colonel Posted February 6, 2015 Share #1 Posted February 6, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I can almost feel the sniggers as folk click open this thread, but hear me out .... There are many people in the camera market looking for that something special combination of sharpness, detail, draw, colours and contrast. And combining that with a device that’s a joy to pick up and use. For me I would throw in very accurate focus, which is why I am addicted to Leica MF and for AF only use CDAF systems. Then its worth saying that the pure spec. sheet is a consideration but third down the list. Of course Leica lenses are the only ones in the market consistently sharp wide open but Leica’s eclectic pick of sensor providers is quirky. I like this quirky, not being run of the mill, something different, etc. but no doubt spec. chasers on sensors will never arrive at Leica as their destination There are cameras systems available that can provide it in some measure, my votes for the wider selection would be Canon, Nikon and Sony FF systems. In terms of price though, the M240 at £4,700 and Leica’s cheapest lens at £1,400 sounds very expensive, but lets examine this closer. Self-respecting amateurs at least buy the 6D, 610D or A7 but most push the boat out to the 5Diii or D810. So we are talking £1-£2k of body. But then in all these systems the decent primes are over £1k. So lets say a decent system and 4 lenses could be anything from £5k to £8k (or higher). The great thing about the M mount is the sheer quantity of glass out there. Voigtlander makes some terrific glass these days (read 35mm f1.2 ii, 50mm f1.5, 75 mm f1.8, etc) and second hand they are all under £500 except for the 35mm which comes in at £650-£750. Zeiss of course is legendary and the current line up is almost all excellent, except for the ones with purple fringe issues! As for Leica the current generation of Summarits can be picked up for £600-£800 but this ignores the vast catalogue of Leica lenses which are brilliant and can be cheap as chips, 90mm Tele-elmarits , 90mm Hektors (£200 !!!), loads of 28-75mm lenses are low prices. Also typically for M mount lenses the vast majority of second hand ones are in excellent, or better, condition. So why the M240 ? Excellent ones can be had for £3,550 to £3,900 these days. Surely a M9 at £2,000 to £2,500 saves £1k ? what about a M8 saving a further £1k ? Sure, take these savings, the M9 still produces excellent photos, but the M240 is a really sorted camera. You get no sensor or SD card issues. ISO performance that pretty much covers all situations and video for the rare time you might want to capture a clip and don’t feel like carrying multiple cameras. IMHO its worth £1k more, and one lens less. In summary a carefully purchased M240 and 4 lenses of outstanding quality can be had for as little as £5,400 which might be 1 lens less then a FF DSLR kit but I can live with that You might think it unfair comparing new prices for some systems with second hand for Leica ? and perhaps you would be right, but I have found that second hand top quality DSLR lenses are not that much cheaper then new, typically 10-30% (e.g. take a look at second hand prices for the Canon 85m f1.2, or Nikon 12-24mm, etc.). I used to only buy new lenses but experience has shown me the value of well kept second hand equipment. I still occasionally buy new as I like to support Leica (silly soft hearted me!) although I have my sources for discounts but these days I largely buy second hand. I do feel that some of Leica’s lens prices are bit a to much these days and have noticed with interest how they have actually reduced a few in the last year in the UK and offered cash back on a few others … Anyway in summary I think the illustration of the M system as prohibitively expensive is unfair. For someone willing to invest £5-6k in a hobby its definitely a running option, and I think communication of this to camera buyers in general is a good thing for the system - and of course I have met “amateurs” who buy 1Dx and D4s, but that is another story …… My 2 pence as usual Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 6, 2015 Posted February 6, 2015 Hi colonel, Take a look here The M240 as a high quality value platform ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wparsonsgisnet Posted February 6, 2015 Share #2 Posted February 6, 2015 ... but Leica’s eclectic pick of sensor providers is quirky....My 2 pence as usual With regard to sensor selection, one assumes that Leica is between a rock and a hard place. Surely Canon or Nikon wants an outrageous price for their sensors -- if they would consider selling to Leica. I am extremely pleased with the gains Leica keeps making with their sensors and, as I said elsewhere, what would be most desirable (and groundbreaking) would be the ability to replace the sensor in the same body, going forward. Just imagine not having a body that becomes obsolete (I refer to cameras, of course). Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted February 6, 2015 Share #3 Posted February 6, 2015 colonel, no laughter from me, or anyone else who has done a similar analysis. Even in this digital age, there is something about the utility of the digital Ms that leave people wanting not that much more. Second hand M lenses appreciate, if anything, which means the only money you don't get back is in the bodies. I feel excited for what is in store for Leica. The T seems a strange product to me (I was expecting a very different approach to APS-C interchangeable lens system), but the M is still holding things together! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manoleica Posted February 6, 2015 Share #4 Posted February 6, 2015 Surely:- it's the ability to either buy with cash or the ubiquitous credit card that decides whether or not one can join the "club"........... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carduelis Posted February 6, 2015 Share #5 Posted February 6, 2015 I fully agree with you on the quality of Leica M mount lenses, I think they produce wonderful quality images and I am amazed how my old Canadian 90 mm Tel-Elmarit (thin) dating from the 70s performs by modern day standards. However, I disagree that the M240 is a 'really sorted camera'. Mine certainly is not. I think for landscape and architectural photography the vertical/horizontal level indicator is impractical as you cannot view it through the viewfinder when you are sizing up the image. Then there are the intermittent functional issues such as lock up that have afflicted a number of cameras including mine. Mentioning comparative costs with regard to the Japanese FF DSLRs which have always proved reliable to me (despite being more functionally complex than the M240) only exacerbates the situation. If you bring reliability into your 'high quality value platform' equation, then given the smearing and colour cast issues of using wide angle lenses on the Sony A7 series cameras, then I think the humble discontinued Ricoh GXR with A12 mount takes the prize if you can live with a dated 1.5x cropped sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 6, 2015 Share #6 Posted February 6, 2015 With regard to sensor selection, one assumes that Leica is between a rock and a hard place. Surely Canon or Nikon wants an outrageous price for their sensors -- if they would consider selling to Leica. I am extremely pleased with the gains Leica keeps making with their sensors and, as I said elsewhere, what would be most desirable (and groundbreaking) would be the ability to replace the sensor in the same body, going forward. Just imagine not having a body that becomes obsolete (I refer to cameras, of course). Bill Not so sure about that; Leica regularly uses Sony sensors, as does Nikon. Rumour has it that Leica approached Sony for the M240 sensor and that Sony were willing but unable to deliver a sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dant Posted February 6, 2015 Share #7 Posted February 6, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) OP... The main reason I use Leica is it has a shutter dial and a rangefinder. If it did not have that I would not use a Leica. The outstanding characteristics of Leica (M240) are: perfected manual controls, small footprint and outstanding fit and finish. The drawbacks are: Leica has a second rate sensor and high prices...yes cost is very prohibitive. I also use Fuji X. While Fuji is no Leica...Leica is also no Fuji. Leica has perfected the control and Fuji has a stupendous sensor but has screwy controls. There needs to be a marriage between the two. In summation Leica is a great cam for camera fondlers and the rich hobbyist. While I owned 5 and now scaled back to 4 Leica's I use them halfheartedly. I would much prefer a Japanese Leica knockoff with a better sensor for $2500. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted February 6, 2015 Share #8 Posted February 6, 2015 dant, isn't this the trouble: we rarely get the rounded middle ground. I would be a lot more interested in Fuji were they not welded to the Xtrans sensor and made more intuitive cameras. A brilliant bayer sensor, with simple controls and IMHO they would be doing even better than they are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted February 7, 2015 Share #9 Posted February 7, 2015 Actually, when the M240 was introduced it was one of the top 4 sensors in a full frame camera. I'm sure they will return to that status on there next refresh of the model. And, certainly not second rate. I got a chuckle out of that. Rick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted February 7, 2015 Share #10 Posted February 7, 2015 @colonel, I would have to agree with your analysis 100%. Regarding this point - ...I think the illustration of the M system as prohibitively expensive is unfair. For someone willing to invest £5-6k in a hobby its definitely a running option... - the "prohibitively expensive" myth of the M system has gone past myth and ascended to the level of stereotype IMO. For the committed photographer who finds an investment of £5-6k is beyond reach, there are gently used film M cameras and lenses that a guy/gal can lay hands on for the price of a mid-range (or so-called prosumer) DSLR and a zoom lens or two, in the neighborhood of £1300-2285 ($2000-3500 USD). Some may scoff at such a suggestion; but as for yours truly, if budget constraints forced me to choose between investing in a new DSLR kit or a used Leica M film kit - I'd be developing film in my kitchen sink. Digital is quick and easy and it offers infinite processing control - but for me, it is secondary to shooting with a Leica M rangefinder. YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted