swamiji Posted March 31, 2014 Share #41 Posted March 31, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Nikon D800e £1599 Leica M240 £4799 (plus £660 grip if you need USB) Fact. D800E is not a Rangefinder! Fact Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Hi swamiji, Take a look here The Leica M 240: Either you "get" it or you don't. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Paul J Posted March 31, 2014 Share #42 Posted March 31, 2014 D800E is not a Rangefinder! Fact Stop looking and start reading. The cameras are different. They produce results which are comparable, in some ways the Nikons results are better. The rest of the world, outside of the Leica Forum, does not care wether a camera is a rangefinder or not. This article was not written by someone who represents the constrained view of this forum. So by saying that there are cheaper alternatives that give comparable or better results, the author is just being fair and balanced. It's not that he hasn't "seen the light" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted March 31, 2014 Share #43 Posted March 31, 2014 Stop looking and start reading. The cameras are different. They produce results which are comparable, in some ways the Nikons results are better. The rest of the world, outside of the Leica Forum, does not care wether a camera is a rangefinder or not. This article was not written by someone who represents the constrained view of this forum. If I cared what the rest of the world thought, I would have to buy a new camera every week. I don't care, about comparing my camera to others. I shoot Rangefinder Cameras, I am willing to pay the Leica price to do so. If there was another digital rangefinder camera, I might be interested. But there isn't! You see, I get it.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 31, 2014 Share #44 Posted March 31, 2014 I think you've stepped into a conversation on a completely different tangent here. I actually choose to shoot a rangefinder myself so you are preaching to the converted. You chose a camera based on the way it focuses, though some others, many others, chose a camera based on it's image quality. It's a far wider net of comparability and price is a natural way to help weigh things up and make a decision. By the same token, that's perfectly OK. For someone to spend a whole lot more money on a system that is a mystery to them, and when it may be difficult to adapt to, learn to focus etc. and one that gives no reason on paper to jump ship to may find it difficult to understand why. But the author has been very been fair and balanced, but somehow, to some people, it's sacrilege. It's not a case of someone who hasn't "seen the light" of Leica. My point is that the author has just stated a fact that for comparable Image quality: Nikon £1599 Leica £4799 + £600 for USB Why is this so hard to grasp, or such a reason to get so defensive? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted March 31, 2014 Share #45 Posted March 31, 2014 Stop looking and start reading. The cameras are different. They produce results which are comparable, in some ways the Nikons results are better. The rest of the world, outside of the Leica Forum, does not care wether a camera is a rangefinder or not. This article was not written by someone who represents the constrained view of this forum. So by saying that there are cheaper alternatives that give comparable or better results, the author is just being fair and balanced. It's not that he hasn't "seen the light" I'll bite the bait : -) I guess the question is … why are they different? What makes them different, and what effect does that difference have on the results? What constitues results anyway? Is it just IQ? Is it the content of an image? Handling in specific situations? How one sees and captures the world through the viewing system? The fundamental differences between a reflex camera and a rangefinder existed prior to digital … when you could put the same type of film in a Nikon SLR or a Leica M. The price differences existed back then also. Relatively speaking, Leicas have never been inexpensive. So yes, off course some Nikon results are better … but why? Because in some ways the Nikon is a different approach to different photography subjects or situations. However, the thoughts should also conclude … "In some ways the Leica Rangefinder results are better because of the different handling, and the way a photographer sees the world through a rangefinder window". THAT would be a fairer, more balanced POV you seem to favor. Not all people who buy and use a rangefinder for the different way it helps them make images are on this forum. The outside world may not care if a camera is this or that type, but the rangefinder user probably does, and doesn't care what the masses may think. After all, a camera is a just a tool of personal expression. If a rangefinder user thinks it is the better tool to express themselves with, who can argue with that? (and visa