douglasf13 wrote:
Well, all of that being said, spending $5K minimum (used M9 and ZM 50/2) isn't worth shooting a FF digital rangefinder for me right now. I like shooting rangefinders from time to time, but it isn't the be all, end all for me. I can always bust out my old film rangefinders and a few rolls of film if I want the experience. Granted, used M9s may fall more once the M starts shipping, so we'll see, but $5K is enough for a decent little photo trip.
Absolutely! The amount of money tossed at a Leica system, camera and lenses would pay for many prime trips around the world. Awesome places to take photos. I guess if you live in an area that is target rich it is OK, but I cant see myself ever spending what it takes to build a Leica system. There are far too many places I want to travel. Just this week I crossed India off my list of places to go. Amazing place and an experience I would not trade for any camera! I grabbed my X100 and off I went.
You know what, I don't need to see samples to be honest. I trust Leica on this one. After the fiasco of the IR filter on the M8, I am very sure they learned their lessons.
joe88 wrote:
I cannot understand some who are asking Leica to drop the rangefinder camera. Quoting a recent interview, 55,000 Leica M9s were sold? No market? Well not definitely Canon or Nikon volumes but if you don't like the rangefinder, go shoot something else, why deprive the others who enjoy shooting a rangefinder to have a digital M. Why don't you lobby Phase One or Nikon or other to create the camera that you want, since you seem to think there is a market for an alternative camera with AF to use your M mount lenses?
I think they sold 55,000 M9s *in spite of* the RF focusing. The M9 offers fantastic image quality in a small package. THAT's what's compelling about the M, not the way it focuses.
It makes no sense to me why anyone would defend the RF. Cameras are just tools, and when a better tool comes along why defend the old one? And by better tool, I mean sensor-based focusing, which by definition can never be out of calibration.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It's the same, 30FPS. Probably perfectly fine for anything you would be using LV for. I think this lower refresh rate would really only be an issue if someone were using the EVF to photograph something in motion - or it might be distracting when panning.
thrice wrote:
Has Sean Reid published any tests? I've let my subscription lapse but I'll renew when he has the Typ240 tests up.
He has posted a first version on a rolling review and there will be, l if I understood him correctly, a lot more added to it once he is back from Europe.
Unlike other Leica reviews done by Sean he has not had access to a pre-production version this time so there are no sample images or anything concrete on image quality yet but then again I am not aware on anyone that has published a review on the M image quality. I guess Leica is doing things a little different this time.
joakim wrote:
He has posted a first version on a rolling review and there will be, l if I understood him correctly, a lot more added to it once he is back from Europe.
Unlike other Leica reviews done by Sean he has not had access to a pre-production version this time so there are no sample images or anything concrete on image quality yet but then again I am not aware on anyone that has published a review on the M image quality. I guess Leica is doing things a little different this time.
I don't think Leica is doing it differently this time. My sources told me that the bodies weren't even ready until just before Photokina. Even the PM for the M hadn't gotten the latest bodies until just before the show. The M is hot off the presses, I guess which is why they are shipping in 2013.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Thank you Brad and Charles! I meant steel grey color. To be honest between used M9 at 4500$ and new at 5700$ I would rather buy new. Of course my main interest is the M but it's a long wait.
One or two trips to Solms or NJ for repairs under warranty that could involve problems like sensor replacement would likely make up that difference, Edward. Based on my experience, repair work is more than just a remote possibility for the M9.
Mike Tuomey wrote:
One or two trips to Solms or NJ for repairs under warranty that could involve problems like sensor replacement would likely make up that difference, Edward. Based on my experience, repair work is more than just a remote possibility for the M9.
That's what I was thinking too
I see a lot of M bodies on the buy and sell forums with shutters and sensors replaced.
Graham Mitchell wrote:
I don't see 30 fps as being a limitation at all.
It's a major limitation in a viewfinder if the desire is for fluid motion without any stutter. For some, it will not matter - and it's not a big deal if you can use the OVF - but if you are using the EVF as the sole form of viewing the subject, it's certainly not ideal and has some major drawbacks (depending on subject matter).
Graham Mitchell wrote:
I think they sold 55,000 M9s *in spite of* the RF focusing. The M9 offers fantastic image quality in a small package. THAT's what's compelling about the M, not the way it focuses.
It makes no sense to me why anyone would defend the RF. Cameras are just tools, and when a better tool comes along why defend the old one? And by better tool, I mean sensor-based focusing, which by definition can never be out of calibration.
I don't understand the affection for the RF focusing either, but if I look at the choices I make in the gear I like and what I'm comfortable shooting, I'm sure there's a high percentage of shooters who would find my choices indefensible as well. You're right, cameras are just tools, a means to an end, and no tool has any intrinsic value, just potential. It's what you create with the tool that matters. So while I personally do not value the RF focusing system, until there no more people creating engaging photographs with them, I don't question their potential or their necessity.
I've always found it a bit difficult to explain, but IMO, the strength of RFs is the ability to very quickly determine the exact plane of focus, no matter the set aperture.
An aspect that I think is frequently overlooked or not understood is RFs are very useful for determining just how far off exact focus is, and whether the RF patch mismatch is acceptable due to depth of field for that lens and aperture combination. No need to fiddle in magnified view or fight with a scene swimming in shimmering focus peaking enhancements, many of which can be false positives the more the lens is stopped down.
It makes for a very simple, uncluttered viewfinder experience in which the RF patch floats over the subject with a comfortable eye relief, rather than forcing the eye to scan across a 2D plane at a set distance between the camera and the subject.
It's obviously not a perfect solution or for a broad range of applications, but for its intended uses, it works extremely well. And since Leica caters to this narrow application, it's only natural that their one new camera continues to support this 'ancient' technology. No one would expect any of the other brands to suddenly include a RF, therefore the expectation that Leica should suddenly drop the RF is equally illogical.