February 7, 2015 Share #11 Posted February 7, 2015 dant, isn't this the trouble: we rarely get the rounded middle ground. I would be a lot more interested in Fuji were they not welded to the Xtrans sensor and made more intuitive cameras. A brilliant bayer sensor, with simple controls and IMHO they would be doing even better than they are. What about the X-Trans sensor do yo consider to be bad? As long as you process the images in a decent raw converter (not Adobe ACR, but in Capture One Pro for example) the results from the X-Trans are terriffic. The grain structure of my X100T at 6400 ISO is nicer than my M240 at 3200 ISO, and The X100T doesn't show any banding either, unlike the M240 (in shadow / dark areas of the image). At base ISO however (and up to 1600 ISO) the M240 files are gorgeous. But as a flexible camera that I can use anytime, anywhere, in any condition, the X100T is the better performer. And I wish that it was the opposite. Over the last years I've heard from many people that Leica cameras and gear are so damn expensive. While that is true, I've also only had 1 camera body and 1-2 lenses. While many of "those" people have been walking around with backpacks with 1-2 FF DSLR bodies, 70-200 f/2.8, 24-70, 14-24 f/2.8 zooms, flashguns, tripods, and all sorts of stuff like that... That in reality cost as much, if not more, than my Leica kit does. And their equipment quickly loose their value, while my equipment holds its value (the lenses go up in price and the bodies down, and if you buy smartly you wont loose anything in total over 3-5 years of ownership). Go figure. Many people have the mentality that the more options the better. And if I can get 10 crappy lenses for the price of one really good one then that is a better option for many people... Some people just don't want to understand that more does usually not equal better. It's usually the opposite in my experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted February 7, 2015 Share #12 Posted February 7, 2015 A few things really and all personal: I don't want to have to use a different RAW converter to the one I am used to (LR) and which I use for everything else. It just should not be necessary to get decent results, but seems to be. I would have the same exception to having to make prints from one film camera in a completely different darkroom to the others. Its just an unnecessary pain in the ass. I read very extensively on the raw converters and could see how much better they were than LR, however, even C1 and Iridient still resulted in some odd looking files when dealing with certain foliage (trees with small leaves at distance and, rarely, grass). When compared, the Bayer files looked so much more natural with such subjects to my eyes. These tests were all from Xtrans fans, or those who had worked hard to find the best solutions. Most of the time the results were great, but there were definitely some real curve balls in there and I don't want to deal with that. I have a particular dislike for artefacts and the 'digital look' and to my eyes, Xtrans files look the most artificial of the lot. At the other end of the scale is the Leica Monochrom, which is why I own one. There can also be something very odd about the local contrast and texture these sensors generate. I prefer noise and acutance to clean and overly smooth. Xtrans seems to excel with the latter, but I rarely use much, if any, noise reduction. I just can't stand visible digital smoothing and from reading the writings of those who understand more about this than I do, the nature of the Xtrans colour array and relative positions of the various colour filters are prejudicial to natural looking fine detail and microcontrast i.e. the theory and what I see marry up. The next issue is that they are limited to 16MP at the moment, but that will likely change with the XPro2. All personal decisions and they are great cameras for sure, just not for me. IMHO the Xtrans sensor solves problems that do not really exist, while creating a raft of new problems. Personally, I think Fuji sensors are so good they should just drop it and make life easier for people. What about the X-Trans sensor do yo consider to be bad? As long as you process the images in a decent raw converter (not Adobe ACR, but in Capture One Pro for example) the results from the X-Trans are terriffic... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted February 7, 2015 Author Share #13 Posted February 7, 2015 Interesting points all. I have used most of the sensors on the market. I think the Leica sensor is pretty good up to 3200. The Sonys are generally better but it's not massive. Interesting that there is so much comparison to the APS-C Fuji cameras. Remember that Fuji over rates it's settings and there is a debate whether it's 3200 is actually 1600 or 2000, it's certainly not 3200. Whilst Fuji is very good I would not really compare it to Leica M or other FF cameras, more of a comparison with the Sony A6000 would be appropriate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted February 7, 2015 Share #14 Posted February 7, 2015 A few things really and all personal: I don't want to have to use a different RAW converter to the one I am used to (LR) and which I use for everything else. It just should not be necessary to get decent results, but seems to be. I would