I am thinking about it - selling my m8 and some canon Ls could get me very close... But I hate to be a first adopter on such a high priced item... Prices are going to go down, its just a question of when and how much and I would be pissed off if I gave away 2000 (incl used value loss) because I couldnt wait a bit. I got the m8 "inexpensively" so I use it as I please, meaning as a shooting tool, not as a high priced valuable. I would like to keep that arrogance towards my pricey camera, therefore then I have to not buy it at a premium.
AGeoJO wrote:
While I'd love the idea of being able to use/buy another FF rangefinder camera with M mount other than the Leica M9 that would have a noise performance similar to the D700, but I am realistic. Let''s face it, the chance of something like that would be slim to none . There is simply not enough market for something like that that would make other companies pursue this niche market. Leica M9 would still sell well though, since again, because of the presitige, the red dot .
Back on topic though - any of you guys would buy the M9 within a month or so? Personally, I would wait until the end of the year to make sure that the early production bugs have been addressed......Show more →
The sad part is I'd suspect strongly that a DRF with D700-level noise performance would strongly outsell the M9.
People aren't hurting for low-ISO performance these days. And the M9, as good as it looks, is damn near MFDB money (I can get a 22MP ZD back with similar or better low ISO performance for pretty much the same money as an M9). I think Leica missed the boat on what the M is best at.
mawz wrote:
While that's true for SLR's, it's not necessarily so for rangefinders where mirror clearance issues affecting optical design don't exist. It's just about as easy to build a simple 40mm RF lens as a 50mm, which is why many of the fixed lens RF's got lenses in the 40-45mm range. The 50mm as a normal was a long established standard by the time SLR's started to get popular in the 1960's.
I wasn't saying that it as more expensive to make a 40mm lens, or a 60mm lens, just that a lens in the 50mm ball park is the cheapest to make.
Lotusm50 wrote:
One of the main reasons the price on 50mm lenses is low, relative to other lenses, is that they produce a lot more of them (at least historically) so they benefit from economies of scale. As zooms have become the standard lens for more SLR's, manufacturers are producing fewer 50mm lenses, and their price has risen relative to others lenses. Historically, the price of 135/2.8 lens also benefited from volume production as it was commonly the second lens that a lot of users (particularly amateurs and the like) purchased.
I very much doubt they make that many standard 50mm lenses today (~F2) given the popularity and high quality of zooms. F1.4 versions might sell in bigger numbers but they are much more complex beasts. The point about a 50mm F2 lens is that it is optically fairly simple and the lens elements are not too large (which increases cost).
Regarding economies of scale, the big 35mm DSLR manufacturers, and probably others, make lenses in batches. They use computer controlled machines, I think setting up is easy. A lot of the cost comes from the optical complexity, and the diameter of the lens elements, and the design stage. The more they make, the quicker they pay off the design costs. But that is true for any focal length.In the past manufacturers like Leica made their name because they hand picked glass to assure consistent refractive index, and paid far more attention to grinding and polishing the lens elements. That advantage has gone, but I digress.
AGeoJo: I love typos, I have to say. '"Effluent" aficionados' is now top of my listsir, I thank you! No doubt they would prefer the term affluent, but who really knows with this group?
Seriously, though, and talking to Thrice now, Zeiss glass is the equal of Leica's as many on this forum can attest from the Canon 5D/Leica R/Zeiss-via-adapter days, when Guy Mancuso was a frequent poster.
And, for me personally, the A900 is worth a second look. Interesting times in the image-making world, to be sure.
Kit, sadly a couple of important lenses are still only produced to a high enough standard by Leica.
eg. 50/1.4, and 35/1.4 in M mount. Sure the 50/2 planar and 35/2 biogon are stunning, but they're a stop slower for the same IQ and have way more CA.
However I know enough about Zeiss imaging and am less of a brand snob than people think. My M kit (once I've bought all I'm after) will compose of one Zeiss lens, one Cosina Voigtlander lens and two Leica lenses.
And in regards to slr's, Leica still made a superior 28, 50, 85/90, 100 macro and 180/280/400/560 than Zeiss, if we split hairs. But then imaging taste comes into play as well.
