rangefinders, they are fun to use, but can they give a better picture? I find that hard to accept.
 
Ksanti said:
Driving is much more about the experience though, photography is much more about the end result. Again, Ferrari owners are for the most part buying them as status symbols rather than being passionate drivers.

And a Ferrari is undeniably a better performer than a transit van, whereas the Leica system is nothing of the sort.

Rolex is better than swatch because of the build and in something which has a purpose which is unaffected by the equipment beyond how durable it is and how good it looks, the Rolex is across the board a better watch than the swatch.

However a camera's role is to take photos and the Leica fails at that in ways that neither the Ferrari nor Rolex fail at driving or telling the time.

And again, the lenses really haven't seemed to be substantially better from what I've seen outside of build quality, either at huge prints (when the 36MP of the D800 is arguably a bigger boon) or at normal sizes.

I accept your point that it's the experience and not just the end result, but I guess I just feel the number of Leica fans is disproportionate to the number of people who actually value the experience over the end result (and as such people exaggerate the quality of the end results from Leica to justify their choice).
Click to expand...

Unless you want to move a set of bedroom furniture across town in which case the Transit van will be a better performer to the Ferrari.
 
I'm in two minds about the new M9 Mono.

The part of me that bought an M9 a while back absolutely lusts after the new camera. It has a certain purity about it which is very attractive, and there's no doubt that the M-series is delightful to use. Also I tended to convert the majority of my M9 to black & white.

On the other hand, why would I want a very high res sensor that just shoots monochrome? I'd only need such high resolution if I was printing extremely large. If I was doing that I'd likely be commercial fashion photographer printing for billboards or similar, and would therefore often need to shoot in colour, so I'd stick with a medium format camera.

Therefore, that leaves the potential purchasers of this rather expensive camera as extreme cameraphiles who are largely leisure users and have an absolute shedload of money to burn on the body and the extremely highly priced lenses.
 
Ksanti said:
Driving is much more about the experience though, photography is much more about the end result. Again, Ferrari owners are for the most part buying them as status symbols rather than being passionate drivers.

And a Ferrari is undeniably a better performer than a transit van, whereas the Leica system is nothing of the sort.

Rolex is better than swatch because of the build and in something which has a purpose which is unaffected by the equipment beyond how durable it is and how good it looks, the Rolex is across the board a better watch than the swatch.

However a camera's role is to take photos and the Leica fails at that in ways that neither the Ferrari nor Rolex fail at driving or telling the time.

And again, the lenses really haven't seemed to be substantially better from what I've seen outside of build quality, either at huge prints (when the 36MP of the D800 is arguably a bigger boon) or at normal sizes.

I accept your point that it's the experience and not just the end result, but I guess I just feel the number of Leica fans is disproportionate to the number of people who actually value the experience over the end result (and as such people exaggerate the quality of the end results from Leica to justify their choice).
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I don't see how a Rolex is a better watch than a Swatch? Nor can I understand how a Ferrari is a better performer than a Transit :shrug:

For Rolex, at the end of the day, telling the time is an end result; and the Swatch is as good at keeping time as a Rolex. Total cost of ownership, if we take a 20 year life span, then I'm sure the Swatch is a lot cheaper and just as efficient; and both can withstand extreme harsh environments.

As for the Ferrari, while it may go from 0-60 in under 3 seconds, who needs that, and more importantly, where can one push that while maintaining legal limits? Try driving a Ferrari out of a drive way, or in traffic, and you'll wish you were in a Transit instead; but the smiles you get from passer-bys will make the experience of your sweaty clothes a bit more fun :shrug:

As for the photography, the end result differs from person to person. I, for one, am in it for the whole experience, which to me is, from the pleasures of searching new / used equipment, to buying them, using them, planning a photo-shoot / trip, experiencing the shoot, the asset management, view the pictures, tagging them, and that's where my pleasure ends. I have no interest in printing, showcasing or selling my work. Hence, the end results which many would enjoy (financial reward or recognition) is not something I seek, and there are plenty others likeminded. With this in mind, the Leica is just as pleasurable as the Nikon, iPhone, Bronica, you name it.
 
