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
I'd agree with this, while MTF Leica would have the edge; I doubt the general user would be able to pick such nuances from prints they make.
A Rolex (or any automatic) is much less accurate than a battery powered Quartz, but there's something appealing about a mechanical heart.
That's my point. While Quartz beats automatic, people are still happy to fork out the pricier demand for automatics simply for the luxury. That's further exaggerated by how many really need a wrist watch these days?
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.
Another good point, and it's the "feel and use" that makes it magical, not the end result.
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.
This, like all other Leica, does feel like a jewel, which is just a part of the magic dust that they sprinkle on would be customers to lure them to buy these toys.
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!
And yes, more OF from these than anything else.
As a matter of fact, I was at a Leica store requesting to buy an angle finder (which is sold with their macro lens) which I'd want to use for low-angled shots, but they didn't sell it on its own. Furthermore, they told me why not just hold the camera to my eye, focus, and then move the camera to the desired low angle from which I wanted to shoot. When I explained "getting things in focus", they were surprised that I was so picky and suggested it was ok to have shots out of focus :bang:
Use one versus the other and you'll see. The Leica lenses beat them hands down.
I'd beg to differ. I use Nikon, Leica and Voigtlander, and even when factoring my ageing eyesight, I still don't see any difference in final image quality between any. Unless you're shooting into the sun, where the Leica does handle flare a bit better.
If, however, you're speaking about the experience, then yes there is a difference. The Leica & Voigt. feel and focus a lot smoother; but that's the mechanisms of focusing vs. the end result of the image.
I don't understand at all where all the people saying ' Oh its pointless' get it from. If it was pointless and wasn't going to sell, they wouldn't make it
It looks awesome!
It does look awesome, feel awesome too, and sure does boost ego too
2kg (D800 + 14-24 = 1.9kg) is hardly much to 'lug' given the quality you get. The M9 weighs in at 600g, a 21 pushes that to about 900g. Really if the difference between 2kg and 1kg makes that much of a difference to you then I'd say you have some serious fitness issues. It's understandable to want to take a bridge camera rather than a DSLR + 600mm prime, but at the wide end the argument just doesn't stand up.
The X-Pro 1 is fast filling that role at a much more competitive price. Yes it's APS-C, but then I thought it was all about the shooting experience
I don't have a bias against Leica and I've both acknowledged and accounted for the lack of competitors to the M-system in digital photography. The only people who buy Leica are enamoured by the magic of the brand and anything that isn't Leica but is a rangefinder, by and large, will be rejected by Leica fans as a cheap knockoff, and by everyone else as an irrelevant, not very useful system.
Just because it sells doesn't make it useful. Where's the use for Vertu phones?
I think that's an unfair comparison. If I were to compare the M9 with the 35/1.4, I'd compare that to my D40 with a 35/1.4 stuck to it.
Weight for weight, not much difference, both are very subtle and inconspicuous, and both yield very good results. The D40 has the upper hand technically and in that I wouldn't be scared of using it under harsh environment (rain, sandstorms, heat, etc.), whereas I'd be very reluctant to use the Leica in such circumstance.
Where the Leica takes the edge, ..... the experience of holding something well crafted between the fingers, the focusing, the time to compose and .... makes people smile more as they see the red dot!
Which begs the question, why buy a Leica, it's purely the experience of using it. If I were earning money from my photography gear, this wouldn't be anywhere on my list, unless I could structure a business model where the red dot would earn me more customers, and I don't see that being the case.
