philber wrote:
Sorry, Edward, I cannot see how they make "now" the first FF mirrorless. If the M is such a design, then the M9 was the same, as far as FF mirrorless go, and should be recognized as the first one.
The M9 was the first digital FF RF camera. It cannot be considered as mirrorless because it cannot use live feed from the sensor even though technically it has no mirror.
denoir wrote:
What can one say except well done Leica? Once it is available, I'll be getting rid of all my DSLRs and other camera systems as well as all non-M lenses. This is really the camera I've been waiting for The price level was a pleasant surprise as well.
edwardkaraa wrote:
The M9 was the first digital FF RF camera. It cannot be considered as mirrorless because it cannot use live feed from the sensor even though technically it has no mirror.
Then the Leica M is not the first mirrorless. The Sony XR1 beat it by a couple of days....:-)
"The FD55mm f/1.2 AL was marketed in 1971 as the first interchangeable lens for 35mm SLR camera in the world, employing an aspherical lens element."
note the employment of 'slr' in that statement. that lens was designed to compete with the original noctilux, which i seem to recall had an aspherical element.
carstenw wrote:
So, you think Leica should add more field curvature, smudgy corners and gnarly boke? That is surely an opinion, but not one I share. Zeiss makes great lenses, and I love mine (I have about 10), but none of them can touch the 21SE, 28 Cron, 50 Lux ASPH and 90 Cron ASPH, IMO.
After having used all the best Zeiss glass, I came to the same conclusion.
I own all those 4 M lenses you mentioned and I would add the 135 telyt to the list.
Those 5 lenses are really, really great.
If there really is no change with the M-E vs M9, I guess I would rather have the former (you do gain the frame selector and I'm guessing it would hold it's value better perhaps).
On the other hand, Douglas made mention of the possibility of a quieter shutter in the M-E vs M9. I'm curious where that info came from?
theSuede wrote:
Name one optical design first for Leica?
I am not an optical expert, but since no one has made better lenses than the ones I mentioned, that is enough to claim the title of being at the forefront of lens design. Add the 50/0.95, btw. The only f/0.95 lens with that kind of performance.
Do note that although it is often someone else making the initial discovery of some optical design aspect, that isn't worth anything if they can't do anything useful with it. Being at the forefront is definitely not equal to having the most patents or firsts, or whatever. Witness Xerox PARC. Being at the forefront means putting it to good use, and Leica definitely does that.
Btw, didn't Leica make the first lens with a pressed aspheric?
And Leica is definitely at the forefront of commercial photographic equipment in the area of tight manufacturing tolerances.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
If there really is no change with the M-E vs M9, I guess I would rather have the former (you do gain the frame selector and I'm guessing it would hold it's value better perhaps).
On the other hand, Douglas made mention of the possibility of a quieter shutter in the M-E vs M9. I'm curious where that info came from?
The more I think about it, the less sense the ME makes. To me, its only real reason for being is to make the M look reasonable.
If they trully stop M9 sales now, 6 months before the M is supposed to be out and the ME is the only model for sale, I see it enhancing used M9 prices, not lowering them.
anselwannab wrote:
The more I think about it, the less sense the ME makes. To me, its only real reason for being is to make the M look reasonable.
If they trully stop M9 sales now, 6 months before the M is supposed to be out and the ME is the only model for sale, I see it enhancing used M9 prices, not lowering them.
The used M9s are popping up all over the place now at about 20% less than before. I'd guess they will settle in at around 3500, and the M8's at 1600 or so.
anselwannab wrote:
The more I think about it, the less sense the ME makes. To me, its only real reason for being is to make the M look reasonable.
If they trully stop M9 sales now, 6 months before the M is supposed to be out and the ME is the only model for sale, I see it enhancing used M9 prices, not lowering them.
Yes, I wrote that backwards. I meant I would rather have an M9 than an M-E if there are no other changes than the color and lack of the manual finder mechanism.
denoir wrote:
What can one say except well done Leica? Once it is available, I'll be getting rid of all my DSLRs and other camera systems as well as all non-M lenses. This is really the camera I've been waiting for The price level was a pleasant surprise as well.
and it does seem like for portraits and city-scape shooting, you could use the new M and some M mount glass, and get away with some SLR lenses for longer work.
Any chance of an EOS lens to M adaptor? I guess the adaptor would need a battery to drive the diaphram on the lens and run the IS.
Not going to replace a sports camera, but the ability to take other glass and use the EVF is more interesting than I first thought. The ME starts to look like an even worse idea...
When is the M due out? $1000 a month to sock away.......
denoir wrote:
What can one say except well done Leica? Once it is available, I'll be getting rid of all my DSLRs and other camera systems as well as all non-M lenses. This is really the camera I've been waiting for The price level was a pleasant surprise as well.
Leica "M" is first mirrorless with interchangeable lens. Simply put, its first FF base for any FF lens. Sony RX1 is super expensive compact with fixed lens, and I think unlike R1, it wont be even remembered well. Especially when its so obvious that Sony could do FF mirrorless (with interchangeable lens), just didnt want to. Tho I understand them, that demand would be extreme and ppl would probably stop buying any other mirrorless. It would most likely even harm A99 sales. Still dont like it, but thats for different topic.
The price level was a pleasant surprise as well.