Ksanti said:
Driving is much more about the experience though, photography is much more about the end result.
Click to expand...

A better shooting experience leads to better results though. It doesn't matter what you use or how much you paid for it, if you're comfortable with it then the results you achieve will follow on.
 
Ksanti said:
Driving is much more about the experience though, photography is much more about the end result. Again, Ferrari owners are for the most part buying them as status symbols rather than being passionate drivers.

And a Ferrari is undeniably a better performer than a transit van, whereas the Leica system is nothing of the sort.

Rolex is better than swatch because of the build and in something which has a purpose which is unaffected by the equipment beyond how durable it is and how good it looks, the Rolex is across the board a better watch than the swatch.

However a camera's role is to take photos and the Leica fails at that in ways that neither the Ferrari nor Rolex fail at driving or telling the time.

And again, the lenses really haven't seemed to be substantially better from what I've seen outside of build quality, either at huge prints (when the 36MP of the D800 is arguably a bigger boon) or at normal sizes.

I accept your point that it's the experience and not just the end result, but I guess I just feel the number of Leica fans is disproportionate to the number of people who actually value the experience over the end result (and as such people exaggerate the quality of the end results from Leica to justify their choice).
Click to expand...

It's only as good as the person taking the photos. Use some Leica lenses and see for yourself. There's a reason a Canon 50mm f/1.4 is £250 and a Leica version £2500.
 
for rich people that think they are another HCB lol

with todays technology you are going to be seriously hard pressed to see a difference in a print between a canon f1.4 and a leica version


while I appreciate the numbers can be better for leica lenses it does not always translate into the picture unless you are pixel peeping
 
Last edited:
A Rolex (or any automatic) is much less accurate than a battery powered Quartz, but there's something appealing about a mechanical heart.

A Rangefinder needn't be expensive, it's a different system which some people prefer (including me) because for some it feels more natural to use. This means you are more comfortable and take more (and perhaps better) photographs.

The M9 B+W is very expensive and I don't really see how such a price is justifiable, it certainly will be beautifully made (the M9 feels like a jewel) and I'm sure the lenses etc are technically perfect. Perfect gear doesn't result in perfect pictures, of course not.

They'll be snapped up (pardon the pun) by a certain demographic but those who like rangefinders know that they aren't the only brand out there and that sometimes 'perfection' is a bit sterile and lifeless. I'm happy squinting at my RF patch through the dull orange tinted barely visible viewfinder on my Paxette - it makes the results more satisfying. On the other hand I like my digital rangefinder because it's compact and so natural to use.

You'll probably see more pictures OF this camera than pictures taken WITH it!
 
Last edited:
hey , as for monochrome only, no problem -- you just need 3 coloured filters, take 3 shots and combine them in photoshop,:p instant triple pixel density:D
or buy a D800(e)
 
POAH said:
for rich people that think they are another HCB lol

with todays technology you are going to be seriously hard pressed to see a difference in a print between a canon f1.4 and a leica version


while I appreciate the numbers can be better for leica lenses it does not always translate into the picture unless you are pixel peeping
Click to expand...

Use one versus the other and you'll see. The Leica lenses beat them hands down.
 
Laudrup said:
Use one versus the other and you'll see. The Leica lenses beat them hands down.
Click to expand...

Yes I'll have in focus shots with the canon because of the Af ;)

Leica better built but really the difference is not going to be visible. It's not the 1930's anymore lens technology has moved leaps and bounds an Leica don't have the far superior qualitys they once did compared to other lenses
 
I would still argue that a lot of people use RF because they prefer to manually focus. I personally find it much more involving and more natural than AF. Obviously for some situations AF is far far more useful but I for one feel much more in tune with the picture and my surroundings when I manually focus and a rangefinder is the best way of manually focussing in my opinion. If you also happen to like digital then you don't have a great deal of choice.