have the same exception to having to make prints from one film camera in a completely different darkroom to the others. Its just an unnecessary pain in the ass. I read very extensively on the raw converters and could see how much better they were than LR, however, even C1 and Iridient still resulted in some odd looking files when dealing with certain foliage (trees with small leaves at distance and, rarely, grass). When compared, the Bayer files looked so much more natural with such subjects to my eyes. These tests were all from Xtrans fans, or those who had worked hard to find the best solutions. Most of the time the results were great, but there were definitely some real curve balls in there and I don't want to deal with that. I have a particular dislike for artefacts and the 'digital look' and to my eyes, Xtrans files look the most artificial of the lot. At the other end of the scale is the Leica Monochrom, which is why I own one. There can also be something very odd about the local contrast and texture these sensors generate. I prefer noise and acutance to clean and overly smooth. Xtrans seems to excel with the latter, but I rarely use much, if any, noise reduction. I just can't stand visible digital smoothing and from reading the writings of those who understand more about this than I do, the nature of the Xtrans colour array and relative positions of the various colour filters are prejudicial to natural looking fine detail and microcontrast i.e. the theory and what I see marry up. The next issue is that they are limited to 16MP at the moment, but that will likely change with the XPro2. All personal decisions and they are great cameras for sure, just not for me. IMHO the Xtrans sensor solves problems that do not really exist, while creating a raft of new problems. Personally, I think Fuji sensors are so good they should just drop it and make life easier for people. Well, Capture One Pro easily leads to better results with other cameras as well. It's the only raw converter that gives me nice colors with the M240 as well. Red is actually red, not red with a hint of magenta as in ACR/LR, for example. Lightroom has a tendency to make all photographs look digital in my opinion. Anyway, you can't really blame Fuji for the mediocre Adobe support when other software engineering houses (much smaller one's too, with much more limited funding for R&D) are capable of doing much, much better. The fact that you don't want to refine your techniques to achieve better results is something you choose, so don't criticise companies that actually try to innovate, and successfully so, just because you don't want to change your habits In my opinion X-Trans when processed correctly looks far more organic and natural than any other APS-C sensor on the market, including the A6000. The grain structure is superb, and the color reproduction up to 6400 ISO is nothing short of amazing considering that we're dealing with an APS-C sensor. Most reviewers have noted the same, that the X-Trans files seem to hold up much better in regards to color in high iso than bayer equipped sensors. The color depth and fidelity at high iso easily makes many competing sensors appear quite weak. And if you also look at moire and digital artifacts in competing bayer CFA sensors the X-Trans sensors also really shine. I can easily make a picture of my curtains at home (which has a very fine pattern) with my M240 and the X100T and the M240 will display moire and color bleeding very easily, while the X100T won't. So that is actually something that the X-Trans CFA has solved. 16MP vs 24MP is of course a limitation. It's 23% less resolution. But unless you print bigger than 30 inches then you have nothing to worry about, as 16MP resolution without an AA filter is enough for that. I made this image while walking around the other night, at 5000 ISO, 1/60 at f/2.0 with the tele converter on the X100T, and I haven't done anything to it but import it to Capture One Pro 8.1 and export it. I don't even apply the default NR. The white-balance and metering is straight OOC. People say that this lens is soft at f/2.0. I can't see it. Yes it's soft at f/2 at macro distances, but that's it. The only camera that I've used for an extended time that easily beats the X-Trans II sensor for high iso fidelity is the Sony A7S which is simply amazing. I love that 12mp sensor. Be aware, bad example, due to the limitations of 300k file-size and 1024px resolution, so there are probably some jpeg artifacts. The white-balance and metering is so consistant with this camera that I'm amazed by it. It's just so fun and rewarding to use. I can only dream of my M240 having the same AWB and metering performance in tricky and rapidly changing lighting. And the Monochrom is even noticeably worse in regards to metering. Unless I'm doing something serious where I either need higher resolution or very shallow depth of field my M240 usually always stays at home nowadays. So yeah. The X-Trans files are great. You just need to use decent software that supports it properly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timde Posted February 7, 2015 Share #15 Posted February 7, 2015 The situation with Leica is that it _is_ a luxury brand and the new price of _all_ which they sell is inflated. This is most obviously displayed by the VF2, or the continual price increases, or