p.9 #1 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
snowboarder wrote:
Really not sure how I end up being a bad guy when all I did here was pointing
at a vulgar and obscene post from someone who is known for personal attacks
including one pointed at me?
I never ever personally attacked him, but he keeps doing it in every post...
I am pretty sure you are the only person who thinks Edward has attacked you.
and literally your entire first page of posts are in threads about Leica bodies when you don't own one.
p.9 #2 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
snowboarder wrote:
Really not sure how I end up being a bad guy when all I did here was pointing
at a vulgar and obscene post from someone who is known for personal attacks
including one pointed at me?
I never ever personally attacked him, but he keeps doing it in every post...
I guess it might have something to do with your posts about "how much you dont like Leica M cameras". And what you expect/want them to make. But just guess..
I read some of your posts and I kinda understand what you expect from Leica. And you can get it, if you buy Leica S. But Leica M is about being conservative, thats why and how it survived so long. Even new M240 is pretty much same as M9, just few modern aspects added.
Frankly if I wanted M camera, I would probably went for M-E now (yup I like CCD), but if I could, I would say yes to M240, not for that modern parts, but for being latest FF rangefinder. For me most important part in M240 is that its same old camera with much better sensor. I think people dont get it. Its not supposed to be FF mirrorless..
p.9 #3 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
I wonder if Leica deliberately limited the live view to the central region, because they were afraid that they would sell cameras but few lenses, with people adapting everything in sight?
p.9 #4 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
Mescalamba wrote:
Frankly if I wanted M camera, I would probably went for M-E now (yup I like CCD), but if I could, I would say yes to M240, not for that modern parts, but for being latest FF rangefinder. For me most important part in M240 is that its same old camera with much better sensor. I think people dont get it. Its not supposed to be FF mirrorless..
i think most of the people here who've been complaining about the m240 understand that it's not supposed to be a FF mirrorless. we just don't understand why they wouldn't expend a little more effort to make it capable in that capacity when it wouldn't hurt the rangefinder experience and it would help them sell more cameras.
those of us waiting for a FF mirrorless camera are an angry lot (not just at leica either). the idea seems so simple yet nobody is making a camera for us and so far leica has come closest despite having no interest creating such a camera.
p.9 #5 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
carstenw wrote:
I wonder if Leica deliberately limited the live view to the central region, because they were afraid that they would sell cameras but few lenses, with people adapting everything in sight?
doubtful, voigtlander makes great lenses and they don't hurt leica lens sales much. if you're willing to spend $7k for a camera it's gonna be awfully hard to restrain yourself from getting a leica lens to go on it. i don't think there is any way selling more m240s would lead to a reduction rather than an increase in lens sales. probably leica just decided they wouldn't be able to meet demand anyway, why increase cost to make it more attractive to a larger market.
p.9 #6 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
My guess is that manufacturers are very afraid of "perfect FF mirrorless". Cause it might be for a lot of ppl camera for a LONG time.
Thom Hogan called it "the last camera syndrome".
But as no camera is perfect and every camera is compromise, I dont think they need to worry that much. Plus they usually manage to scre* things up either intentionally or just by plain oversight, so it probably wont happen any time soon.
But give me FF mirrorless with ability to take Leica M (and with that any FF lens), reasonable controls, ok DR (I can live even with 12 eV), resonable ISO (as long as it can take ok ISO 800, Im fine), very good colors (no compromise here for me). And be it 12 or 24 mpix or more.. and Im done. No more camera needed for a long time.
If I had money, I think Leica M240 would be pretty close to this. Maybe they will be able to fix that limited LV. Btw. that LV is limited that you cant move magnified portion or you see just.. center point?
Any rumors about focus peaking?
They dont need to worry about lens, they actually sell more lens than there is Leica M users. And if they made lens for Nikon, Canon and Sony mounts, they could sell even more (exactly like Zeiss).
p.9 #7 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
sebboh wrote:
those of us waiting for a FF mirrorless camera are an angry lot (not just at leica either). the idea seems so simple yet nobody is making a camera for us and so far leica has come closest despite having no interest creating such a camera.
