Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4              11       12       end
  

Archive 2013 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
  
 
Lee Saxon
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


flash wrote:
1/4 of $5500.00 is $1375.00. There's no 35mm sensored camera in the world for that, new. The M220 is about double the cost of the cheapest 35mm sensored camera not 4x.


Yes, but Canikon's cheapest 35mm sensored cameras (6D, D600) DO have AF, multi-zone exposure systems, weather sealing, program & shutter priority modes, etc etc, so that's apples-to-oranges.

Your analogy is about the same as asking why a Porsche Carrera RS costs 4x as much as a Nissan GTR with the same engine capacity even though the RS has no radio or carpets. One's like driving a computer. One's had everything except the essentials stripped out to provide a simplified experience.

But we're not talking about a sports car without a radio, carpets, or even air conditioning. We're talking about a sports car with no power steering and only three forward gears.

Also, not for nothing, Porsche's strategy isn't simplification but rather making an outrageous profit on "options."



Mar 08, 2013 at 02:18 AM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


Lee Saxon wrote:
But we're not talking about a sports car without a radio, carpets, or even air conditioning. We're talking about a sports car with no power steering and only three forward gears.


Boy, I don't now about that. I shoot all my cameras, from SLR to mirrorless to rangefinders, the same way. Manual exposure, manual focus, simple metering, one or two primes. None of the extra options help me at all, and the M9 is faster and better for my type of shooting. It is very much like driving a simple, manual sports car, in my view.



Mar 08, 2013 at 02:46 AM
Jabberwockt
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


The digital M series are niche cameras. Given the right conditions, the output compares extremely favorably (maybe even better) against most other mainstream cameras. It is a cumulative affect of chasing optical performance in lenses with seeming little consideration of production costs and other small idiosyncrasies like the lack of an AA filter and a rather unique sensor output.

It occupies its niche well but it is not a do it all kind of camera. Going with the car analogy, a truck is better at truck things, a sports car at sports car things. If you want to see a clear demonstration of this, then find a friend with a M9 and see who can make the best home video.



Mar 08, 2013 at 03:32 AM
rscheffler
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


flash wrote:
How hard is it to see that a camera that has no AF, no multi-zone exposure system, no weather sealing, no program or shutter priority modes, no video, no true macro and no usable zoom lenses isn't trying to compare with a do it all computer with a lens attached to the front.

Lee Saxon wrote:
How hard is it to see that a camera that has no AF, no multi-zone exposure system, no weather sealing, no program or shutter priority modes....is, based on usefulness and even more so based on cost of production, worth 1/4 what Leica charges.

See, it works both ways.


I'd be surprised if Canon and Nikon's top-end cameras cost them 1/4 the retail price to produce. I'd suspect they're less than that. Yet they're still the same price range as an M240, or what the M9 used to sell for.

And why is that? Because the market for those cameras will support that price point. Same with why Leica can sell a $7k camera based on 1950s manual focusing technology.

They're niche cameras with a niche market and niche user base. There's no way an M system could survive competing purely on the thickness of the spec sheets and lowest possible price.

You have to accept that some of us here will gladly spend the cost of a 1DX or a D4 for an 'outdated' camera precisely because such a camera presents added value, for us.

BTW, did you hear about the Leica Monochrom? For an extra $1000 you can get a camera that only shoots B&W! Go figure - Leica removed color and is charging more! Fewer features and more money, as usual! What a rip-off!



Mar 08, 2013 at 03:44 AM
Lee Saxon
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


rscheffler wrote:
I'd be surprised if Canon and Nikon's top-end cameras cost them 1/4 the retail price to produce. I'd suspect they're less than that. Yet they're still the same price range as an M240, or what the M9 used to sell for.


Maybe, if we're talking about literal materials and assembly cost. But those are two highly competitive products constantly struggling to one-up each other: if you factored in R&D expenditures the M9 and its off-the-shelf old tech would pull wayyyyyyyyyyyyy ahead on profit margins. I will admit, though, that the M240 is probably not nearly so far ahead since for it Leica actually, you know, did some stuff.

And why is that? Because the market for those cameras will support that price point. Same with why Leica can sell a $7k camera based on 1950s manual focusing technology.