For anyone wondering about the pricing of the Leica M9, this will help a little http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/m9-video.shtml
A video of construction and testing. A LOT of the fabrication is done in Portugal, in case no one knew
thrice wrote:
My M kit (once I've bought all I'm after) will compose of one Zeiss lens, one Cosina Voigtlander lens and two Leica lenses.
What's on your mind for that 4 lens setup for the M9?
The CV lens would be the 15 Heliar?
I was going to swap my M28 Elmarit pre-ASPH for a M35 Summicron ASPH, for my planned M8 acqusition, but I think I'll keep the 28, as its in the ballpark of R28 Elmarit IQ territory. The cost of a M28/2.0 would be alot for that extra stop.
thrice wrote:
Kit, sadly a couple of important lenses are still only produced to a high enough standard by Leica.
eg. 50/1.4, and 35/1.4 in M mount. Sure the 50/2 planar and 35/2 biogon are stunning, but they're a stop slower for the same IQ and have way more CA.
I strongly disagree here. While I'd agree that the Leica 50 and 35 Summiluxes are the best on the market, the Nokton 50/1.5 and 35/1.4 are extremely good lenses, the 35/1.4 in particular seriously outperforms the pre-ASPH Summilux. And it's not like the market is hurting for good fast 50's even in LTM or M mount. Frankly, I'll take my 50 year old Nikkor 5cm f1.4 over an ASPH Summilux any day. It's damn good at f2 and smaller and delivers enough at f1.4 for my needs. And the rendering qualities beat the Summilux ASPH silly. I can live with some CA if it nets me Sonnar bokeh. The current C Sonnar 50mm from Zeiss is also excellent, but not worth the 100% price premium over my Nikkor.
However I know enough about Zeiss imaging and am less of a brand snob than people think. My M kit (once I've bought all I'm after) will compose of one Zeiss lens, one Cosina Voigtlander lens and two Leica lenses.
And in regards to slr's, Leica still made a superior 28, 50, 85/90, 100 macro and 180/280/400/560 than Zeiss, if we split hairs. But then imaging taste comes into play as well.
Disagree on the 50 (I'll take a 50 Makro-Planar over the Summicron) but I'll cop to the rest (although I'd go for a 100/2 Planar or Makro-Planar over a 90 'Cron)
I still think I'd go for a CV 50 1.1 or 1.5 and a CV 35 1.2 or 1.4 for a M9-kit. I would love to see the CV 50 1.1, 1.5 and the leica 50 1.4 at comparable F-stops in a test. Anyone know of something like that online? Sean Reid?
Thrice; of course, if we are talking M mount you may be right, but as an ex 21/2.8 Distagon owner, and assuming that the M mount Zeiss range is a similar standard, it is more a matter of very subtle taste in the final image quality rather than 'x is better than y'.
At this level of performance, taste reigns, I feel. I have owned most of the iconic Zeiss and Leica lenses, and my customers loved the images made with them. I didn't think a brand look was recognisable enough to use only Leica or Zeiss, so I used what I thought were the best of both. And I have a MF Nikon 50/2 that is incredibly sharp, 30 or more years old, and equal to any Zeiss or Leica prime at the same focal length. Heresy? I just go by what I see. cheers, kl
It's one of the nice things about Leica M that despite being a niche there are a great range of tasty lenses to choose from. If only the M9 had a great liveview implementation it would make sense to use your best Canon/Contax/Nikkor/Rokkor glass on M too, via adaptors. In fact, an M body with a great EVF would rock. Perhaps it will come one day. Until then we have the pokey little GF-1 et al. I wonder if Leica realises that an EVF M body and adaptors for all SLR mounts might be of interest to photographers who already have extensive lens arsenals. If they can charge $7k for the body, they might make profit regardless of M lens sales. There is an opportunity to take M beyond the limitations of rangefinder and make it the most versatile lens mount for full-frame sensors. Leica needs to start to compete in the electronics side in order to resuscitate M-mount in this way, and that seems unlikely at the moment.
