uhoh7 wrote:
One thing I do know, the Leica SLRs, in hand, are unbelievable, compared to the Japanese counterparts.
Do you mean ergonomically? If so I completely disagree I can't stand the R9 ergonomics. It's too short and stubby or something.
Do you mean quality-wise? If so, I less strongly disagree. Sure it feels better than an N90s or something but I'd put it a little below an F100 and not comparable to an M at all.
uhoh7 wrote:
first you tell us volume doesn't matter, then you measure Leica failure in SLR by volume.
Uh...when volume drops to zero, it starts to matter.
You can't have a high margin on zero volume.
uhoh7 wrote:
One thing I do know, the Leica SLRs, in hand, are unbelievable, compared to the Japanese counterparts. They are gorgeous things, and they are worth more than just about any SLR body today.
What a failure!
Leica SLR's worth more than any SLR? That's hilarious. Just a quick look at KEH.com shows that 90% or more of Leica SLR's are bought for under $200. Only the R9 seems have any serious value and that camera is so awful looking, so fugly that it's the Pontiac Aztek of cameras.
Leica SLR lenses, on the other hand, have tremendous holding power of their value.
Of course the R is a system.....so who did a better MF lens set than Leica made for the R?
I need to do a poll...which complete SLR system would you most love to own: but one body? I would take the R9 over the RTS or F6 any day, but that's only me. Second, I might take the Contax.
A friend of mine has a nice R9, and it feels very very nice in the hand and to the eye.
But it's like the M9: I love it, but many can't stand the thing.
uhoh7 wrote:
Well that F2 looks extremely cool...... but I'd take an R9 over it any day because of the glass it will shoot,
Nikon manual focus lenses are quite nice (I've got a bunch of them), but I too wouldnt mind trying the Leica SLR lenses. Since most of the Leica SLR's are pretty affordable, it seems like a reasonably priced way to enter into the Leica world.
I'm more sorely tempted to try a Contax camera. For whatever reason, the Contax RTS III just screams out my name late at night when I try to sleep. We'll see.
rattymouse wrote:
Nikon manual focus lenses are quite nice (I've got a bunch of them), but I too wouldnt mind trying the Leica SLR lenses. Since most of the Leica SLR's are pretty affordable, it seems like a reasonably priced way to enter into the Leica world.
I'm more sorely tempted to try a Contax camera. For whatever reason, the Contax RTS III just screams out my name late at night when I try to sleep. We'll see.
The Contax RTS looks great. I think the R body that really made an impression on me might have been the R6 or 7. It was a small body. I'll find out.
I just replaced a Nikon 105/2.8 AI-S Micro with a 100AME. The comparison isn't even close. Nikon's got some good lenses but in some cases the R's just murderize them.
rattymouse wrote:
My rangefinders are still going strong, 2 years into my ownership of them. No adjustments needed. All kinds of people are shooting Leica's from M2's up to the current digital M's. If a rangefinder needs calibration, that's part of owning a rangefinder. People know that going into the game.
I didn't say that the maintenance wasn't expected. But my wife and I have put several thousand hours of shooting time into RFs, and while we both like them very much, there's nothing all that special about RF as a focusing tool. It's fun to use makes MF a heck of a lot easier to accomplish than through a dSLR viewfinder, but there are clear limitations (wide angle, the need for magnifiers for accurate long-lens focusing, periodic maintenance, etc.).
While I am happy that your 2yrs of RF experience has not resulted in any trips to the shop for maintenance, ours have. The Leica store was kind enough to give us a loaner in the interim, but if they hadn't, my wife would not have been unable to use the M a gig she was shooting.
A Leica with an EVF is called a Sony A7, i.e., just another camera destined for quick depreciation along with all the other electronic cameras.
First, I am not convinced that the RF mechanism in my M240 has done all that much to arrest its depreciation. Second, the benefit of Leica M cameras are far more than an RF mechanism. The thing we love most about our M (as compared to, for example, our RX-1) is how well designed the physical and software UI is. Very simple, uncluttered, and easy to access the functions you really need. The Sony is terrible in this respect. Indeed, the Sony cameras are not very much fun to use, and are updated very frequently. I suspect that has a great deal to do with their rate of depreciation.
Arka wrote:
I didn't say that the maintenance wasn't expected. But my wife and I have put several thousand hours of shooting time into RFs, and while we both like them very much, there's nothing all that special about RF as a focusing tool.
Rangefinders let you see outside the image area. No other viewfinder/focusing method lets you do this. If you have zero interest in this feature of rangefinders, then I can see why an EVF might be your thing. Its my opinion that the majority, the vast majority, of Leica users cherish this aspect of the rangefinder and so will be highly disappointed if the rangefinder is replaced by a tiny TV screen.
Arka wrote:
It's fun to use makes MF a heck of a lot easier to accomplish than through a dSLR viewfinder, but there are clear limitations (wide angle, the need for magnifiers for accurate long-lens focusing, periodic maintenance, etc.).
