jackal Posted September 9, 2009 Share #1 Posted September 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) So as predicted we already have a strong wave of criticism about high iso performance when people haven't even used the camera properly yet but have just pixel peeped a few low compression jpegs here and there on the net. What's more the firmware has only just been born. And to cap it all, people are already comparing and expecting D3, D700, 5dMKii CMOS iso performance from the M9. Get real ! It was only 12 months ago that there was very strong speculation that FF would never be possible in an M body. Shortly after that we get more cutting edge fast F/1.4 wides to complete the fastest, most desireable 35mm lens lineup in the history of man and the very soon after that Leica deliver with the FF M9. But no, that's not enough and some of you still want perfect pixels at 2500 and beyond. At LEAST go and try something like an H3D-31 at iso 800 and then come back and tell me how good the M9 is. At least compare apples with apples. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 9, 2009 Posted September 9, 2009 Hi jackal, Take a look here get real.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
nugat Posted September 9, 2009 Share #2 Posted September 9, 2009 Get real. M9 offers IQ of Sony A900 at double the price. Zeiss glass is nice too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted September 9, 2009 Share #3 Posted September 9, 2009 As I recall it took about 12 months for users to discover how to handle M8 high ISO files, and quite a number never learnt, if the Internet is any measure. You are spot-on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanidel Posted September 9, 2009 Share #4 Posted September 9, 2009 Get real. M9 offers performance of Sony A900 at double the price. Zeiss glass in nice too. Sincerely, what is the relevance to compare a big a## Sony A900 with a rangefinder twice smaller ? The A900 could be ten times cheaper, I would not buy it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat_mcdermott Posted September 9, 2009 Share #5 Posted September 9, 2009 I have to agree. The couple high ISO DNGs floating around seem a strong improvement over M8. This is in Aperture using the M8 preset. Admittedly a small sampling I've seen, but ISO 1600 looks quite good and the 2500 I saw in good light and no camera shake was really pretty good in terms of noise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica007 Posted September 9, 2009 Share #6 Posted September 9, 2009 have just pixel peeped a few low compression jpegs here and there on the net. . And to cap it all, people are already comparing and expecting D3, D700, 5dMKii CMOS iso performance from the M9. . 1. i thought people have been processing DNGs rather than lossy jpegs and got noisy photos. 2. And why not compare CMOS to CCD? may be, then, CMOS is better than CCD ? what matters at the end of the day is the final Image Quality vis-a-vis Money paid ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted September 9, 2009 Share #7 Posted September 9, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sincerely, what is the relevance to compare a big a## Sony A900 with a rangefinder twice smaller ? Price vs performance. Some even like it bigger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 9, 2009 Share #8 Posted September 9, 2009 Get real. M9 offers IQ of Sony A900 at double the price. Zeiss glass is nice too. That would be the new Sony rangefinder camera I assume? Here's some news you may not have heard before, Leicas are expensive. They always have been, and they always will be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica007 Posted September 9, 2009 Share #9 Posted September 9, 2009 I have to agree. The couple high ISO DNGs floating around seem a strong improvement over M8. This is in Aperture using the M8 preset. Admittedly a small sampling I've seen, but ISO 1600 looks quite good and the 2500 I saw in good light and no camera shake was really pretty good in terms of noise. I think you can't simply go back to M8 and judge the progress made. One has to compare with the state of the art technology found in top-of-the-line cameras - given that we are in the $7000 zone. You can't avoid M9 being compared to D3X, 5DmkIII and soon even 7D. