Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It could be, that the screw is not a problem at all in real life. Did somebody see the real camera?

 

Are you suggesting the photograph of the Leica, presumably made by a Leica, is not realistic?:p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting the photograph of the Leica, presumably made by a Leica, is not realistic?:p

 

I did not like the look of the M 240 at first, but when I had it in my hand, I changed my opinion. Could be the same with the M-P.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no experience with these Fuji lenses so i rely on you but i did not know that any zoom lens could be compared to apo primes like Leica M 135/3.4 and R 180/3.4 so far.

 

The Fuji zooms do not bat in the same league as the Leica prime lenses -- but they come a lot closer than many would expect.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No autofocus, no image stabilization, relatively poor high ISO performance (compared to other full frame sensors, at least), no zoom lenses, etc., are all additional factors to consider. The Fuji is small, like the Leica. And like the Leica, it produces outstanding images. There is no way I would now spend the money to trade up to a new Leica M-P. I'd buy a Fuji X-T1 and 18-55 kit lens for the difference in price. I don't want to get into a flame war with other Leica users because of this post. I am just providing my observations, opinions and conclusions, and am sure many will disagree with me.

 

Whilst I agree that the performance of the Fuji X series is excellent the detail and depth is a level below the M9 and M240. It depends what types of pictures you are taking and whether you are using jpgs and what for, etc. but the 18-55mm kit lens, whist good, is not a patch on my Leica lenses.

 

I must admit I bought into Leica M for the size and weight on one hand and on the other really to be able to shoot lenses wide open, and there is still no other camera that comes close (apart from the Sony 55mm & A7 which is not quite as sharp but a bargain at the price and blows Nikon and Canon lenses away)

 

Image stabilisation is useful is some circumstances but I usually turn it off on my cameras that have it as its generally well known that its not possible to obtain pin sharp pictures with stabilisation on.

 

Yes M has no AF. That's one of the attractions. The RF MF is the most precise on the market and its far superior then AF in acquiring focus where you need to (e.g. AF can never separate between the surface of the eyeball and the eyebrow). In most circumstances for me its just as fast. I admit its not for everybody but then you should be looking for an AF camera anyway.

 

 

best rgds

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Audiences don't care what was used to create a photograph. I am sure if I posted a fuji image on this site with no exif date and stated it was from a leica camera and a 35mm lens and it was a good looking image it all would be swallowed hook line and sinker.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to go back to this thread in 6 months and see how many of the people who posted negative comments have since traded up and are now extolling how much better the M-P is than the M240.

 

You see, this is the whole problem: you've already bought into the sales-talk with "traded up".

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite comparable to motor cars.

 

People buy a more recent model because the old one starts falling apart or because the newer one does something the old one didn't (or did, for that matter) or because they just want to own the latest one or because they always replace their car after a given length of time or number of miles or because the ashtray is full in the old one.

 

Some people do that transaction and end up with the same number of cars as before, or with one more or even with fewer cars.

 

In order to prompt those people who are susceptible to that kind of thing, there must be at least some properties by which you can tell the new one from the old one. In the case of the M-P, Leica succeeded in changing properties which might be attractive to customers with three (or even four ?) different priorities.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How BMW and Audi must envy Leica their ability to sell accessories that cost as much as the original product.

 

 

 

(I don't know what my point is here, by the way.)

 

 

BMW and Audio must be envy because leica sells camera and one lens for the same price as a car!

Link to post
Share on other sites

BMW and Audio must be envy because leica sells camera and one lens for the same price as a car!

 

It must be a tax problem here in Holland , because I have lots of doubts weather it is possible to buy a new BMW or Audi, for the price of a new M + the most expensive lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You see, this is the whole problem: you've already bought into the sales-talk with "traded up".

 

I meant it purely in the monetary sense. Anything that involves adding money is trading up. Netting money is trading down. Straight across is a swap.

 

Honestly I love Leica's marketing and pricing tactics and wish they remain successful at it. I stay 1-1 1/2 years behind their product cycle and enjoy virtually-unused Leica bodies that someone else has absorbed a big chunk of the depreciation. And shoot happily with prior-generation lenses that are now resellable for 4 times what I paid roughly a decade ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How BMW and Audi must envy Leica their ability to sell accessories that cost as much as the original product.

 

(I don't know what my point is here, by the way.)

 

I am that idiot who paid BMW £38 for two very small light bulbs for the parking lights on my car. And fitted them myself.

 

Have told BMW that this price gauging means that I will not buy another car from them, having been an owner of five of their cars over the last 12 years. Could they care less? Of course not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am that idiot who paid BMW £38 for two very small light bulbs for the parking lights on my car. And fitted them myself.

 

Have told BMW that this price gauging means that I will not buy another car from them, having been an owner of five of their cars over the last 12 years. Could they care less? Of course not.

 

Andy, were they an individual special type of bulb, unique to BMW, or were they a generic bulb that could have been got from Halfords? If the latter, then BMW's behaviour is doubly outrageous, and I don't blame you.

 

(As a matter of interest, the yellow coating on the rear indicator bulbs of our Mercedes B Class was getting bleached after 8 years. They charged us £3.40 + VAT for two new bulbs, and fitted them without charge at the service.)

 

But back to Leica. I am the idiot who paid £5 or £6 each (I forget which) for the little PC flash socket cover that fits the R8/R9. I was loosing a lot, and bought half a dozen, before I worked out why they were getting pulled out by an overtight small bag. So if anyone wants one, they can have one free from me, in return for a £5 donation to a charity of their choice!

Edited by masjah
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...