Upload & Sell: On
| p.3 #14 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark |
I think part of the reason Leica gets a fair amount of criticism for price and such is simply because a lot of the cost is tied up in the brand name. Now, that reputation is earned through high build quality and phenomenal lenses, but at times they tend to milk it. The other reason is that those who use Leica tend to overlook the times they hide behind that brand name, and this seems like one of those times, and to the outside observer, some of the justification comes off sounding like fanboyism (not that I believe it is in your case).
There were similar comments about the 'CCD Rendering' when the 1D mark II came out by all the 1D owners who didn't want to upgrade. Despite the fact that the newer CMOS sensors were superior in almost every way, there were arguments about the one or two ways in which the CCD was still a little better, and that was used for pretty major justification by owners.
In this case, yes, you may prefer the M9 rendering (though I've personally never seen anything really 'special' about it compared to similar CMOS sensors), but it still strikes most people as a little odd that Leica gets a pass for putting a years old sensor that empirically is on the level of the 1/4 sized sensor in the Olympus E-PM2, while still charging over $5,000 for the camera.
Now, I know that regardless of the digital components, Leica M cameras command a steep price (heck, the M7 is still $4,700 new), but it starts to raise eyebrows when they are putting outdated technology in cameras, releasing them as a 'new' product and still charging an arm and a leg for them. The minute someone releases a full frame mirrorless with great build quality and intuitive controls, and charges about $2,500 for it or less, there's going to be VERY few people who will still be willing to shell out big bucks for Leica bodies, because it's really all about the lenses.