carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.129 #12 · Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread | |
denoir wrote:
I'm curious - why? If you are not using live view, don't find the low pixel count limiting and prefer Leica glass, what benefits can a DSLR offer? Are you using very long lenses or doing a lot of macro photography?
A 100% optical TTL viewfinder is the main reason. High ISO is another. I don't do much macro at all, almost none, but I routinely go closer than 75cm, especially with my 21 Distagon, for some reason. I don't currently have anything longer than 100mm for my D3, other than my 70-300VR, but I might add a 180 or 200 f/2.8 (or f/2!) in the future. I do much of my non-M work on a tripod, or at least a monopod.
Yes, it's a possible explanation but only for a limited time period. At some point you probably converge on mostly using the system that works best for your style of photography. The D3 may be much newer, but you've had it for at least a couple of months now, right?
I have had it since March, but don't have so much time to photograph, so it still feels new to me. Each has its own strengths. For the kind of local photography I do, the DSLR is my preferred tool. In fact, the Kodak SLR/n beats out the D3 for some things. For travelling and events, I prefer the M8, except when I need the high ISO of the D3.
You should not underestimate the DSLR refugees. They are for the most part responsible for the Leica boom.
I am not sure where the justification for the second sentence comes from, but I agree with the first one. I am not underestimating the demand for the M9 from such people, but I don't think that Leica will cater to them with the M line of cameras.
The hardcore original Leica users may not care but all the romanticism apart Leica is a business and can't afford not to adapt to the market.
Mmm, I mildly disagree. To some extent, I think that Leica is more comfortable catering to the smaller, more traditional part of their market. There is an attempt to adjust to more modern requirements, but I don't think that Leica will make a decision which compromises their traditional appeal.
Their Summarit line of lenses and the other cameras (X1, D-Lux etc) show that they are adapting.
The X1, D-Lux, V-Lux and so on are a (successful) attempt to stay alive. The Summarit line of lenses was initiated by Stephen K. Lee, I believe, and I don't think that Leica will make another. Lenses like the 24/3.8 will continue to be made, but not the Summarit budget Leica approach. It is Leica's traditional approach to offer a generalist Cron version, and a high budget Lux version, or Elmarit/Cron for very wide/long. I don't see much reason to continue developing Summarits. The M9 is so expensive that a Summarit lens seems anachronistic.
As for a source for a CMOS sensor, well, the same as for the X1, I suppose.
The X1 isn't anywhere near full frame. I am not aware of any FF sensors on the open market. The closest is the Sony sensor, which is also sold to Nikon. I don't think there are others, and I don't think that Leica could buy that Sony sensor, nor would they want to. At Leica's volumes, they need a small specialist, or a lot of goodwill on the part of a supplier. I also think you underestimate the Japanese reluctance to supply core technologies to non-Japanese companies.
|
Well, I've had a 7D for over a year and the 5DII is not all that different (worse camera, better sensor). 
I meant the M Summarits. Summarit simply means f/2.5 at this point, so wherever such an aperture makes sense, there will be one. I mean Summarit M lenses, in the sense of a secondary or even tertiary line of lenses with price as the primary motivational factor (compared to normal M lenses) in the design, and a slightly lower mechanical standard. f/2.5 is quite an accomplishment in medium format.