That the market will support it doesn't mean it's right, or even a good idea, to do it, was my point.

Do you know the story of the Sony F35? $250k for a 1080p, to highly compressed formats only, camera. Then one day Red came along and introduced a 4K raw camera for $17.5k. And yeah, for a while, there were plenty of Sony apologists arguing why they'd pay Sony 15x as much for a camera that cost probably 1/3x as much to produce, but eventually the tide started turning and the F35's successor had to be priced well below $100k.

Leica will have their Red. It'll probably be full frame mirrorless, and it'll probably be soon.



Mar 08, 2013 at 04:10 AM
dholl
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


Lee Saxon wrote:
Leica will have their Red. It'll probably be full frame mirrorless, and it'll probably be soon.


Nice soundbite, but Leica and Sony aren't the same animal. Sony's top-end video cameras aren't niche, they're industry-standard (meaning there's a big market). They got done by Red because Red identified an active market, dominated by overpriced Sonys, and muscled in to the industry by offering better-priced alternatives.

There's no industry in Leica's world (not even journalistic any more)...it's just niche, and luxury at that. It's too big a risk for a Canikon, Sony or Panalympus (who would never disappoint the masses by not offering AF and video), or even a Ricoh or Sigma (who are valiantly invested in their own ideas) to try and muscle in on their act .

It would need a company not invested in a system to come out the blue and offer a manual-focus full-frame digital rangefinder - maybe Epson finally making an R-D2 and offering it either as fixed prime, or with Canikon mount. It would need to be very good, aggressively-priced, expertly-marketed and fortunately-timed for it to make a meaningful dent in Leica's rather modest sales (modest numbers when compared with what the mainstream brands ship).

Who would take that risk? Maybe Zeiss with an Ikon-Digital? That would be a contender. But otherwise, the manual-focus digital rangefinder market is not active enough for anyone else to bother.




Mar 08, 2013 at 04:40 AM
Spyro P.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


there's no money in rangefinders, too expensive to make for too small a market.

there's heaps of money in rangefinder lenses, but the market is taken. There is good, there is very good, and there is cheap and good. Taken.



Mar 08, 2013 at 09:50 AM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


Still amazes me how people who don't even own a Leica M just out of the blue start a thread of Leica bashing and the rest of the gang joins in. The current frequency of such threads is at around 1 per week. So much jealousy and pettiness. I never see Leica owners start a thread to bash other cameras, probably because they're busy taking photographs.


Mar 08, 2013 at 12:45 PM
kewlcanon
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


If this is directed to me... sorry I don't have any intention to bash any camera.

edwardkaraa wrote:
Still amazes me how people who don't even own a Leica M just out of the blue start a thread of Leica bashing and the rest of the gang joins in. The current frequency of such threads is at around 1 per week. So much jealousy and pettiness. I never see Leica owners start a thread to bash other cameras, probably because they're busy taking photographs.




Mar 08, 2013 at 12:50 PM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


To be fair, it's true that you didn't do any bashing. You just posted the links and let the others do the bashing



kewlcanon wrote:
If this is directed to me... sorry I don't have any intention to bash any camera.





Mar 08, 2013 at 01:00 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



kewlcanon
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark




edwardkaraa wrote:
To be fair, it's true that you didn't do any bashing. You just posted the links and let the others do the bashing






Mar 08, 2013 at 01:04 PM
xbarcelo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


edwardkaraa wrote:
Still amazes me how people who don't even own a Leica M just out of the blue start a thread of Leica bashing and the rest of the gang joins in. The current frequency of such threads is at around 1 per week. So much jealousy and pettiness. I never see Leica owners start a thread to bash other cameras, probably because they're busy taking photographs.


Excuse me, Edward, but I see camera bashing all around, be it Sony, Nikon, Canon or Leica. Don't take it personally, because some arguments are actually quite solid: reissuing a camera with a very old sensor is something that few companies could get away with, let alone charging 4800 for it. So if people think that this is something worth commenting, I don't see the problem in them (us) doing so, the same as if we think that Nikon got it wrong with their Nikon One system or that Sony NEX FF is, according to rumours, a rip-off. It's an Internet forum and, as such, we blast our opinions online. That's all. If you can't take it, simply don't read the threads that you consider offending, but don't start acting out like Leica should be spared of criticism. It simply won't happen (and, let me tell you, Leica users also criticise other brands, rightly so, on the other hand. It'd be a shame not to).