versa.) A little mutual respect wouldn't hurt. - Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted March 31, 2014 Share #46 Posted March 31, 2014 I guess the question is … why are they different? What makes them different, and what effect does that difference have on the results? What constitues results anyway? Is it just IQ? Is it the content of an image? Handling in specific situations? How one sees and captures the world through the viewing system? The fundamental differences between a reflex camera and a rangefinder existed prior to digital … when you could put the same type of film in a Nikon SLR or a Leica M. The price differences existed back then also. Relatively speaking, Leicas have never been inexpensive. So yes, off course some Nikon results are better … but why? Because in some ways the Nikon is a different approach to different photography subjects or situations. However, the thoughts should also conclude … "In some ways the Leica Rangefinder results are better because of the different handling, and the way a photographer sees the world through a rangefinder window". THAT would be a fairer, more balanced POV you seem to favor. Not all people who buy and use a rangefinder for the different way it helps them make images are on this forum. The outside world may not care if a camera is this or that type, but the rangefinder user probably does, and doesn't care what the masses may think. After all, a camera is a just a tool of personal expression. If a rangefinder user thinks it is the better tool to express themselves with, who can argue with that? (and visa versa.) A little mutual respect wouldn't hurt. Well I personally don't agree that these reasons Leica are better. Neither does the author either, so why should they mention them? Different yes, and for some better, perhaps. IQ is another thing entirely and I believe it's a perfectly natural comparison. IQ is very important to me and most of my colleagues. It's usually the reason I upgrade and same goes for a large amount of people. I fit into another category entirely. I don't really care about rangefinders. It was ultimately the lenses, and at the time the peerless IQ. It is the lenses that keep me here though yet I really do wish I had 40MP. Do I think Leica is better? of corse I do, for what my needs and wants are. We all do have different reasons. My point is the same - a bit of mutual respect won't hurt. And I don't think this author is giving anything other than that. He is just stating some facts based on his opinion and his readership he is not degrading anyone or anything. It's not the end of the world. It doesn't make him stupid because he doesn't get it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted March 31, 2014 Share #47 Posted March 31, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well I personally don't agree that these reasons Leica are better. Neither does the author either, so why should they mention them? Different yes, and for some better, perhaps. IQ is another thing entirely and I believe it's a perfectly natural comparison. IQ is very important to me and most of my colleagues. It's usually the reason I upgrade and same goes for a large amount of people. I fit into another category entirely. I don't really care about rangefinders. It was ultimately the lenses, and at the time the peerless IQ. It is the lenses that keep me here though yet I really do wish I had 40MP. Do I think Leica is better? of corse I do, for what my needs and wants are. We all do have different reasons. My point is the same - a bit of mutual respect won't hurt. And I don't think this author is giving anything other than that. He is just stating some facts based on his opinion and his readership he is not degrading anyone or anything. It's not the end of the world. It doesn't make him stupid because he doesn't get it. Yes, we are in different categories. For me the Rangefinder is important, and IQ is a bourgeoisie concept. Does that really mean anything, no. More or less intelligent, no. I don't "get" impressionistic painting, but I love abstract, does that mean anything, no. Is Leica better? It's how I relate photographically, thats all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted March 31, 2014 Author Share #48 Posted March 31, 2014 ...It doesn't make him stupid because he doesn't get it. Neither does it make those who do get it stupid, based solely on the price of the lenses and cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted March 31, 2014 Share #49 Posted March 31, 2014 My point is that the author has just stated a fact that for comparable Image quality: Nikon £1599 Leica £4799 + £600 for USB Why is this so hard to grasp, or such a reason to get so defensive? Fact: for a comparable image quality, you pay a premium of £3200 to get the most portable miniaturized and lightweight camera system in the world. This has to come at a cost hasn't it? Imagine for once that you could buy this at a substantially reduced price over an iphone 5S. Both phones will make the call, but one of them you will not buy. 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/224282-the-leica-m-240-either-you-get-it-or-you-dont/?do=findComment&comment=2559912'>More sharing options...
