Herr Barnack Posted April 1, 2014 Author Share #61 Posted April 1, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. My thought exactly. At the end of the day, whether or not a reviewer, critic, colleague, mother-in-law, friend or my printer gets it or not is irrelevant. Leica M cameras were never designed, built and priced for the masses; that's where this camera comes in to play Leica D-LUX 6 Digital Camera (Glossy Black/Silver) 18115 B&H As far as I can discern, Leica's plan with regard to the M cameras and lenses was never to put "a chicken in every pot," to borrow a line from Herbert Hoover’s 1928 election campaign. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 1, 2014 Posted April 1, 2014 Hi Herr Barnack, 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!
algrove Posted April 1, 2014 Share #62 Posted April 1, 2014 D800E is not a Rangefinder! Fact And the M240 is not a DSLR, thank God. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted April 2, 2014 Share #63 Posted April 2, 2014 Recently more and more people are concerned about the ratios of value of product1/product2 and they usually do comparisons between the two. Obviously, an initial investment in the Leica M system is not something one can swallow easily. But if seen as a deposit within a certain period of time then you get a whole new meaning of those ratios. Because, in Leica if you buy a good lens you have it for a very long time. Their film Ms are still being used after many decades, and many are still using the M8. Of course buying a Leica camera is an expensive purchase of a product that is being made entirely in Germany, just as if you buy the new Mac pro that is being "proudly" made in USA is also expensive. Personally I like to think that purchasing these products even if it hurts me at first, I prefer it than endorsing some questionable manufacturing activities somewhere in China. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbo Posted April 2, 2014 Share #64 Posted April 2, 2014 Are Leicas made 'entirely' in Germany? Is Portugal in Germany now? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted April 2, 2014 Share #65 Posted April 2, 2014 Are Leicas made 'entirely' in Germany? Is Portugal in Germany now? Depends a bit on what you mean by "made". As fas as I know, there have never been any glass mines in Germany. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 2, 2014 Share #66 Posted April 2, 2014 Actually there are. There used to be a glass industry in Haltern ( near Essen) And there is Schott But the brass parts are probably made from copper mined in Zambia. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted April 2, 2014 Share #67 Posted April 2, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Leica M cameras were never designed, built and priced for the masses Which brings us neatly back to CalArts well argued post above. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 2, 2014 Share #68 Posted April 2, 2014 Recently more and more people are concerned about the ratios of value of product1/product2 and they usually do comparisons between the two.Obviously, an initial investment in the Leica M system is not something one can swallow easily. But if seen as a deposit within a certain period of time then you get a whole new meaning of those ratios. Because, in Leica if you buy a good lens you have it for a very long time. Their film Ms are still being used after many decades, and many are still using the M8. Of course buying a Leica camera is an expensive purchase of a product that is being made entirely in Germany, just as if you buy the new Mac pro that is being "proudly" made in USA is also expensive. Personally I like to think that purchasing these products even if it hurts me at first, I prefer it than endorsing some questionable manufacturing activities somewhere in China. The point being that the initial mistake is to regard this as an investment… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted April 2, 2014 Share #69 Posted April 2, 2014 Actually there are. There used to be a glass industry in Haltern ( near Essen) And there is Schott But the brass parts are probably made from copper mined in Zambia. That was tongue in cheek. There used to be glass industries all over Germany; Thüringen and the Black Forest come to mind. Wherever there was wood or coal, they made glass. They did not mine for glass, tough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted April 2, 2014 Share #70 Posted April 2, 2014 The point being that the initial mistake is to regard this as an investment… Even though I never meant it to sound like this, it's still not a mistake to regard anything as an investment. Some people will invest in Leicas and in return they will earn big returns out of this. I don't see anything wrong into this either. It's a free world Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted April 2, 2014 Author Share #71 Posted April 2, 2014 Even though I never meant it to sound like this, it's still not a mistake to regard anything as an investment. Some people will invest in Leicas and in return they will earn big returns out of this. I don't see anything wrong into this either. It's a free world True. Some will earn big returns because they bought an original MP or a Noctilux f/1.2 ASPH many years ago; some will earn big returns because they purchased an M 240 and used it as a vehicle to generate income. I'm working on the latter opportunity, having missed out on the former, although they don't have to be big returns. Hell, I'd be extremely pleased with medium returns. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 2, 2014 Share #72 Posted April 2, 2014 That was tongue in cheek. There used to be glass industries all over Germany; Thüringen and the Black Forest come to mind. Wherever there was wood or coal, they made glass. They did not mine for glass, tough. Quarzwerke Gruppe - Haltern plant Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hendriphile Posted April 2, 2014 Share #73 Posted April 2, 2014 Recently more and more people are concerned about the ratios of value of product1/product2 and they usually do comparisons between the two. How does one define 'image quality"? And what is its relevance? What is the "image quality" of Eisie's picture of the sailor & the nurse in Times Square? Does the number of times that image has been reproduced relate in some proportion to its "image quality"? For the pro photojournalist, getting the shot often relates to the light weight, handling, and accuracy of operation of his photographic tool. For the amateur, what often matters is the experience of making the image (the "fun factor", if you will). Cunard Lines used to have a saying, "Getting there is half the fun" ...even though there were/are cheaper ways of getting from point A to point B. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazytiger Posted April 2, 2014 Share #74 Posted April 2, 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. And is also true that the night is darker than the day, yet it is not the central message of every weather report. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted April 3, 2014 Share #75 Posted April 3, 2014 How does one define 'image quality"? And what is its relevance? What is the "image quality" of Eisie's picture of the sailor & the nurse in Times Square? Does the number of times that image has been reproduced relate in some proportion to its "image quality"? For the pro photojournalist, getting the shot often relates to the light weight, handling, and accuracy of operation of his photographic tool. For the amateur, what often matters is the experience of making the image (the "fun factor", if you will). Cunard Lines used to have a saying, "Getting there is half the fun" ...even though there were/are cheaper ways of getting from point A to point B. I don't quite understand why you are asking these questions, I have specifically left IQ out, simply because it is the same among professional products, call them Leica Nikon Canon or Sony. So, if you want, IQ is what you get from anything you decide to buy which is driven by current technology. What's left for the photographer is I think, the composition and this is I believe what you are trying to specify. Obviously this is what defines the photographer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lenicolas Posted April 3, 2014 Share #76 Posted April 3, 2014 Image quality is just marketing. When they started making 24x36 cameras a hundred years ago, it was clear to everyone involved that this format was a compromise on image quality for the sake of portability and unobtrusiveness. Afaik the vast majority of commercial photography was still made in large or medium format untill at least the 70's. When we had to switch to digital a decade ago, image quality discussions became relevant because we had to know if digital was good enough to replace our analog cameras. I don't know why they endure 10 years later. If you're so concerned about IQ, go buy a 4x5, a set of Schneider lenses and a drum scanner! What? You don't want to do that? Then I guess the form factor of the camera, the size, the unobtrusiveness and the efficiency of it is more important that you thought... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted April 3, 2014 Share #77 Posted April 3, 2014 Erwin Puts on his evaluation of Leica M part2, says that even if the camera has an achievable very high resolution of some 80lp/mm you can only get this when very carefully focused, on a tripod and using the best lens the ASCR50. If you go handheld you lose about 4x that @ 20lp/mm. This is hard data on image quality. Now imagine inferior lenses of a dSLR and that mirror slapping for the picture... However if both systems sit on a tripod you can surely enjoy high resolution high quality images. But the Leica will be 2 or 3 x less in mass or volume. This is high tech... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 3, 2014 Share #78 Posted April 3, 2014 And it might be added that Zeiss has the opinion that 80 Lp/mm throughout the system is the optimum value for the best quality . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted April 3, 2014 Share #79 Posted April 3, 2014 Maybe, but you cannot achieve this high resolving power. You surely need a tripod... which you surely hate it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_tanaka Posted April 4, 2014 Share #80 Posted April 4, 2014 ... For the amateur, what often matters is the experience of making the image (the "fun factor", if you will). Bingo. Using any Leica M camera today is virtually all about the experience. Some enjoy "it", some don't. It's quite analogous to using a fountain pen today. As beautiful as the pen may be, as well-engineered as the nib and ink flow may be, the instrument has inherent limitations. And, no, you won't become a better writer with a Mont Blanc in your hand. But you sure might feel like you're Hemingway! The fun of that experience alone justifies the fetish for many people. (This comes from the happy owner of a lovely new silver M 240 ... not to mention four other M bodies and a dozen lenses!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.