redisburning wrote:
many touring musicians use PRS and Gibson custom shop guitars. that's not including the many who use vintage instruments where 5 digits is the starting price.
if it's the best tool, and you're a honest to goodness professional who's livelihood rests on delivery the highest quality product, you will find a way to afford it.
a Leica isn't even remotely comparable to a Patek (as nice a watch as it is). people who make their livings timing things are using computers and clocks costing many, many times more than those watches. but a Leica can legitimately be used as a pro tool.
It's the Leica cameras that I have the real problem with, since they are still made up of relatively pedestrian electronic components, and, unlike a Gibson, Rolex, etc., their value plummets as better technology comes around every few years. I'd also contend that there is a much wider gulf of quality between the output of a $4000 Gibson and a $400 cheapie guitar vs. a $4000 Leica and a $400 lens of another brand. Leica is starting to become more like Warrior guitars or something.
The interesting thing about the newer Leica lenses, like this new 50/2, is that they are becoming so technically perfect, that I wonder if there will be a backlash for them being "too good?" Solid state guitar amps were expensive and technically fantastic when new, but the old tube technology is still what most guitar players want to this day. Hang on to those 35 Summicron IVs!
redisburning wrote:
many touring musicians use PRS and Gibson custom shop guitars. that's not including the many who use vintage instruments where 5 digits is the starting price.
if it's the best tool, and you're a honest to goodness professional who's livelihood rests on delivery the highest quality product, you will find a way to afford it.
I've been around working musicians most of my life and its about 0.001% that are playing those kind of instruments, guys that are selling out 20,000 seat venues at $75 per ticket though in addition to multimillion dollar recording contracts.
For example, the guys in Pearl Jam and John Frusciante both love vintage Fender's and have some sweet 62's sunburst that indeed are worth $30,000 or so, but again, How many albums does Pearl Jam and Red Hot Chili Peppers sell compared to how many images does the average Leica owner sell. Fender is hardly in the business of selling $30k guitars. They do have their Custom Shop built relic's that can run up to about $6k, but never known anyone to buy one.
I just don't think guitars and cameras are comparable. Not just in a different ballpark but rather a totally different sport.
carstenw wrote:
The Leica M-M (?) ships with Silver Efex Pro, and those look like they were processed with this. Very nice look, but not really different than what you would get from a normal M9, at a glance.
I am sure that the RAW results are out of this world in cleanliness and loads of tonality, but the tricky thing is of course how to convert this to better end-results. Large DR and so on don't look good natively, necessarily.
It kind of seems that way to me, too. It sure seems like the files are cleaner and sharper, but the look doesn't seem all that different from a stock M9, so what print size are we looking at to justify the difference between this and the regular M9? M9 files are already cleaner than film when shooting in B&W.
kidtexas wrote:
Holy shit that is expensive. The 50, no the M9-M. Yeah that's expensive too, but what I expected. But $7k for a 50/2? The 50/1.4 is awesome enough - I'd sink $7k into something like the 21/1.4 instead.
I'd love to have an M9-M, but sadly for me, $8k is too much for a camera for me.
The only way I'd pay $7k for a 50/2 is if it covered 6x6.
douglasf13 wrote:
The interesting thing about the newer Leica lenses, like this new 50/2, is that they are becoming so technically perfect, that I wonder if there will be a backlash for them being "too good?" Solid state guitar amps were expensive and technically fantastic when new, but the old tube technology is still what most guitar players want to this day. Hang on to those 35 Summicron IVs!
Some of us are already there, that's essentially my complaint with the 50 Lux ASPH. Technically brilliant lens, but it's too perfect and bores me. I want a great lens with character, not a perfect one without.
mawz wrote:
Some of us are already there, that's essentially my complaint with the 50 Lux ASPH. Technically brilliant lens, but it's too perfect and bores me. I want a great lens with character, not a perfect one without.
Yeah, I certainly read this opinion from various users. It just isn't to the point where it affects what Leica is currently doing, especially considering this new 50 Cron.
douglasf13 wrote:
Yeah, I certainly read this opinion from various users. It just isn't to the point where it affects what Leica is currently doing, especially considering this new 50 Cron.
Frankly I have to wonder how much of the new 'Cron is a response to the fairly widely held belief that Leica hadn't updated the old one because it didn't believe that users would pay the cost that a true upgrade would require. The Cron has long been the M lens, be it in 35 or 50mm forms, the superiority of the 50 Lux ASPH is an aberration that way.
The designer Peter Karbe used to say the 50 Summilux-M is actually APO corrected, but it's silly to put an "APO" mark on a 50mm lens. I don't know why he changed his mind by naming a 50 Summicron "APO". I guess Leica want to impress the public by using "APO" on a optical milestone. It looks like Peter Karbe's design strategy is to mix different optical designs. Latest 50 lux is also a mix of 50 cron and 35 lux. It's almost identical to the new 50 cron APO. I wonder why a stopped down 50 lux can't beat the 50 cron APO. And the reason to propose a more expensive 50 cron over 50 lux with similar design is just not understandable.
phuang3 wrote:
Latest 50 lux is also a mix of 50 cron and 35 lux. It's almost identical to the new 50 cron APO. I wonder why a stopped down 50 lux can't beat the 50 cron APO. And the reason to propose a more expensive 50 cron over 50 lux with similar design is just not understandable.
That's also what I find odd. The Summilux is already head and shoulders above similar focal length and speed lenses that it would be really hard to differentiate the Summicron (especially at the asking price). I'd really like to see samples that leverage whatever abilities the new Summicron has over the Summilux if its just about pure optical ability.
Interesting info on the development of the 50/1.4 Summilux and the APO designation too, thanks for that.
As much as this guys is annoying, he's 100% right.
Leica made a full of themselves today and there is absolutely NO excuse
to defend them. They are complete morons to call the meeting on May 10th,
not to mention M10, and then introduce this pile of overpriced junk.
Sorry, the lens is probably great, but for that price - who cares?
They might wake up with their pants way down.
If M10 is not great, and I mean GREAT as as good as it gets, sorry,
but someone else will fill that space.
Many said the M9 was just an M8 with a full frame sensor shoehorned into it. They said Leica hadn't made a big enough leap with the electronics. At the time the company was in dire straights.
Look how that worked out for them. Obviously I am not their target market with the M-M or 50/2 APO, but I'm sure they will sell enough to at least break even on their investment. They sold out of the hermes and titanium editions before they were even manufactured for example.
