New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Leica Thread - Page 2

post #16 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by aqsw View Post

It amazes me people are buying this camera at it's price point. I love Leicas and still shoot my iiif when using film, but I could not justify buying an m9 or 240, I do shoot digital with the X pro1 though. I originally bought it thinking I would use my Leica glass, but the Fuji glass is better too, and the whole system is  still way cheaper thn the inferior digital camera body only. JMO.

I actually have a M9P and a Nikon D3s. Technologically speaking, the D3s does pretty much everything better than the M9P. However in terms of picture quality at lower iso settings, the pictures from the M9P just seems to look better IMHO. I'm just hoping the M240 would be able to at least give me the same picture quality but at the same time let me shoot at higher iso settings. I'm sure the EVF would help as well especially when I use a CPL filter. 

post #17 of 29

The M9P makes fantastic b&w.(better than the xp1). The xp1 is close though, and then you come to those  $$$$ again.
 

post #18 of 29

B&W out of the M9P is good but from the samples that I've been seeing on the internet, the Monochrom takes even better b&w photos. :)

post #19 of 29

I don't think anyone buys an M with image quality as their top priority. If IQ is the only concern, there are many other cameras out there, both fullframe and aps, that offer better performance. No, you buy a Leica for the rangefinder, as well as the ability to shoot M lenses in their native fullframe environment.

post #20 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadCow View Post

I don't think anyone buys an M with image quality as their top priority. If IQ is the only concern, there are many other cameras out there, both fullframe and aps, that offer better performance. No, you buy a Leica for the rangefinder, as well as the ability to shoot M lenses in their native fullframe environment.


Not so sure if this is true.  Looking at photo comparisons between the M240 using Leica glass against similar MP count full frame DSLRs from Canikon using native glass and Leica has better sharpness throughout the frame.  The M240 completely destroys the M9 in prints I have seen in person.  There is even a video of a guy comparing M240 to M9 to RX1.  M240 stacks up extremely well. 

 

I think EVERYONE who buys an M buys it with image quality as their top priority.  Even people who buy them as jewelry know how great the lenses are and how great the IQ is.

 

Of course, I have a deposit on an M240... 

post #21 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadCow View Post

I don't think anyone buys an M with image quality as their top priority. If IQ is the only concern, there are many other cameras out there, both fullframe and aps, that offer better performance. No, you buy a Leica for the rangefinder, as well as the ability to shoot M lenses in their native fullframe environment.


Hmmm. Apparently times have changed since M3, 4, 5, 6, CL and the tele 90 2.8 with RVP. Image quality was IT.

 

Thats why I got out of the Red Ball game for the digital era.biggrin.gif

post #22 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjkurita View Post


Not so sure if this is true.  Looking at photo comparisons between the M240 using Leica glass against similar MP count full frame DSLRs from Canikon using native glass and Leica has better sharpness throughout the frame.  The M240 completely destroys the M9 in prints I have seen in person.  There is even a video of a guy comparing M240 to M9 to RX1.  M240 stacks up extremely well. 

 

I think EVERYONE who buys an M buys it with image quality as their top priority.  Even people who buy them as jewelry know how great the lenses are and how great the IQ is.

 

Of course, I have a deposit on an M240... 

 

Well, the M240 being the new kid on the block is going to obviously be somewhere up there along with the big boys, plus the Leica lenses surely contribute a lot to the overall result.

post #23 of 29

I agre that the price is high but for those of us that have excellent Leica M lenses, it's nice to use a camera that is made to extract the most from them. I've tried many of the mirrorless cameras out there and all have some compromises when it comes to non-native lenses.

post #24 of 29

Agreed, they are fantastic! Have you tried the Noctolux? WOW

post #25 of 29

post #26 of 29
I see an M2 and an M3. What are the lenses?
post #27 of 29

The M2 is actually an M2-R, one of about 2000 made. Lenses are: 35mm Summaron F3.5, one with and one without eyes. 50mm Elmar F2.8 collapsible, 50mm Summicron F2.0 collapsible, and 50mm Summicron F2.0 rigid. 90mm Elmar F4.0 screw mount, 90mm Elmarit F2.8, and 90mm Tele Elmarit F2.8 (Candada). 135mm Hektor F4.5 with close focus mount and 135mm Elmar F4.0.

 

 

On the top shelf are three old Kodak folding box cameras. On the bottom shelf is a Visoflex I with bellows and a Pallard/Bolex 8mm movie camera.

post #28 of 29

Waiting... waiting... waiting...

post #29 of 29

While the camera I carry with my pretty much every day is a Contax T (I have two chromes & a black, the most beat-up, half-working chrome is my daily carry), I will often enough bring a Leica into the District as well, and I use them fairly often on daytrips as well. I've got an M2, which is my favorite of all the Ms; a Leitz/Minolta CL with the body-cap-thin Super Perar Triplet for those crammed-into-a-subway-car days; and one of my favorite shooters:

 

...just a really, really fun camera to shoot. One of these days I may spring for an a la carte MP in vulcanite with the pure 35-50-90 framelines... mmm, that would be tasty...

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home