Xavier



Mar 08, 2013 at 01:05 PM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


xbarcelo wrote:
Excuse me, Edward, but I see camera bashing all around, be it Sony, Nikon, Canon or Leica. Don't take it personally, because some arguments are actually quite solid: reissuing a camera with a very old sensor is something that few companies could get away with, let alone charging 4800 for it. So if people think that this is something worth commenting, I don't see the problem in them (us) doing so, the same as if we think that Nikon got it wrong with their Nikon One system or that Sony NEX FF is, according to rumours, a rip-off. It's an
...Show more

Xavier, I am not at all offended, but amused. Leica is not beyond criticism, but for some reason, the owners are happy with what they got. I wouldn't trade my M9 CCD sensor rendering for anything, even a new M. We are a traditional bunch. Most M users are still shooting film, go figure.

As for camera bashing, except on DPR, it is considered bad etiquette to bash a brand by non brand owners. It does happen unfortunately, but it doesn't mean it's good.



Mar 08, 2013 at 01:13 PM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · 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.



Mar 08, 2013 at 02:02 PM
ricardovaste
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


I'd be happy to increase the rate of Sony bashing in order to restore harmony


Mar 08, 2013 at 02:04 PM
redisburning
Offline
• • •
Account locked
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


it's just money. who gives a **** what the price is?

if you like it, buy it. if you have to make sacrifices, like most do to own such an expensive camera, then do so. but to whine about how much it costs if you can't swing for one is the height of pettiness and plebeian behavior.

in the end it's just a thing. if you don't own one but are still invested enough to be bothered by the price to the degree you feel compelled to post about it you really ought to reevaluate yourself.

I have never heard as depressing a measure as value for money and the way people cling to it for dear life is a significant part of that.



Mar 08, 2013 at 02:24 PM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


Richard, you're already a Sony user, so that doesn't count

Jman13, the leica ME was never presented as a new camera. It is the M9 in a cheaper body for those who appreciate the CCD look and do not need LV and other related features.



Mar 08, 2013 at 02:25 PM
ryankarr
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


Lee Saxon wrote:
That the market will support it doesn't mean it's right, or even a good idea, to do it, was my point.


What other way is there to determine if somethings "right" or "a good idea" other than the people who are willing to pay for the item? Instead, it should be based on random people's opinions that have never used the product?

I've extensively used Nikon for years, with almost all of their high end lenses and bodies. I prefer Leica. I have more fun with the shooting experience and I love shooting with the fantastic Leica glass. Is that a problem for you?



Mar 08, 2013 at 02:29 PM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


edwardkaraa wrote:
Richard, you're already a Sony user, so that doesn't count

Jman13, the leica ME was never presented as a new camera. It is the M9 in a cheaper body for those who appreciate the CCD look and do not need LV and other related features.


Yes, but cheaper is still crazy expensive for what it is. I'm not saying Leica's aren't fantastic machines. They are, but the majority of the cost is the name. Sure, there's complexity, and the fact it's hand made, but the body itself doesn't have anything really 'new' that would require any sort of R&D, and the digital portion is minimal cost considering what they're putting in (it's a sensor and some image processing...no fancy features to worry about, no autofocus to worry about, etc.)

Now, plenty of people are willing to pay that cost in order to get a tool that fits how they shoot, and I have no issue with that at all, but I don't think it's hard to understand why Leica takes heat in a situation like this.



Mar 08, 2013 at 03:03 PM
Lee Saxon
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark


ryankarr wrote:
What other way is there to determine if somethings "right" or "a good idea" other than the people who are willing to pay for the item? Instead, it should be based on random people's opinions that have never used the product?


The next paragraph explains why it can be a bad idea to price gouge even if the market is, for the moment, willing to bend over and take it.



Mar 08, 2013 at 03:22 PM
1       2      
3
       4              11       12       end




FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4              11       12       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password