nryn Posted March 31, 2010 Share #1 Posted March 31, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) For those of you who haven't seen it, Engadget has posted an article on the M9. It's not a review so much as it is an editorial on what makes rangefinder photography unique. I think they were candid and forthright about the comparison between the M9 and more modern DSLR equivalents. Engadget is, unsurprisingly, pornography for "gadget hounds". It caters to people who love things like live view and autofocus and upgrading every 6 months. Their audience relishes in having lenses that require firmware updates. So the romanticism and practicality they impart on the photographic experience is somewhat surprising and quite welcome. Leica M9 hands-on; or, The Tao of Leica -- Engadget Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 31, 2010 Posted March 31, 2010 Hi nryn, Take a look here A nice M9 article from an unlikely source (Engadget). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Bo_Lorentzen Posted March 31, 2010 Share #2 Posted March 31, 2010 Leica M9 hands-on; or, The Tao of Leica -- Engadget Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted March 31, 2010 Share #3 Posted March 31, 2010 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/120863-nice-m9-article-unlikely-source-engadget.html <merge> Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sakthorp Posted March 31, 2010 Share #4 Posted March 31, 2010 I didn't notice if the article mentioned which lens was mounted on the M9. "And what, exactly, does it feel like to carry $11,695 worth of rangefinder body and lens around?" I had assumed it was the new 50mm Lux but if I'm doing my match correctly, that would make the lens $4700 ...... so what lens was used for his review? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redridge Posted March 31, 2010 Share #5 Posted March 31, 2010 good article.... a photographers camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanhulsenbeek Posted March 31, 2010 Share #6 Posted March 31, 2010 Title partly 'borrowed' from Erwin Putz. Home Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Posted March 31, 2010 Share #7 Posted March 31, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Considering their heritage and target audience, I have to say they summed it up quite nicely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttliem Posted March 31, 2010 Share #8 Posted March 31, 2010 Pity that no paragraph was dedicated to explain the legendary quality of the Leica M lenses. For many, Leica glass has also been the deciding factor for using the Leica M system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted April 1, 2010 Share #9 Posted April 1, 2010 I found it rather silly... Most pro systems cost around the same as the M when you put everything together - so going on about the price feels completely beside the point. And going all poetic about the mystique of rangefinders feels like a fluffy way of filling space. Most of us buy Ms because we want something small enough to carry around all day, but which delivers image quality that's at the top of what's available from 35mm. Isn't that about it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted April 1, 2010 Share #10 Posted April 1, 2010 I'm not sure how you come up to a price "around the same". Many Leica items are about 3X more expensive. For example, Canon's 35/1.4 is $1,400, Leica's 35/1.4 is $4,500. Canon's new 24/1.4 is $1,700, Nikon's new 24/1.4 is $2,200, Leica's new 24/1.4 is $6,500. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
neli Posted April 1, 2010 Share #11 Posted April 1, 2010 I found it rather silly... Most pro systems cost around the same as the M when you put everything together - so going on about the price feels completely beside the point. And going all poetic about the mystique of rangefinders feels like a fluffy way of filling space. Most of us buy Ms because we want something small enough to carry around all day, but which delivers image quality that's at the top of what's available from 35mm. Isn't that about it? size and look (of the pictures) where my deciding factors. i'm not sure about the price, i've bought my leica gear new since i was new to the M system, but a lot of my nikon pro gear i bought used. i'm sure i'll pick up some used M lenses as well, but so far my leica gear has cost me more and it's only an M9 35 lux, 50 lux and 75 cron. my nikon gear is a D3, D700, 14-24, 50/1.4 28/1.4, 85/1.4 and 70-180 Micro. I suppose one could argue that I've actually gotten more with the Leica system, but Nikon really has a better price per kilogram. I suppose it's difficult to compare since they really are quite different systems. I'd give Leica the edge for the look of the pictures; I wouldn't call it quality, I don't feel that Nikon has inferior quality to Leica, but the way the lenses draw are really very beautiful. I prefer using the Leica because I spend less time, about half the time actually, in Photoshop and Aperture than when I use the Nikons. Considering my clients have to pay for that time I have done my clients quite a favor by using the Leica's whenever the situation warrants, which is most of the time. I didn't read the article yet I just wanted to join in with Chris. +1 and I liked your exposé on the overgaard site. best cornelius Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted April 2, 2010 Share #12 Posted April 2, 2010 ....but Nikon really has a better price per kilogram..... And that is it's liability... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted April 2, 2010 Share #13 Posted April 2, 2010 I'm not sure how you come up to a price "around the same". Many Leica items are about 3X more expensive. For example, Canon's 35/1.4 is $1,400, Leica's 35/1.4 is $4,500. Canon's new 24/1.4 is $1,700, Nikon's new 24/1.4 is $2,200, Leica's new 24/1.4 is $6,500. Zatklob - hands up - having looked at the numbers, I exaggerated in some respects. On like for like - of course Canon is cheaper - but I'd never want to put money into their wide primes when I compare them with the performance of the wider lenses on the M9... I came it my judgment by thinking about what the cost of two pro set ups would be for someone wanting to cover the natural ranges of either system. Look at it this way. IF you went for a new two body 1Ds Mk3 set up + the lenses I use you'd come up with (which is the same as the lens line-up I've invested in over the years - so many of mine are series 1 but still fine for all that...) Canon 1DS mk3 £5,194.00 Canon 1DS mk3 £5,194.00 Canon EF 85mm f1.2 L II USM Lens £1,799.99 Canon EF 300mm f2.8 L IS USM Lens £3,883.00 Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8 L MKII USM Lens £1,189.99 Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM Lens £1,020.99 Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II USM Lens £2,229.00 TOTAL £20,510.97 If you went for a 2 body M9 set up from (again - the same lenses I use in their new versions) you'd get: Leica M9 £4,850.00 Leica M9 £4,850.00 Leica Elmarit 21mm f2.8 ASPH (6-Bit) £2,899.00 Leica Elmarit 28mm f2.8 ASPH (6-Bit) £1,276.00 Leica Summicron 35mm f2 ASPH-M (6-Bit) £1,959.00 Leica Summilux 50mm f1.4 ASPH-M 6-Bit £2,369.00 Leica Apo-Summicron 90mm f2 ASPH-M £2,308.00 TOTAL £20,511.00 If you decided to go for the 5D mk2 on the Canon system, this would save you a lot of money as this body is amazingly good value at around £1700 .... If Leica could come in at this price point we'd all be very happy bunnies. SO - considering the professional lens line up that a working photographer is likely to want to buy into if they use a DSLR, my experience has been that buying into Leica hasn't been that much more expensive than buying into Canon. AND - my reality has been that I've bought over the years, I've shopped around for good quality used kit (my old but beautiful Canon 300 L cost £1000) - so please no one think that I've sunk this much cash into cameras! However, it does bring home that at the pro end, none of this stuff comes cheap... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted April 2, 2010 Share #14 Posted April 2, 2010 However, it does bring home that at the pro end, none of this stuff comes cheap. Depends how you look at it. If you are a professional carpenter or independent gas fitter you'll probably need a van and various specialised tools that could easily cost £20K (I know that professional photographers also need transport but few I know buy a vehicle in addition to what they already own). That said, I think your figures for the Canon v. Leica comparison are a bit skewed to your personal situation. Pro body prices are only roughly comparable between Nikon, Canon and Leica when you get to street prices and Leica lenses are still roughly 2-3 times the cost of their Canon/Nikon counterparts and other system items are also priced at a premium. I'm pretty sure I could put together a DSLR based system 'equivalent' to my Leica system (in terms of focal lengths, lens speed and sensor size) for half the new price of the Leica kit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted April 2, 2010 Share #15 Posted April 2, 2010 Something like this would give comparable focal lengths: Leica M9 (x2) $14,000 24/1.4 $6,500 35/1.4 $4,500 50/1.4 $3,700 90/2 $3,700 Leica Total $32,400 Canon 5DII (x2) $5,000 24/1.4 $1,700 35/1.4 $1,400 50/1.2 $1,500 85/1.2 $2,000 Canon Total $11,600 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted April 2, 2010 Share #16 Posted April 2, 2010 If it was only about focal lengths Leica would still only be making the Hector. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted April 2, 2010 Share #17 Posted April 2, 2010 I'm pretty sure I could put together a DSLR based system 'equivalent' to my Leica system (in terms of focal lengths, lens speed and sensor size) for half the new price of the Leica kit. Ian / Zlatkob - Really, I don't disagree with you. If you match focal length for focal length the Leica is much more expensive than Canon / Nikon / Sony etc.. My point is that a working photographer who uses a dSLR is likely to have much longer glass than a Leica photographer (that's why they buy the system) so you need to factor in at least the 70-200's cost (and I'd say the 300 for anyone who's serious about performance or sports). Things look a bit different then. Sorry for hi-jacking the thread though. The other comparison is the person who has just one body + 28 / 50. IMHO although their system is going to cost them way more than someone with a 5Dmk2 and a 24-70 L zoom (the bread and butter lens for most DSLR pros)m they'll carry it with them more than they would the DSLR kit, and they'll possible get more shots... In the end it's an apples and pears thing isn't it... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.