douglasf13 wrote:
Yeah, I think at least part of the desire of the M9 is born from the fact that there aren't any simple, small, fullframe DSLRs with the build and OVFs from the best SLRs of the past. A digital FM2n would be great.
That's exactly what I find is the draw to the M9!!! I love seeing through an OVF, but want the digital image convenience and not have to mess around with film. I want the minimalistic look of a rangefinder as newer dslr cameras are intimidating to most people, and I really think I would enjoy using a manual focus lens as long as the viewfinder is made so that it can be easily focused manually.
Also, there are just a slew of older glass out there that can be used in this manner.
Red 90 wrote:
That's exactly what I find is the draw to the M9!!! I love seeing through an OVF, but want the digital image convenience and not have to mess around with film. I want the minimalistic look of a rangefinder as newer dslr cameras are intimidating to most people, and I really think I would enjoy using a manual focus lens as long as the viewfinder is made so that it can be easily focused manually.
Also, there are just a slew of older glass out there that can be used in this manner.
Well, you might just want to consider a used M8, especially if you shoot a lot of B&W.
eosfun wrote:
.....When AF got into the cameras they got bigger again until the obesitas of todays DSLR has made our cameras ridiculously big. This is I'm convinced one of the reasons why the OM-D and NEX series have become attractive to many serious photographers. The big cameras are over the top. My prediction is we are going to see more compact APS-C and full frame based D-SLR and mirrorless bodies in the near future.
Agreed. Its amazing how small and light the OM-D is, even when paired with a generous mix of fast and incredibly sharp primes. Add incredibly accurate AF and the ability to mount old glass when I want and its an incredibly good and fun to use system.
The only thing missing for me is the DOF and subject isolation capabilities of a FF sensor. Give me an OM-D with a FF sensor, a few fast RF lenses and I would be happy forever.
eosfun wrote:
When AF got into the cameras they got bigger again until the obesitas of todays DSLR has made our cameras ridiculously big. This is I'm convinced one of the reasons why the OM-D and NEX series have become attractive to many serious photographers. The big cameras are over the top. My prediction is we are going to see more compact APS-C and full frame based D-SLR and mirrorless bodies in the near future.
i hope your right, but i haven't seen any signs of that kind of trend in dslrs yet. i suspect that will be reserved for mirrorless.
carstenw wrote:
ROTFL! The NEX-7 is NOT a minimalist camera. You can operate it like that if you want, but that would be the same for a Nikon D4
i'm gonna agree with mawz here (no surprise). i've not used any dslr that can be as good for shooting in manual mode. the tri-nav definitely wins for ergonomics having aperture, shutter speed, and iso at your thumb (i hate finger dials incidentally) and the evf is infinitely better than an optical finder for seeing exposure. but yeah, that's not the way most people will use the camera, it is what it was designed best for though.
If you want to find out if a rangefinder camera is truly the magic camera that will make you a better street photographer and get you better shots, you can find out for very little money before buying a Leica.
Buy a fixed lens rangefinder that has manual exposure, buy 50 rolls of film, the type that you can process easily at lab/home. Go out and shoot as often as you can. Process the film and reach a conclusion.
On the other hand if you want a Leica for pride of owning a Leica, then just go for it because life is short and experience always trumps forum-ing and such.
douglasf13 wrote:
Used M8's are selling under $2k US these days, so that's a pretty good option if you're dying for the digital rangefinder experience, and it is 1.3x crop, which isn't too bad.
If the OP is really serious, this is the salient post.
In fact both versions of the 8, lacking AA, are wicked sharp, and many of the nicest Leica shots I come across at RF, are made with one.
Search the M8 tag on flickr....
1800 for a very good M8 is a hellva value, and i doubt they will drop below 1500....ever.
People still get a grand for an m6
Jeez I better be careful...i'll talk my self into one
sebboh wrote:
i'm gonna agree with mawz here (no surprise). i've not used any dslr that can be as good for shooting in manual mode. the tri-nav definitely wins for ergonomics having aperture, shutter speed, and iso at your thumb (i hate finger dials incidentally) and the evf is infinitely better than an optical finder for seeing exposure. but yeah, that's not the way most people will use the camera, it is what it was designed best for though.