Lens wise I find the Voigtlander lenses to be superb value for money. Diminishing returns - do I need to spend an extra £500 for a tiny difference in technical quality?

Bear in mind my comments are from the perspective of a hobbyist who takes pleasure in taking the photograph, not a professional who needs perfection, speed and a huge range of options.
 
Last edited:
POAH said:
Yes I'll have in focus shots with the canon because of the Af ;)

Leica better built but really the difference is not going to be visible. It's not the 1930's anymore lens technology has moved leaps and bounds an Leica don't have the far superior qualitys they once did compared to other lenses
Click to expand...

Quite. Leica had the edge, eons ago, when lens design was down to the skill of the designer and a small army of mathematicians than ran through all the formulae by hand. Often tens of thousands of them, even for a prime lens.

Then computers came along and that advantage was wiped out at stroke. The Japanese then took it a step further and pioneered zoom lens design that was simply impossibly complex without computer aid.

Leica makes some very good lenses, but nothing exceptional these days. The key differentiator is the magic of the brand. Zeiss has the same bewitching effect, even though they're made in Japan by Cosina.
 
POAH said:
Yes I'll have in focus shots with the canon because of the Af ;)

Leica better built but really the difference is not going to be visible. It's not the 1930's anymore lens technology has moved leaps and bounds an Leica don't have the far superior qualitys they once did compared to other lenses
Click to expand...

Have a look at the MTF charts for the new APO 50mm. I know they're pointless, but it's truly impressive at how little falloff there is. Totally pointless in real life, and I don't doubt that Canon/Nikon could design a 50mm that would be an equal if they were aiming for the same price point. Like ped said, diminishing returns, I believe Leica themselves said that they saw no need to update the older Summicron since it was pretty close to perfect anyway.

Also, focusing an RF is super easy and accurate, just gotta get your technique down. ;)
 
FruitFlakes said:
Also, focusing an RF is super easy and accurate, just gotta get your technique down. ;)
Click to expand...

How about for fast moving subjects like kids ;)
 
FruitFlakes said:
Have a look at the MTF charts for the new APO 50mm. I know they're pointless, but it's truly impressive at how little falloff there is. Totally pointless in real life, and I don't doubt that Canon/Nikon could design a 50mm that would be an equal if they were aiming for the same price point. Like ped said, diminishing returns, I believe Leica themselves said that they saw no need to update the older Summicron since it was pretty close to perfect anyway.

Also, focusing an RF is super easy and accurate, just gotta get your technique down. ;)
Click to expand...

If you want to see impressive MTF graphs, check out Canon's long primes. They are absolutely stunningly good. Leica has nothing to match those. Canon 100L macro isn't bad either. And they have AF and IS.
 
Last edited:
POAH said:
Yes I'll have in focus shots with the canon because of the Af ;)

Leica better built but really the difference is not going to be visible. It's not the 1930's anymore lens technology has moved leaps and bounds an Leica don't have the far superior qualitys they once did compared to other lenses
Click to expand...

On a 5D MKII? Well yes something will be in focus, but not always what you wanted based on my experience.

As for the lenses as I said use them and you'll see. They are on a different level.
 
HoppyUK said:
Quite. Leica had the edge, eons ago, when lens design was down to the skill of the designer and a small army of mathematicians than ran through all the formulae by hand. Often tens of thousands of them, even for a prime lens.

Then computers came along and that advantage was wiped out at stroke. The Japanese then took it a step further and pioneered zoom lens design that was simply impossibly complex without computer aid.

Leica makes some very good lenses, but nothing exceptional these days. The key differentiator is the magic of the brand. Zeiss has the same bewitching effect, even though they're made in Japan by Cosina.
Click to expand...

Zeiss making lenses in Japan or Germany doesn't mean anything, other than maybe to a collector, in the same way a Leica lens made in Germany makes it any better or worse to a Canadian made one. Optical glass and the tolerances used are the same no matter where you put it together.

Nobody is saying Canon or Nikon couldn't do what Leica do, there are no secrets any more, but they don't most probably due to cost and research and development and demand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top