mawz wrote:
Disagree on the 50 (I'll take a 50 Makro-Planar over the Summicron) but I'll cop to the rest (although I'd go for a 100/2 Planar or Makro-Planar over a 90 'Cron)
At equivalent apertures the E60 50 lux 1.4 is superior to the 50 summicron on the R system, I had both. A 50/1.4 is much harder to make than a 50/2.0, however the makro planar is probably the best f/2.0 50mm lens for the SLR system, I strongly considered it but went for speed. The 90 apo-summicron was what I was referring to in the 90 range, the 100/2.8 apo-macro is superior to the 100/2 planar and macro planar in all respects except brightness. If we're comparing the apo-summicron to the 100/2 planar I'd say it's very similar in rendering, but smaller, sharper and with better colours, ymmv.
mawz wrote:
I strongly disagree here. While I'd agree that the Leica 50 and 35 Summiluxes are the best on the market, the Nokton 50/1.5 and 35/1.4 are extremely good lenses, the 35/1.4 in particular seriously outperforms the pre-ASPH Summilux. And it's not like the market is hurting for good fast 50's even in LTM or M mount. Frankly, I'll take my 50 year old Nikkor 5cm f1.4 over an ASPH Summilux any day. It's damn good at f2 and smaller and delivers enough at f1.4 for my needs. And the rendering qualities beat the Summilux ASPH silly. I can live with some CA if it nets me Sonnar bokeh. The current C Sonnar 50mm from Zeiss is also excellent, but not worth the 100% price premium over my Nikkor....Show more →
I laughed at your first two sentences. You say you disagree here, then completely agree with my statement and then compare two lenses I didn't even mention?
mawz, are you a reid reviews subscriber? Are you saying his copy of the 35/1.4 nokton was a dud? The 35 lux ASPH (the only one I would consider) absolutely destroys it, as does every (someone correct me if there is a worse 35) other 35 he reviews. The 50/1.5 nokton is ok, but it's not the 50 asph, I'm using a 50/1.1 nokton and love it, but it's not as good as my 50 lux-R at equivalent apertures (nor would I have expected it to be).
The 50 sonnars are too soft for my liking, the old nikkors are alright, but are you using them on the M system? The rendering qualities are a matter of taste, from a technical perspective the 50 asph is the best 135 50mm lens ever.
JimBuchanan wrote:
What's on your mind for that 4 lens setup for the M9?
I found I'm not a big 28mm shooter unless I'm shooting band promo shots in which case it's ideal for group shots (compromise of width and distortion).
The setup I'm *planning* to go for (just lost the 35 lux asph chrome auction I was hoping to win ) is: 21/4.5 C-biogon - I love the fact that it has NO distortion, and is sharp corner to corner at all apertures. 35/1.4 Summilux-asph - It's the best 35, and I really welcome the chance to accurately manual focus a fast wide angle. 50/1.1 Nokton - I already have this lens and it is amazing for the price, one of the real perks of shooting the M system is ridiculously fast 50's, a lot of fun. 90/2 APO-Summicron - I love this lens on my SLR and it's the same formula (yet a smaller filter thread?) on the M system so I look forward to using it on that too!
thrice wrote:
...the 100/2.8 apo-macro is superior to the 100/2 planar and macro planar in all respects except brightness, please show me a comparison to the contrary.
Someone did post a comparison between these two here a while back. I thought the Zeiss rendered a little better than the Leica because it managed to make the scene look 3D. The Leica had that flat colourful look, with a lesser sense of reality. You need to stand back from the image and try to imagine actually seeing it to appreciate what's wrong with Leica's rendering though. If you examine it with a list of measurable metrics you may well tick them off and fail to notice that it looks like a painting rather than a window. Like I've said before - it's a matter of taste. I would take the Makro-Planar f2 over the apo f2.8 even if it wasn't cheaper and brighter.
Hey Richard, I remember that review and also liked the planar's rendering a little more than the leica's. But also being a film shooter I wanted the Leica colours, and the total lack of CA on the Leica is a very nice thing, I really dislike CA, even the correctable kind, for some reason.
. There is simply not enough market for something like that that would make other companies pursue this niche market. Leica M9 would still sell well though, since again, because of the presitige, the red dot 
.