Leica stores that seem to pop up here and there. It is very much a Luxury Brand building exercise, and somebody has to pay for that. But as you highlight this corrected rather quickly in the second hand market these days. IMO Over 5 to 10 years the price is more than reasonable. The only question that comes to my mind is, if your hobby is static photography (i.e. landscape) then you might get better overall experience with a MF camera that can work with film or digital back. It could also be cheaper ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted February 7, 2015 Share #16 Posted February 7, 2015 The situation with Leica is that it _is_ a luxury brand and the new price of _all_ which they sell is inflated.... I agree that Leica may be called a "luxury" brand, but that is because it is not inexpensive. I disagree that the prices are inflated. Handmade, specialty items are expensive. That's all. If the price of Leica stuff were inflated, I would not have been buying the stuff since 1970. The lenses are of the highest quality. The equipment is of professional quality. I spent $5k for a videocam from Panasonic (not even with a Leica-designed lens which I would have preferred), plus another $3-5k for other stuff: batteries, tripod, and so on. I use it extensively, but the images are not of the quality of My M8-then-M9-and-now-M(240) -- all with the same lenses I have used for many or even *Lots* of years. If I were to acquire a videocam that produced this sort of quality, I'd be in the 50k range! It's all about the lenses. It would be very nice to have a body with replaceable sensor (that is, no obsolescence). It's a tool. Some also like or even prefer other tools. It's not that expensive. $7k for the M(240) body. Over a 3-5-year life it's less than $5 per day. Starbucks, anyone? You spent MUCH more on the car you are driving. Having fun yet? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted February 7, 2015 Share #17 Posted February 7, 2015 Rowan Atkinson bought a new McClaren for about £600K some time ago. He's crashed it twice and it's now up for sale and expected to fetch about £8M. So, the cheapest car in the world must be the McClaren. Why aren't we all driving them? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted February 7, 2015 Share #18 Posted February 7, 2015 Rowan Atkinson bought a new McClaren for about £600K some time ago. He's crashed it twice and it's now up for sale and expected to fetch about £8M. So, the cheapest car in the world must be the McClaren. Why aren't we all driving them? Because some of us are 6'6" tall and weigh over 200 pounds. Why don't we all drive a pickup truck? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill W Posted February 9, 2015 Share #19 Posted February 9, 2015 Rowan Atkinson bought a new McClaren for about £600K some time ago. He's crashed it twice and it's now up for sale and expected to fetch about £8M. So, the cheapest car in the world must be the McClaren. Why aren't we all driving them? Mr Bean has been reported dead how many times? Since there were only 72 street versions of the McLaren F1 made, it is rare and I guess it does not matter how many times it has been wrecked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted February 9, 2015 Share #20 Posted February 9, 2015 dant, isn't this the trouble: we rarely get the rounded middle ground. I would be a lot more interested in Fuji were they not welded to the Xtrans sensor and made more intuitive cameras. A brilliant bayer sensor, with simple controls and IMHO they would be doing even better than they are. Adobe seems to have made some progress with Fuji's X-Trans files. Here is what Ming Thein wrote recently: "I’ve always liked the X-T1’s ergonomics*; my one main objection to Fuji in the past has been workflow; either batch via a third party converter and still have to bring files into PS to finish, or suffer a terrible ACR impressionist water-colour mess. It appears that this is no longer the case – whilst Iridient still does a better job than ACR, the latest version – 8.7 at time of writing – appears to have made quite decent improvements. The ACR/X-trans weak point has always been color bleeding and rendering hard edges – this now appears to be gone, and high ISO performance is decent, too. Not as good as the out of camera JPEGs, but there’s more detail and no strange colours. Bottom line: it’s workable, and good."— The fast compact normal conundrum – Ming Thein | Photographer *He ended up selling the X-T1 apparently because its "mechanical dials run backwards compared to my Nikons", but his comments on ACR processing are interesting nevertheless. And, of course, what applies to ACR also applies to Lightroom. See also Photography Life's Oct. 2014 analysis of Fuji X-E2 files in Lightroom, which concludes in part: I’d be hard-pressed to find even the smallest trace of the paint-like effect looking at Lightroom-converted image samples, regardless of colour and/or finesse of the detail in question. As far as I am concerned, Lightroom is certainly capable of rendering Fujifilm X-Trans RAW files without issues. — Fujifilm RAW and Lightroom: How Are Things as 2015 Nears? You can still provoke some paint-like effect if you over-sharpen, but pretty much any pic from any camera looks bad if you over-sharpen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.