swamiji Posted March 31, 2014 Share #50 Posted March 31, 2014 Fact: for a comparable image quality, you pay a premium of £3200 to get the most portable miniaturized and lightweight camera system in the world. This has to come at a cost hasn't it?Imagine for once that you could buy this at a substantially reduced price over an iphone 5S. Both phones will make the call, but one of them you will not buy. LOL But what battery life Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted March 31, 2014 Share #51 Posted March 31, 2014 Well, I reffered to this example, because "we" have a tendency to forget that Leica's format is a small wonder by itself. We are now accustomed to small and light but this is not the case in the competition. Also, if you add one ASCR 50mm lens, you get both the smalest package AND the best lens in the world by a margin. Yes the package costs some 10k, but it's the cream of the crop. And the duo is the absolute best in hitech/hiend quality images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazytiger Posted March 31, 2014 Share #52 Posted March 31, 2014 Why do I always read "Leica costs 3 times more for comparable image quality"? Over and over, in this forum and others? What kind of an argument is that? Are we photographers or salesmen? As much as the high price is not making Leica a better camera it doesn't make it worse. The argument is without any meaning. All it says is: I'd really like to have one but I can't or do not want to afford it. And the fact that I can buy 3 Nikons for a Leica doesn't help either - why in heaven's name should I buy 3 Nikons? That's 3kg alone for the bodies. Or 6 Fujis. I could give them to my friends. But I guess I am too selfish for that. Let 'em buy their own. Fact is you got to do something with your money. You only live once. I didn't want 3 Nikons. I wanted one. And a Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted March 31, 2014 Share #53 Posted March 31, 2014 Why do I always read "Leica costs 3 times more for comparable image quality"? Ummmmm..... Because it's true? Why should it bother you that someone, especially a reviewer, makes note of the price/IQ comparison? The Price/IQ argument may not be relevant for you, but it is for the vast majority of prospective camera buyers. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted April 1, 2014 Author Share #54 Posted April 1, 2014 ...Fact is you got to do something with your money. You only live once. I didn't want 3 Nikons. I wanted one. And a Leica. What he said. I hereby propose a new corporate tag lin for Leica: Money: You can't take it with you when you die. That's where we come in. We wear a red dot. (with apologies to Jack Webb of the old "Dragnet" TV series) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hossain Posted April 1, 2014 Share #55 Posted April 1, 2014 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/224282-the-leica-m-240-either-you-get-it-or-you-dont/?do=findComment&comment=2560211'>More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted April 1, 2014 Share #56 Posted April 1, 2014 Ummmmm..... Because it's true? Why should it bother you that someone, especially a reviewer, makes note of the price/IQ comparison? The Price/IQ argument may not be relevant for you, but it is for the vast majority of prospective camera buyers. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk The Leica M has never been for the vast majority prospective buyers. It is, and always has been, a niche product. The vast majority of prospective "camera buyers" buy a cell phone. If that vast majority wants more "IQ", they buy a Canon Rebel or similar camera. So much for the IQ argument. Besides, IQ is not an absolute quantifiable measure despite efforts of the photo geeks to make it so. Fortunately, most photography endeavors are still personal, creative and subjective. I subjectively "love" the look and feel of images from a M9 and S2 … and do not like the look and feel of Nikon images, and never have. Not that great shots aren't made with Nikons, but that's irrelevant to me. Personally, when appropriate, I prefer shooting with a M rangefinder to ANY 35mm DSLR, and always have. Not for everyone? Yes. - Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdriceman Posted April 1, 2014 Share #57 Posted April 1, 2014 The Leica M has never been for the vast majority prospective buyers. It is, and always has been, a niche product. The vast majority of prospective "camera buyers" buy a cell phone. If that vast majority wants more "IQ", they buy a Canon Rebel or similar camera. So much for the IQ argument. Besides, IQ is not an absolute quantifiable measure despite efforts of the photo geeks to make it so. Fortunately, most photography endeavors are still