Why all that emphasis on "mirrorless"? It isn't the mirror that makes a camera big. In the old days I had a Nikon FM and later FE. Both were very compact camera's with a mirror. With the current level of technology it must be possible to make digital FM's and FE's again, but obviously Nikon and Canon have no interest in doing that. So I doubt there are "an angry lot" waiting for this.
p.9 #8 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
wiseguy010 wrote:
Why all that emphasis on "mirrorless"? It isn't the mirror that makes a camera big. In the old days I had a Nikon FM and later FE. Both were very compact camera's with a mirror. With the current level of technology it must be possible to make digital FM's and FE's again, but obviously Nikon and Canon have no interest in doing that. So I doubt there are "an angry lot" waiting for this.
i'm afraid compact FF slrs will never happen again, too expensive to make. i certainly would prefer a dslr the size of the nikon fm, olympus om-1, pentax mx, or minolta xd-11 to anything currently being offered, but i'd much rather have lenses that don't stick out much too – a leica m6 with 35/1.4 is noticeably more compact than a nikon fm2 with a 35/1.4. mirrorless just offers a lot more opportunities for compactness with high performance.
i also like evfs better than optical finders that are designed for AF, so that's another reason for mirrorless for me personally.
finally the word "lot" in the text of mine you quoted means a group. it does not imply a large number. i didn't think of it when i wrote it but i can see how that could be confusing wording to non-native speakers.
p.9 #10 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
sebboh wrote:
i'm afraid compact FF slrs will never happen again, too expensive to make. i certainly would prefer a dslr the size of the nikon fm, olympus om-1, pentax mx, or minolta xd-11 to anything currently being offered, but i'd much rather have lenses that don't stick out much too – a leica m6 with 35/1.4 is noticeably more compact than a nikon fm2 with a 35/1.4. mirrorless just offers a lot more opportunities for compactness with high performance.
i also like evfs better than optical finders that are designed for AF, so that's another reason for mirrorless for me personally.
finally the word "lot" in the text of mine you quoted means a group. it does not imply a large number. i didn't think of it when i wrote it but i can see how that could be confusing wording to non-native speakers....Show more →
Yes, I certainly can agree with the smaller lenses. That would be a great benefit. As you I would prefer a dslr the size of the Nikon FM above the current offers. Not only a camera that works fine, but also one that has a more classic look with a compact size.
p.9 #12 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
Digital SLRs will always be thicker than the equivalent film SLR because there's a LCD to install behind where the sensor sits, plus the mirror mechanism. Plus we all want articulated LCD's as well. Just like digital Leicas are thicker than film ones. So producing a digital OM-1 is going to be difficult. Plus theres all the AF sensors, metering sensors, bigger batteries, circuit boards, etc. Finally it's just plain easier to design and build a bigger camera. The smaller the dimensions the more difficult/costly it is to fit all the bits inside.
I think that even a Fuji FF XPro and lenses would be quite a bit bigger than the APSC version and therefor bigger than a Leica. And size is a huge part of the attraction of mirrorless.
p.9 #13 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
snowboarder wrote:
Really not sure how I end up being a bad guy when all I did here was pointing
at a vulgar and obscene post from someone who is known for personal attacks
including one pointed at me?
I never ever personally attacked him, but he keeps doing it in every post...
Snowboarder, I feel that you have a need to attack someone or something all the time. After you're done with Leica, now you set me as your target. Luckily for me, as other posters pointed out, no one seems to believe you other than yourself.
p.9 #14 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
flash wrote:
I think that even a Fuji FF XPro and lenses would be quite a bit bigger than the APSC version and therefor bigger than a Leica. And size is a huge part of the attraction of mirrorless.
Gordon
Yeah, the aps-c X-Pro already has lenses larger than Leica M. A FF X-Pro or NEX would likely have noticeably larger lenses. Even the RX-1, with the benefit of being fixed lens, is only slightly shallower than the M9 with the 35/2 ASPH.
p.9 #15 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
carstenw wrote:
I wonder if Leica deliberately limited the live view to the central region, because they were afraid that they would sell cameras but few lenses, with people adapting everything in sight?
I'm sure people will adapt everything in sight anyway
p.9 #16 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
ryankarr wrote:
Well I'm done with this thread. It's just full of assholes now.
I'm guessing the trolls (Uncle Mike and monkeycolonel) opinions spring more from jealously on disposable income amounts than anything else.
I'm not "trolling," I am genuinely impressed that Leica has creates this brand image that allows them to sell a camera for $5500 that, objectively, isn't any better than a camera that costs less than than $1000 (and one could even make a case that Olympus E-PM2 recently on sale for $299 is at the same level).