While I am happy that your 2yrs of RF experience has not resulted in any trips to the shop for maintenance, ours have. The Leica store was kind enough to give us a loaner in the interim, but if they hadn't, my wife would not have been unable to use the M a gig she was shooting.
First, I am not convinced that the RF mechanism in my M240 has done all that much to arrest its depreciation. Second, the benefit of Leica M cameras are far more than an RF mechanism. The thing we love most about our M (as compared to, for example, our RX-1) is how well designed the physical and software UI is. Very simple, uncluttered, and easy to access the functions you really need. The Sony is terrible in this respect. Indeed, the Sony cameras are not very much fun to use, and are updated very frequently. I suspect that has a great deal to do with their rate of depreciation.
rattymouse wrote:
Rangefinders let you see outside the image area. No other viewfinder/focusing method lets you do this.
I am well aware of the benefits.
If you have zero interest in this feature of rangefinders, then I can see why an EVF might be your thing. Its my opinion that the majority, the vast majority, of Leica users cherish this aspect of the rangefinder and so will be highly disappointed if the rangefinder is replaced by a tiny TV screen.
If I had zero interest in RF, I wouldn't own one. I also do not advocate removal of the RF in an M successor. Rather, I would like to see a hybrid viewfinder that allowed traditional rangefinder focusing, with the option to switch to an EVF within the same window (rather than as an add-on hump that is the current external EVF). Given how good the Q EVF is, I would love to see that one used with this sort of hybrid functionality.
I don't know if it's technically feasible to build such a machine, but that would be an interesting camera that would tempt me to upgrade.
rattymouse wrote:
Leica SLR's worth more than any SLR? That's hilarious. Just a quick look at KEH.com shows that 90% or more of Leica SLR's are bought for under $200. Only the R9 seems have any serious value and that camera is so awful looking, so fugly that it's the Pontiac Aztek of cameras.
Leica SLR lenses, on the other hand, have tremendous holding power of their value.
90% of all SLR's are worth under $200. R3/R4/R5's are cheap, but still sell for 3-4 times what the Minolta they are based on do. The 'real' Leica SLR's are all valuable, with the R6 and later all worth over $200 and only the R7 not worth double that on average.
The ones that hold their value best are high-end Nikon (FM2, FM3a and some F/F2/F3 configurations), Contax (S2/b, Aria, RTSIII) and Leica (R6.2, R8, R9), plus Canon F1's and Pentax LX's.
rattymouse wrote:
The various Nikon Titan models sell for well over $1000, at least here in China they do.
Titans are collector editions, and not even the most valuable of those for Nikon (which would be the gold FA or the anniversary S's). They're also worth just about exactly the same as the comparable Contax bodies.
rattymouse wrote
Rangefinders let you see outside the image area. No other viewfinder/focusing method lets you do this. If you have zero interest in this feature of rangefinders, then I can see why an EVF might be your thing. Its my opinion that the majority, the vast majority, of Leica users cherish this aspect of the rangefinder and so will be highly disappointed if the rangefinder is replaced by a tiny TV screen.
I agree about the "tiny TV screen". Even while having one of the better EVFs, the A7x shooting experience is very different from a camera with an optical VF (of any kind). It feels like a video game, not real life. The Leica M VF border will vary in size according to the lens used: as little as zero for a 28mm with .72x finder. Note that VF borders are available with select DSLRs, for example the Nikon D7100 that allows a 1.3x crop: the border is precisely delineated with a thin black rectangle. This mode does entail a loss of pixels (40%).
If I had zero interest in RF, I wouldn't own one. I also do not advocate removal of the RF in an M successor. Rather, I would like to see a hybrid viewfinder that allowed traditional rangefinder focusing, with the option to switch to an EVF within the same window (rather than as an add-on hump that is the current external EVF). Given how good the Q EVF is, I would love to see that one used with this sort of hybrid functionality.
I don't know if it's technically feasible to build such a machine, but that would be an interesting camera that would tempt me to upgrade.
The hybrid viewfinder is impossible to make for non fixed lens cameras. However I have been the advocate of a 2 camera solution, one classic M and one with an EVF, sort of like a Q with interchangeable lenses. I know I would use the M 90% of the time but there is always a place for an EVF based camera, especially for wides (though manually focusing wides with EVF even with magnification isn't very practical either) macro shots and long lenses. The A7 doesn't do the trick for me because of the thick sensor glass, posterization issues, loud shutter, and general body design that doesn't appeal to me.
Too bad for Lloyd, but I totally disagree with him on this point;
"The Q endeared itself to me by forcing me to re-enable the self-timer for every @$^#$^#$^ shot. The lack of insight into real photography at Leica is appalling."
That's a feature to me, and quite the opposite of "appalling." I can't recall how many times I've left the set the self timer, and then forgotten to turn it off! I found myself wishing that the camera would just force me to set the damn thing, rather than stay on until I remember to turn it off (usually at the expense of an image or two).
I guess it just goes to show how personal everyone's view of "real photography" is.
