pico Posted October 4, 2012 Share #161 Posted October 4, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) errr.....sorry!http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/street-photography/254644-out-surf.html#post2175675 Heck, the guy is almost standing still and besides could not be in an easier rangefinder position. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Hi pico, Take a look here Leica's advantage?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
JDFlood Posted October 4, 2012 Share #162 Posted October 4, 2012 Paul J, Great answer. I could not put it better! I'll bring up a couple other things. Size and weight. Hauling around 20 pounds of DSLR and lenses gets old and does not fit all occastions. An M + a couple lenses whole different story. Also, many people feel they take better photos when they are forced to slow down a little. Finally, there is the romance. There is this old school company where quality and simplicity is the only objective. It is recognized around the world as the pinacle of excellence and longevity that you can join. It is a very elite club. I have a Nikon D800 and a Canon G12 too, but I love my Leica. JD Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kasper Posted October 5, 2012 Share #163 Posted October 5, 2012 Last week I was at a factory where early in the morning some kind of action took place. There were some photographers. Outside, a lot of them used a 16mm at 4000 ISO. ( f 2,8) When the people in front of the factory ran in, the photographers shot rapidly numbers of pictures. AF, 2500 ISO. Later inside there also was a lot of movement in not that good light, so with an 85 mm AF of course was also here an advantage. Suppose you had to do it with a Leica. The ISO would not be enough. ( also not at 2500, too ugly). The speed would be too low. The buffer too slow, and the Tri Elmar, which is the only lens from Leica that has 16, would also be insufficient. With the Canons or Nikons one is able to do the job. Let’s say Canon. Camera and zoom 16-35 mm, all together 3300 euro. Leica M9 plus Tri Elmar: 9700 euro. So having a Leica, a lot of situations requires an extra system. With only a DSLR you can do a lot more. The IQ difference in print will be not that big, certainly not in newspapers or magazines. That’s the reason press photographers hardly work with a Leica M. But also amateurs will miss situations, that can be done with a much cheaper system. ( childrens party in low light) Sure, the M is not heavy in weight and it certainly has other good things, but when it comes to the point of ‘ having the picture’ one is better of with a DSLR. At least at the moment. With the new M, Leica finally begins to understand that, is it not? Best regards, Kasper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted October 5, 2012 Share #164 Posted October 5, 2012 Please.... Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/188369-leicas-advantage/?do=findComment&comment=2133448'>More sharing options...
Ralf Posted October 5, 2012 Share #165 Posted October 5, 2012 D Please.... :D:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 5, 2012 Share #166 Posted October 5, 2012 Why repeating those overused clichés ad nauseam? Leica would have never made SLRs if rangefinders could do everything and vice versa. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kasper Posted October 5, 2012 Share #167 Posted October 5, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) No, but other non DLRs camera’s can do more on several points than the current M. For less money. In another thread (on the M and M-E framelines), UliWer writes that the disappearance of the frame lever is also caused by the fact that in so many forum threads people said that it was a useless thing. If that would count for more things, like ISO, speed and so on, it would have been a lot better to be objective instead of subjective caused by certain feelings. Perhaps Leica would have been faster by improving these matters. Regards, K. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted October 5, 2012 Share #168 Posted October 5, 2012 lct, DONT FEEED THIS TROL!L!!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kasper Posted October 5, 2012 Share #169 Posted October 5, 2012 lct, DONT FEEED THIS TROL!L!!!!!! Beside the vulgarity of sentences like this, if valid arguments are attacked in this way, it makes them only stronger. So I must say that am most grateful. Yours sincerely, K. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
insomnia Posted October 5, 2012 Share #170 Posted October 5, 2012 "Kasper" ("Clown" in German) seems like a perfect nickname for a troll That or he doesn't know better. I didn't buy my M to cover every possible situation, I bought it to have fun covering my usual situations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uaqpau Posted October 5, 2012 Share #171 Posted October 5, 2012 Hello Kasper. If you don't like what the M9 can do, you should sell it and buy a couple of D4, with a 24-70 and a 70-200 VRII.. they are great performers and good for biceps building too. You're comparing two different things. If my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather. Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kasper Posted October 5, 2012 Share #172 Posted October 5, 2012 Hello Kasper. If you don't like what the M9 can do, you should sell it and buy a couple of D4, with a 24-70 and a 70-200 VRII.. they are great performers and good for biceps building too.You're comparing two different things. If my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather. Regards Remarkable. Next to me a new M is coming. Higher ISO, faster buffer, better LCD screen, and not 2fps, but 3. It seems also a better IQ. Wel that are quite some improvements. Why don't you recommend this camera? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uaqpau Posted October 5, 2012 Share #173 Posted October 5, 2012 Remarkable. Next to me a new M is coming. Higher ISO, faster buffer, better LCD screen, and not 2fps, but 3. It seems also a better IQ. Wel that are quite some improvements. Why don't you recommend this camera? Because I dont like video, live view, bigger size and weight.. and dont need higher iso or 3fps. If I needed a new M I'd buy the Monochrom or the M-E. Maybe Im just easier to please.. who knows. The highest iso I use on my MP is 800 and Im more than happy. Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kasper Posted October 5, 2012 Share #174 Posted October 5, 2012 Because I dont like video, live view, bigger size and weight.. and dont need higher iso or 3fps. If I needed a new M I'd buy the Monochrom or the M-E. Maybe Im just easier to please.. who knows. The highest iso I use on my MP is 800 and Im more than happy. Regards OK, but a lot of other photographers really do need speed and higher ISO. Specially professionals. If you knew the market, you would agree that video is also very welcome. Anyway, developments will go on. It's not what one person needs, is it? One day there will be a M with AF too. That's almost certain. The M system shall than be a fully professional equipment. With its superior glass. That will be the day! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted October 5, 2012 Share #175 Posted October 5, 2012 lct,DONT FEEED THIS TROL!L!!!!!! I'm not deaf nor blind fortunately but i responded to Kasper volontarily because i was interested in what she said and because we are lucky enough to be on a well moderated forum. Either people respect the rules here and it is an insult to call them trolls. Or they don't respect the rules and they are banned from the forum, which is not the case of Kasper if i'm not wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted October 5, 2012 Share #176 Posted October 5, 2012 I'm not deaf nor blind fortunately but i responded to Kasper volontarily because i was interested in what she said and because we are lucky enough to be on a well moderated forum. Either people respect the rules here and it is an insult to call them trolls. Or they don't respect the rules and they are banned from the forum, which is not the case of Kasper if i'm not wrong. i did put a smile in my post otherwise its terribly wrong Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomasis7 Posted October 5, 2012 Share #177 Posted October 5, 2012 Beside the vulgarity of sentences like this, if valid arguments are attacked in this way, it makes them only stronger. So I must say that am most grateful. Yours sincerely, K. dito above. re smile I think i said already in earlier posts. Read my posts in the very same thread. But the same keeps going on without DIFFERENTIATED argument built further on other posts to relate to others experience. Vulgarity is subjective, dont ask me how vulgar your posts I think . Again all is subjective. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 5, 2012 Share #178 Posted October 5, 2012 Other cameras are faster, smaller, less expensive, more versatile, etc. I think the Canon 6D with a 50mm 1.8 lens is lighter than an M9 and 50 f2, so the weight argument is not so clear either. All of the pros and cons of this camera vs. that camera have little to do with the success of Leica. (As long as the utilitarian functioning of their cameras is at least "satisfactory" to enough buyers ) I've been reading a book on advertising and this may help explain it: "A more sophisticated view treats value as an intangible psychological phenomenon. Value exists in the mind or within the person, not in the thing. Value is what it is perceived to be. It is the sum total of all the perceived utilities, satisfactions, and rewards-either in the realm of expectations before purchase or experiences during and after use. The image of the brand name is as much a part of the value as the product's utilitarian functions." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted October 5, 2012 Share #179 Posted October 5, 2012 Last week I was at a factory where early in the morning some kind of action took place. There were some photographers. Outside' date=' a lot of them used a 16mm at 4000 ISO. ( f 2,8) When the people in front of the factory ran in, the photographers shot rapidly numbers of pictures. AF, 2500 ISO. Later inside there also was a lot of movement in not that good light, so with an 85 mm AF of course was also here an advantage.Suppose you had to do it with a Leica. The ISO would not be enough. ( also not at 2500, too ugly). The speed would be too low. The buffer too slow, and the Tri Elmar, which is the only lens from Leica that has 16, would also be insufficient. With the Canons or Nikons one is able to do the job. Let’s say Canon. Camera and zoom 16-35 mm, all together 3300 euro. Leica M9 plus Tri Elmar: 9700 euro. So having a Leica, a lot of situations requires an extra system. With only a DSLR you can do a lot more. The IQ difference in print will be not that big, certainly not in newspapers or magazines. That’s the reason press photographers hardly work with a Leica M. But also amateurs will miss situations, that can be done with a much cheaper system. ( childrens party in low light) Sure, the M is not heavy in weight and it certainly has other good things, but when it comes to the point of ‘ having the picture’ one is better of with a DSLR. At least at the moment. With the new M, Leica finally begins to understand that, is it not? Best regards, Kasper.[/quote'] Kasper, Virtually every advantage, disadvantage, preference, like, dislike.... has been discussed in this thread thoroughly. I'm sure you have enough information to satisfy your initial (and for that matter, your subsequent) inquiries. It all verifies what I and many other forum members already knew... Which is that i prefer the M9 for many jobs, I prefer my DSLR for many - different jobs. What more are you trying to get from this thread? Ken Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruhayat Posted October 5, 2012 Share #180 Posted October 5, 2012 Oh. God. Not over it yet, then? Dear Kasper, 1. You don't think the M9 is the right camera for many of the things you want to do with a camera. 2. You think a cheaper DSLR can do so many other things that the M9 can't. Solution? Just sell it. And get a DSLR, already! Since you seem to hate the M9 so much and I don't, here's a deal: I'll buy a brand new Nikon D800E and then we'll swap that with your M9. How about that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.