Also, it's not "communist" to look down upon people who waste money on stuff like that. I'd also look down on women with a closet of shoes they spend five figures on. It's not why the Puritans settled the United States.
p.9 #17 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
flash wrote:
Digital SLRs will always be thicker than the equivalent film SLR because there's a LCD to install behind where the sensor sits, plus the mirror mechanism. Plus we all want articulated LCD's as well. Just like digital Leicas are thicker than film ones. So producing a digital OM-1 is going to be difficult. Plus theres all the AF sensors, metering sensors, bigger batteries, circuit boards, etc. Finally it's just plain easier to design and build a bigger camera. The smaller the dimensions the more difficult/costly it is to fit all the bits inside.
I think that even a Fuji FF XPro and lenses would be quite a bit bigger than the APSC version and therefor bigger than a Leica. And size is a huge part of the attraction of mirrorless.
Just like Leica did with the digital M I'm very sure Nikon would be perfectly able to make a FF digital FM with almost the same old dimensions (probably slightly thicker) and definitely heavier. But why should they do that? Nikon lenses are designed for AF and don't work ideally in manual. People will use Zeiss lenses on this camera, not really a very appealing idea for Nikon. Moreover, while everyone on this forum will buy a piece, I'm not sure how popular will such camera be with the general public.
p.9 #18 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
douglasf13 wrote:
Yeah, the aps-c X-Pro already has lenses larger than Leica M. A FF X-Pro or NEX would likely have noticeably larger lenses. Even the RX-1, with the benefit of being fixed lens, is only slightly shallower than the M9 with the 35/2 ASPH.
that's actually quite impressive for the rx-1 since the they are both FF lenses and the sony/zeiss is AF. i think the only way to make FF mirrorless AF lenses be small is to make them expensive to build. for my own use i don't really care since i just want to use manual focus lenses, but i probably don't represent a big enough market to attract any manufacturers.
p.9 #19 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
Uncle Mike wrote:
I'm not "trolling," I am genuinely impressed that Leica has creates this brand image that allows them to sell a camera for $5500 that, objectively, isn't any better than a camera that costs less than than $1000 (and one could even make a case that Olympus E-PM2 recently on sale for $299 is at the same level).
Also, it's not "communist" to look down upon people who waste money on stuff like that. I'd also look down on women with a closet of shoes they spend five figures on. It's not why the Puritans settled the United States.
You clearly don't see the appeal in rangefinder photography. To me, the M-E is much better than every single digital camera currently on the market, because it is the only digital rangefinder currently available (outside of the even more expensive M 240 or MM.) The image sensor is only a part of the package of any camera. If someone else made a FF digital rangefinder, I'd certainly consider it, assuming that it was relatively well made and enjoyable to use. Heck, if someone made a digital version of my Olympus SP, I'd be interested. I was relatively frugal and forced myself to wait 3 years after the M9 was announced, simply so I could get a used one at a price that I could deal with. I tried to get on with several mirrorless cameras in the interim, and they just weren't as enjoyable to use, despite the good output.
To compare buying an M to buying women's shoes is ridiculous. I would probably agree if we were talking about the Hermes edition Leicas for a much larger cost, but not the plain old Ms. To sort of quote Manos, would anyone criticize a butcher for spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on refrigeration units and equipment? It's just the cost of doing business, and people buy what they like, want to use, and can afford. I no longer shoot professionally, but photography is still my number one interest, and I don't see what the big deal is about spending this kind of money on the tools that I enjoy using. I'd rather have an M camera than a jet ski, or 4 wheeler, or tons of guns, or whatever it is other people spend their money on in this country.
p.9 #20 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
sebboh wrote:
that's actually quite impressive for the rx-1 since the they are both FF lenses and the sony/zeiss is AF. i think the only way to make FF mirrorless AF lenses be small is to make them expensive to build. for my own use i don't really care since i just want to use manual focus lenses, but i probably don't represent a big enough market to attract any manufacturers.
Well, the RX-1 is much bigger around than the 35 Cron, so that likely helps with adding the AF. From a length standpoint, it doesn't impress me all that much that the RX-1 is only slightly thinner than the M+35 Cron, because using a fixed lens allows for really creative usage of large elements in the rear of the lens. If the RX-1's lens was interchangeable, the mount for the camera would have to be relatively huge to fit that rear element. If/when we see a FF NEX, they're not going to be able to be so creative, so the lenses will be considerably larger, unless they have some sensor tricks up their sleeves.
