roanjohnnyc wrote:
As much as I want to shoot a Leica (the cameras are just sexy!!), I just can't justify the price - it's about 50% more than what I would pay for.
They're even a little bit more than 50% for me. I would be really interested in an M9 if it were around $2000, and if the lenses were roughly half the price they are, and if 50mm and shorter lenses focused about twice as close. (I know this is a rangefinder limitation)
They are actually about 100% over my limit, and given the various options on the market on FF cameras, be it rangefinder or not, with the amount of money for the camera itself one can get a cam and a full lens lineup. So not really an alternative.
Leica X1 with 24mm f2.8 lens -- $1995
Panasonic GF1 with 20mm f1.7 lens -- $899
So, given that the bodies are virtually the same under the skin and that the Panny lens is faster and wider, what does the additional $1100 for the Leica get you (aside from the red dot, that is)?
Aside from the exorbitant prices for Leica cameras and lenses, I'm puzzled at the poor high ISO capabilities. If maintaining realistic pricing is (apparently) not a problem for this company, and the M9 has a full frame sensor, why in the world can't they offer an ISO range comparable to that of other full frame cameras costing 1/4 to 1/2 as much?
freediverx wrote:
Aside from the exorbitant prices for Leica cameras and lenses, I'm puzzled at the poor high ISO capabilities. If maintaining realistic pricing is (apparently) not a problem for this company, and the M9 has a full frame sensor, why in the world can't they offer an ISO range comparable to that of other full frame cameras costing 1/4 to 1/2 as much?
Lotusm50 wrote:
Leica X1 with 24mm f2.8 lens -- $1995
Panasonic GF1 with 20mm f1.7 lens -- $899
So, given that the bodies are virtually the same under the skin and that the Panny lens is faster and wider, what does the additional $1100 for the Leica get you (aside from the red dot, that is)?
Comparisons will be inevitable.
Nope, the two bodies are unrelated. The X1 appears to use the Sony 12MP part and is APS-C and fixed lens, not m43. It's really a DP2 killer.
I'm wondering what it will give you over the GF1 or E-P1 with the 17 or 20 pancakes though. I'm suspecting all you'll get is mid-ISO noise performance (IE it's cleaner in the ISO 400-1600 range)
freediverx wrote:
Aside from the exorbitant prices for Leica cameras and lenses, I'm puzzled at the poor high ISO capabilities. If maintaining realistic pricing is (apparently) not a problem for this company, and the M9 has a full frame sensor, why in the world can't they offer an ISO range comparable to that of other full frame cameras costing 1/4 to 1/2 as much?
Yes, the M8 is not known for its high ISO performance. Are you referring to the M8 but put in FF in the equation then? We don't quite know about the high ISO performance of the M9 yet...
AGeoJO wrote:
Yes, the M8 is not known for its high ISO performance. Are you referring to the M8 but put in FF in the equation then? We don't quite know about the high ISO performance of the M9 yet...
There are ISO 1600 / ISO 600 / ISO 400 samples at Dpreview. I would say that the ISO 1600 is decent from a full-frame sensor camera...........
Lotusm50 wrote:
Leica X1 with 24mm f2.8 lens -- $1995
Panasonic GF1 with 20mm f1.7 lens -- $899
So, given that the bodies are virtually the same under the skin and that the Panny lens is faster and wider, what does the additional $1100 for the Leica get you (aside from the red dot, that is)?
Comparisons will be inevitable.
This is what Canon should've done with the new G series camera.......
Ahh. Yes. My bad. I didn't read carefully, and presumed due to their history and that they were announced at roughly the same time.
It does, however beg the question, will we see a version of this basic camera appear under another nameplate? Sorry if this sounds cynical, but I am also presuming that the bulk of this camera is not "Made in Germany", but rather just final assembly and packing.
roanjohnnyc wrote:
This is what Canon should've done with the new G series camera.......
montespluga wrote:
You think so?
Did you see the color noise?
Yeah it's terrible, you'd better not buy one.
Back in the land of the reasonable, I think it looks good, about on par with my 5D-I which is saying a lot for a CCD based sensor. should respond well to NR in PP if you need a perfectly clean image, otherwise Lightroom will take care of what little colour noise there is and leave the luminance noise.
If you think it's bad, maybe shoot some high iso on your 1Ds-II, and import the RAW file into capture one. A lot is done automatically and this being a pre-production camera they didn't get much done automatically.
