p.10 #1 · 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).
Ah yes, the "I'm not trolling, I'm just saying y'all are brand-brainwashed idiots" defense.
While many other (much cheaper) cameras might be "objectively better" in many aspects than Leica's digital M bodies, the M8/M9/M240 do have a few features that are unavailable at any price in other cameras (whether they are worth the $$ or not is a matter of personal opinion). Among these is having a mount and sensor package able to use Leica M lenses (which are, quite often, objectively superior to everything else available). There is no other full-frame mirrorless option available at all, much less one with Leica's unique design work on rangefinder-lens-compatible sensor packages (even many crop-sensor cameras struggle with smeary corners on rangefinder wide-angles). I don't own any Leica-M camera bodies, but I can certainly see the photographic appeal --- in objective capability, not "brand image" --- of the system.
p.10 #2 · 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).
dude, there is no way you can look at a file from the m9 or m-e at base iso and say those cameras that score slightly higher are at the same level. they do definitely beat it at high iso though and to some extent in dynamic range. to say that the m-e isn't objectively better than $1000 camera is ridiculous. there is no $1000 camera that can match it for resolution (arguably there is also no $3000 camera), it has better build than any $2000 camera, and it is the only digital camera around that is designed for precision manual focus (this is very expensive to accomplish mechanically). you can argue that none of those points are particularly valuable to you, but you can't seriously say that the camera isn't objectively better than those $1000 cameras, just as i can't say that the m-e is objectively better. they have very different trade offs is all. the m-e is objectively much more expensive to build though.
p.10 #3 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
I don't know why is it so difficult to understand that Leica M are expensive for valid reasons. Forget about the electronic components for a minute and think about the remaining essential parts:
The body is full metal with minimal use of plastic, cast in one piece and hand assembled in Germany by professional and highly skilled workers.
The rangefinder is a very sensitive and expensive to make precision equipment that costs not only to produce, but to assemble and install properly with a error margin of 0.01 mm.
The free of charge maintenance and repairs for re-calibrations and CLA during officially the first 2 years but practically much longer than that.
And of course, the Leica name and the red dot.
If you think about the Leica M7 and MP that are selling currently at around 5000$, the ME at 5500$ is basically coming with a free sensor and electronics.
Precision manual equipment is expensive and slow to produce. A quartz movement in a watch is more accurate than a hand assembled automatic movement that is much more expensive and does not require frequent maintenance and calibration. Calling automatic watch owners stupid because they don't buy the cheap quartz ones is a bit exaggerated IMO.
p.10 #4 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
it's ok Edward, some clowns just don't understand that some of us like rangefinder focusing.
back to the topic where is there a 1000 digital rf? where is there a 3000 digital rf? there are two, one costs 5500 and the other 7000; in case you are wondering I assure you that I have no desire to use your ****y evf, lcd or that tunnel on your dslr you call a viewfinder. I shoot with RF and sometimes I shoot on ground glass. Occasionally I use a dslr to take photos of gear when I want to sell it but you could hand me a D800e and every Zeiss lens I wouldn't use it any more. just like you don't want to pay for a Leica, I don't want to even shoot a dslr. deal. with. it.
and for those too quick to jump, Im not saying youre stupid if you don't like rf. but to discount that some of us do just might make you stupid.
p.10 #5 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
edwardkaraa wrote:
Precision manual equipment is expensive and slow to produce. A quartz movement in a watch is more accurate than a hand assembled automatic movement that is much more expensive and does not require frequent maintenance and calibration. Calling automatic watch owners stupid because they don't buy the cheap quartz ones is a bit exaggerated IMO.
actually, i'll be honest since this thread has already devolved to ridiculousness. i think that is a bad analogy (it is a reoccurring theme here though). i don't get the automatic watch thing. it's just jewelry. it does it's function poorly. a rangefinder on the other hand actually does something better than AF and better than manual focus on an slr. additionally, a rangefinder changes the basic way you go about shooting. the watch just sits on your wrist looking pretty (or not), telling time not quite as well as a cheaper one. a leica m is for more than admiring craftsmanship, it's actually for accomplishing a task.
note: i say this all despite the fact that i hate using rangefinder cameras and will probably never buy a leica digital camera because of this.
p.10 #6 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
sebboh wrote:
actually, i'll be honest since this thread has already devolved to ridiculousness. i think that is a bad analogy (it is a reoccurring theme here though). i don't get the automatic watch thing. it's just jewelry. it does it's function poorly. a rangefinder on the other hand actually does something better than AF and better than manual focus on an slr. additionally, a rangefinder changes the basic way you go about shooting. the watch just sits on your wrist looking pretty (or not), telling time not quite as well as a cheaper one. a leica m is for more than admiring craftsmanship, it's actually for accomplishing a task.
note: i say this all despite the fact that i hate using rangefinder cameras and will probably never buy a leica digital camera because of this....Show more →
Understood about the watch part, and can't disagree with you even though I prefer wearing imprecise automatic watches, though not the expensive type
But fully agree on the RF part. I actually believe it improves our framing and focusing skills. Too bad you don't like using it.
p.10 #7 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
People people, STOP. There is a much simpler way to discuss this topic moving forward....
Picture time! This thread started based on the Leica M-E (or M9 as same sensor), 5d3 and D800. So if you own any of these cameras post up some pics taken with them. The unnecessary rows are going no where, we all love looking at pics, and what better way to demonstrate the capability of these 3 superb cameras.
p.10 #9 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
ct8282 wrote:
Picture time! This thread started based on the Leica M-E (or M9 as same sensor), 5d3 and D800. So if you own any of these cameras post up some pics taken with them.
Well, what's *that* going to prove??? These cameras can all take great photos! ;)
p.10 #11 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
ct8282 wrote:
People people, STOP. There is a much simpler way to discuss this topic moving forward....
Picture time! This thread started based on the Leica M-E (or M9 as same sensor), 5d3 and D800. So if you own any of these cameras post up some pics taken with them. The unnecessary rows are going no where, we all love looking at pics, and what better way to demonstrate the capability of these 3 superb cameras.
we should really have a single image thread, since nobody can tell the difference anyways.
p.10 #17 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
wiseguy010 wrote:
OMG, there again is someone with a DxOMark-score. Go out and make pictures instead of looking at this nonsense. Of course this is a friendly advice.
p.10 #18 · Doesn't look too good according to DxoMark
Well, of course, it is the topic of the whole thread! I guess those not interested in discussing DxOMARK scores - and who would rather be taking pics - could do so.
As far as the score, I think it's pretty good, fantastic even considering it's a brand new, unproven sensor (which outscores a Canon 1Dx overall btw). It's hard to look at images from the M and not be impressed by the color imo (part of that is no doubt due to the amazing lenses often mounted on the front ).
These cameras can all take great photos! 
Go out and make pictures instead of looking at this nonsense. Of course this is a friendly advice.