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanidel Posted September 9, 2009 Share #10 Posted September 9, 2009 Some even like it bigger. Usually the ones that have it smaller Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leica007 Posted September 9, 2009 Share #11 Posted September 9, 2009 That would be the new Sony rangefinder camera I assume? Here's some news you may not have heard before, Leicas are expensive. They always have been, and they always will be. Being expensive is not sufficient, that does not guarantee QUALITY. [here am refering to M9, not the expensive glasses] . smugness won't help in the market place. we should be open to criticism, not treat Leica as a sacred totem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanidel Posted September 9, 2009 Share #12 Posted September 9, 2009 You can't avoid M9 being compared to D3X, 5DmkIII and soon even 7D. But at the same time, how many threads say that they are different tools for different applications ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFashnReloaded Posted September 9, 2009 Share #13 Posted September 9, 2009 Get real. M9 offers IQ of Sony A900 at double the price. Zeiss glass is nice too. At half the size. At least. Get reeeeeeeeeeeeel yerself. Not everyone wants another DSLR! DSLRs are ubiquitous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted September 9, 2009 Share #14 Posted September 9, 2009 That would be the new Sony rangefinder camera I assume? Here's some news you may not have heard before, Leicas are expensive. They always have been, and they always will be. Yes, Digital Leicas are expensive. New. Fortunately the bodies drop in price 50% after a year--that's even more than best German cars. That's their real value less snob tax. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanidel Posted September 9, 2009 Share #15 Posted September 9, 2009 At half the size. At least. Get reeeeeeeeeeeeel yerself. Not everyone wants another DSLR! DSLRs are ubiquitous. I would even prefer a life long with my DP2 than a week with a D3. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFashnReloaded Posted September 9, 2009 Share #16 Posted September 9, 2009 That would be the new Sony rangefinder camera I assume? Here's some news you may not have heard before, Leicas are expensive. They always have been, and they always will be. What did Leicas sell for (such as the M3) back in the day. I'll have to do a search. An M9 is two months pay post tax, for me, and I make a decent enough salary. What was the percentage in the older days? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackal Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share #17 Posted September 9, 2009 what matters at the end of the day is the final Image Quality vis-a-vis Money paid ? leica will always lose that equation and if you don't know that by now .... you are paying partially for a collectible mantlepiece camera, a piece of jewelery, something iconic that trades very much on its name now i'm not saying that's right or wrong, but that's how it is and how it's always been so ackowledge it and deal with it I will offer you 2 counter points though: 1. relative to the recent 24mm 1.4, 50mm 0,95 and S2 pricing, the M9 pricepoint is a breath of fresh air .. of that ther can be no doubt 2. in all your financial calculations factor in depreciation or your sums are ultimately incorrect. I own a decent amount of leica gear and last year it all appreciated by around 3000 GBP. Yep, that's right... my business account shows a solid profit on net depreciation of assets. And as for my 2 M8's I sold... well one of them I sold for more than I paid for and the other only lost 700 GBP in 3 years. That's pretty good going for 3 years of photography and tens of thousands of shots. Will a D3X still be worth >4000 GBP in 3 years time ... I think not !!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 9, 2009 Share #18 Posted September 9, 2009 Being expensive is not sufficient, that does not guarantee QUALITY. Indeed it doesn't, but after spending the last week reviewing images form My Canon 5D - shot with Leica lenses - and my M8, I'm more than happy that the M8 photos have higher quality than the 5D, so much so that I've sold the Canon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanidel Posted September 9, 2009 Share #19 Posted September 9, 2009 Yes, Leicas are expensive. New. Fortunately the bodies drop in price 50% after a year--that's even more than best German cars. That's their real value less snob tax. How many people in the streets would know what a Leica is nowadays ? About 1% ? To be a snob object, it would have to be recognized as such. This is not the case. Some can afford it, others not. Point. Your statement sounds just like class war propaganda. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 9, 2009 Share #20 Posted September 9, 2009 Yes, Leicas are expensive. New. Fortunately the bodies drop in price 50% after a year--that's even more than best German cars. That's their real value less snob tax. That's odd, my local dealer offered me more than that for a M8 body I bought over to and a half years ago. If I were to accept his offer my M8 would have cost me a fraction of what I would have paid for film and processing in the same period were I still using my M6. I think that the fact you refer to a 'snob tax' tells us a great deal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.