I've never owned a camera better at getting out of my way than the NEX-7. Yeah, it has features, but they're buried in the menu. It operates in manual like a minimalist camera unlike the D4, which almost requires you to embrace 16 zillion controls, as pretty much all of the pro-grade DSLR's do, they're control-encrusted whereas the NEX-7 offers the bare minimum of necessary controls plus a menu system to do everything else. The thing about the NEX-7 is while it only offers the bare minimum of controls, it actually covers all the necessary ones. ISO, aperture and shutter are on dials rather than the usual case of having one and needing menus or modifier buttons to access the rest which is typical on other cameras with a minimalist design. The design of the NEX-7 is minimalist in a way even the Leica's are not (the Leica M's being traditionalist rather than minimalist, the Leica S2 is a mix of minimalist and traditionalist)
eosfun wrote:
I know what you try to say, but it's not true. Long before that the Leica management decided already to a high quality minimalism for almost all of their camera lines. The Leica SL, predecessor of the R cameras was a carrier of this minimalist design philosphy as well. In that time Leica was the inventor and owner of patents of the first autofocus mechanisms. But the Leica product management decided that the Leica users wanted to focus themselves and do it better than any Af mechanism could do. As a result of this minimalism, they sold the patents to Minolta, that brought the AF in mainstream with their 7000 model a few years later. The kind of mistake like IBM made when they outsourced their operating system to Microsoft....Show more →
Untrue, the SL was not minimalist in any way shape or form. It was typical for the era in terms of features, the only minimalist R body was the R6/R6.2. Also the SL predates the 7000 by 20 years or so.
One aspect to add, is that anyone who considers making a digital RF will have the impossible task of measuring up to Leica manufacturing quality. If you consider the film RF, neither the Bessa nor the Ikon can even touch the quality of Leica M. Granted, the Ikon may have a larger brighter VF, but feels fragile and on the brink of breaking at any time. The RF goes out of alignment at the slightest bump, and funnily goes back into good alignment with another bump, or gets worse Not to mention falling knobs and creaking sounds.
In my opinion, a digital Ikon, if built like a Leica, will have to be priced similarly. And that would be pointless.
carstenw wrote:
Most of this is pure conjecture, and some of it is really not right. The M5 was Leica's only attempt at a complete overhaul of the M, that is true. Since then, they have understood their market well, and have embraced it. No failure there.
The R line is different. The niche that they were trying to sit in turning out barely to exist, and so they killed it.
Leica struggled for years with the M line after the M5 failure and killing the CL, it wasn't until the late 90's that it really started picking up again. It was around this time that Leica started to embrace minimalist design again (rather than cluttering up the M design and concentrating on the more profitable R line, which the latter was at the time)
And the R line lasted 40 years from the introduction of the SL to the DMR/R9 being killed. In fact while the R was never terribly successful it arguably carried Leica through the dark days of the 70's and 80's when the M line struggled. It had a niche then, as a premium 'German' SLR line, the same one the Contax line more successfully embraced. That niche no longer exists.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Excellent points made by both camps
One aspect to add, is that anyone who considers making a digital RF will have the impossible task of measuring up to Leica manufacturing quality. If you consider the film RF, neither the Bessa nor the Ikon can even touch the quality of Leica M. Granted, the Ikon may have a larger brighter VF, but feels fragile and on the brink of breaking at any time. The RF goes out of alignment at the slightest bump, and funnily goes back into good alignment with another bump, or gets worse Not to mention falling knobs and creaking sounds.
In my opinion, a digital Ikon, if built like a Leica, will have to be priced similarly. And that would be pointless....Show more →
Manufacturing outside of Germany, using modern techniques would remove a lot of the Leica luxury tax which would bring in enthusiasts instead of the jet setting fashionistas.
