Not quite true in this case in a digital age. Since this is the only FF RF, you have to invest in it if you want to shoot with it. You have to have a body to put the glass on...
My comment was short, thus could be open to many interpretations.
Have a look at the M8 and M8.2 used prices. Then, compare them to when "new". I have done a little spelunking out of curiosity and seemingly the price delta is appreciable for those "late" model bodies.
Thus, I don't think the corollary has changed. A lens, especially one with that, ahem "name" attached, will hold it's value better than a body, in my opinion.
But - you're absolutely correct, that right here, today - one must pay the full price for a FF digital RF as there are no other alternatives on the market besides the M9.
But that's the price one have to pay to enter the game. The body is no longer only a place holder for the film. But as the digital technology matures, bodies will last longer and longer and thus keep their value better.
A digital M9 should surpass a film M7 in most aspects except durability. With the new FF-generation of cameras this is probably the first time in history we can say this.
kidtexas wrote:
How do you load Tri-X into an M9 again?
Remove the bottom plate. Insert SD card. Photograph. Remove bottom plate, remove SD card. Load photos into Aperture/Photoshop and select Tri-X filter from Silver Efex or Exposure.
JonasY wrote:
A digital M9 should surpass a film M7 in most aspects except durability. With the new FF-generation of cameras this is probably the first time in history we can say this.
In my opinion that moment came for 1Ds2 users in 2004. I agree that it looks like Nikon and Leica have now joined that party. Free in use and better quality than film.
JonasY wrote:
But that's the price one have to pay to enter the game. The body is no longer only a place holder for the film. But as the digital technology matures, bodies will last longer and longer and thus keep their value better.
A digital M9 should surpass a film M7 in most aspects except durability. With the new FF-generation of cameras this is probably the first time in history we can say this.
Agreed. I've had my M8 for 3 years. And will hold onto it as a backup when I grab an M9.
It still functions in every regard and is far from obsolete. But the lure of full frame and an extra stop in ISO quality is worth the upgrade. Both cameras should last me years. And the only reason I can imagine for upgrading to an M10 if one should ever come around, is for higher viewfinder magnification, image stabilization and even better high ISO quality.
I just tried one out. I shouldn't have. Now I won't be able to sleep.
If it had the D3/D700 sensor and liveview, I would buy one right away. I'll probably do it anyway, but I must calm down and wait for a while.
Why liveview, you might wonder? Because then you could adapt whatever lens for closeups. And you could get precise framing when using a tripod. And you could use long tele lenses (if you'd want). And you could use a polarizer without problems.
I have to be calm myself.. Wait till they drop down a few notches and come avilable Used.. We should do a swedish/norwegian roadtrip with the money we have left afterwards makten..
Money left? I think you have done some serious miscalculation.
In all seriousness, I think that the conclusion we can make from this thread is that a digital fullframe SLR in the size of the good ol' SLR's like the FM3a (priced as the D700, 5D, A900) probably would sell like hot cakes.
I think he wants liveview beacause he could use a world of alternative lenses then, with ttl focusing, on a rf.. Still, the amount of weird, old, funky glass for the m-mount is fun too.
I paid off the balance on all the stuff I "preordered" along with the M9 today... but got told supply into Australia will be very bad over the next month so I guess the M6 will get a workout until then.
Leon Noel wrote:
Makten, RF focusing is not TTL, if you find yourself needing liveview, I guess DSLR is a more appropriate approach.
Liveview would make up for the shortcomings of an RF camera, such as making closeups possible without special gear. Most of the time, I would use the rangefinder.
A DSLR is inappropriate because of the weight and bulk. I've figured this out a long time ago, and I see no alternative to the M9 coming soon.
ulrikft wrote:
I think he wants liveview beacause he could use a world of alternative lenses then, with ttl focusing, on a rf..
I agree. Liveview will be even more useful on a rangefinder than on a DSLR. It gives the rangefinder camera a way of overcoming every single one of the limitations of the... fact that it's a rangefinder. You get TTL, off-centre focussing, accurate framing, d.o.f. preview, the whole works. It would enable use of long lenses, macros, ultrawideangles without hotshoe finders, even zooms. Maybe they could include some shutter speed/aperture/iso info below the image too. No camera design has more to gain from partnering with liveview than the rangefinder. That's why it's such a serious omission from this camera. Still, maybe the M10 will have it... ;-)
Wait till they drop down a few notches and come avilable Used.. We should do a swedish/norwegian roadtrip with the money we have left afterwards makten..