personal, creative and subjective. I subjectively "love" the look and feel of images from a M9 and S2 … and do not like the look and feel of Nikon images, and never have. Not that great shots aren't made with Nikons, but that's irrelevant to me. Personally, when appropriate, I prefer shooting with a M rangefinder to ANY 35mm DSLR, and always have. Not for everyone? Yes. - Marc Yes, I, too, prefer shooting with rangefinders and the M and obviously decided to pay a lot of money for it. But that doesn't change the fact that it costs 3x what other cameras with similar ( yes, IQ is subjective - I know- "similar") IQ do. But even if an M isn't an option for the vast majority of camera purchasers, most prospective Leica buyers at least want to consider value... even though some apparently do not. Thus price and image quality are relevant discussion topics. I just don't understand why some on this forum seem to get so offended when a reviewer or forum member compare price and IQ to other cameras. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
randyman Posted April 1, 2014 Share #58 Posted April 1, 2014 The relationship is between me and my Leica; what a critic or anyone else outside that relationship says is of no consequence (to me, at any rate.) I'm mated already; to each their own. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmclalla Posted April 1, 2014 Share #59 Posted April 1, 2014 Just my 2 cents. Any camera is a tool, whereas the final photo is susceptible of evaluation the camera used to get that photo doesn't really matter. As a Leica M owner, I just bought an Olympus OmD Em1, it's a fantastic camera, I can get awesome pictures and A3 great prints, which given certain conditions are virtually indistinguishable from (i.e. not worse nor better than) those taken with my M. Again, it's a toll, it may serve same or different purposes, the ultimate goal are always the photos we are creating. Am I thinking of dismissing my M in favour of the OLY? No at the moment, but I can figure out this event without being scared by the fact that the Oly would transform me in a worse photographer. My Leica doesn't make me the new HCB, nor I'm better than the guy next to me shooting his canikon or point&shoot. If so, why don't allow and/or tolerate somebody else saying that a Leica M is really expensive and/or overrated and that there are much better camera around? This is true, but it doesn't hurt me. My suspicion is that the love for our beloved leicas often render us blind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted April 1, 2014 Share #60 Posted April 1, 2014 Yes, I, too, prefer shooting with rangefinders and the M and obviously decided to pay a lot of money for it. But that doesn't change the fact that it costs 3x what other cameras with similar ( yes, IQ is subjective - I know- "similar") IQ do. But even if an M isn't an option for the vast majority of camera purchasers, most prospective Leica buyers at least want to consider value... even though some apparently do not. Thus price and image quality are relevant discussion topics. I just don't understand why some on this forum seem to get so offended when a reviewer or forum member compare price and IQ to other cameras. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk I do agree that any camera buyer, Leica or not, probably should consider value for money spent. It is the value criteria that is in debate. Image Quality being the Price/Value criteria … with the reviewer comparing the M240 sensor to "entry level" DSLRs … then comparing it to the "dizzying heights" of the D800, leaves out a whole host of considerations. The D800 is an extremely difficult camera to hand-hold and still realize those 36 megs, and many Nikon lenses are not up to that resolution. The M240 form factor with no mirror can easily be seen to outperform it using a mere 24 megs, and M optics. Personally, I no longer translate IQ as Image Quality … I now see it as Image Qualities. The former has been geekified by the pixel peepers, chart gazers, and those in need of quantifiable scientific proof of what constitutes good photography. The other at least leaves it open to subjective interpretation as it applies to your art. So, it isn't just one thing selectively used for comparison … like some people seem to do when challenging other people's choices … it is the whole gestalt and how it all works together, where subjectivity plays a major role in the selection of what is important, and what is less so. Leica's Price/Value equation lies in areas not all shooters or reviewers recognize as important, but are of paramount importance to rangefinder shooters. Is it worth the money? As long as it remains a rangefinder and offers the superlative set of optics it will be worth it to those who prefer that type of photography and that way of seeing the world around them. If others do not "get that" no argument or discussion will prevail. - Marc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.