Untrue, the SL was not minimalist in any way shape or form. It was typical for the era in terms of features,
Sorry, we disagree. IMO, the Leicaflexes were minimalist cameras in comparison to the Japanese competition. Their models were behind with the first Leicaflexes not even having TTL metering, no exchangeable viewfinders, a limited system with less lenses and accesoires etc. The Japanese camera manufacturers, after being succesful as Leica copy-ists, decided to kill their rangefinder product lines and went for the succes of the SLR models. Their innovative SLR's had features that Leica always was behind or refused to implement at all because of their camera design philosphy. Models from the Japanese like Nikon (F series and Nikkormat), Canon (Pellix, Ftb and F1), Asahi Pentax (spotmatic) and brands like Topcon, Miranda (yes probably Fred's ancestors ) made Leica have a difficult time because their camera's seemed to be too simple, too expensive in comparison to the Japanese.
Also the SL predates the 7000 by 20 years or so
There are many sources on the web that can confirm my statement about Leica's mistake in judgement for technology they owned themselves, but rejected for their design philosophy, like autofocus not being adequate for Leica owners for example read here:
edwardkaraa wrote:
One aspect to add, is that anyone who considers making a digital RF will have the impossible task of measuring up to Leica manufacturing quality. If you consider the film RF, neither the Bessa nor the Ikon can even touch the quality of Leica M. Granted, the Ikon may have a larger brighter VF, but feels fragile and on the brink of breaking at any time. The RF goes out of alignment at the slightest bump, and funnily goes back into good alignment with another bump, or gets worse Not to mention falling knobs and creaking sounds.
well thats one opinion, and fully respected one as it seems to drive leica sales
I have a different opinion which is that the ikon, or the bessa for that matter, had it just right and they were as durable and well made as people expected a camera to be. We are talking about cameras, the kind of appliance that people buy expensive padded bags for, place carefully on the table and hate it when they see scratches on. It was leica that was overbuilt in a wasteful and costly way. And could be annoyingly heavy, depending on how your hang or hold you camera.
That kind of build and longevity that came with a leica was relevant 60 years ago, when you used a rangefinder and if it didnt break you just kept using it for a lifetime and then gave it to your grandchild. No point getting a new one because technological evolution in the RF world was practically zero, an old leica was as good as a new leica (for actual picture taking). That kind of thinking is irrelevant today: in 5-10 years most M8s will be landfill.
rattymouse wrote:
Manufacturing outside of Germany, using modern techniques would remove a lot of the Leica luxury tax which would bring in enthusiasts instead of the jet setting fashionistas.
Nah it's not luxury tax, it is actual manufacturing cost
leica fleeced fashionistas (very appropriately ) but it wasnt leica's fault they were attracted to it in the first place. These guys just make exactly the same camera they made 100 years ago
I find this discussion about Leica "minimalism" ver interesting. Because it seems, just reading what people are posting, that customers both want "minimalism" and "all possible features and possibilities". At the same time, of course. We want very small, lightweight cameras. Enter the Sony RX1, for example. Then people complain that it does not offer an integrated viewfinder, or a tilting screen LCD....
In any event , it is clear to me that a camera that offers interchangeable lenses is not maximally minimalistic (:-), because a fixed-lens camera is obviously simpler. And that Leica M is obviously less minimalistic than M9....
Watch Walter da Silva (Former Alfa Romeo and currently Volkswagen head of design) explain the design philosphy of the Leica M9. I am sorry it's in Italian with German subtitling, but that may not be a big problem for the real Leica fans I guess :
then watch production processes within Leica factories:
Compare it to this Canon production process:
It does give you some impression of the differences in production methods the scale of it and as a result cost per unit.
leica fleeced fashionistas (very appropriately ) but it wasnt leica's fault they were attracted to it in the first place. These guys just make exactly the same camera they made 100 years ago
Manufacture in China or some other part of Asia and your cost of sales goes way down. There's your Leica tax.
China can make anything to any quality spec you want. Sure, most people will frown on that. But the reality is, the most advanced manufacturing machines in the world right now are in China. Enormous amounts of Boeing parts, Airbus parts, Pratt & Whitney parts, RR, etc, all come out of China. The costs here are (for now; it's changing fast) are lower.
There is no reason in the world a rangefinder, ancient technology, has to cost so much.
what do you mean no reason? enough people want it and can afford it to have a factory to make it for them, thats the reason. The world is not a centrally designed economy to only produce what is necessary or cost efficient...
for better or for worse.
! Outstanding!!!
