Mythbusting: Leica cameras are expensive

[KJ Smith]

Did you read the comparison between the G10 and H2.

If you can't tell those two apart, at what point is enough MP enough. That was my whole point.

All I can tell you is what I have seen from personal experience.

All the numbers and calculations mean nothing.

It is a visual medium. WYSIWYG.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by bgpro611

Thanks Wayne I'm going to think hard about that one. I do have misgivings about not being able to inspect what I buy since the F5 episode last week. I had a run in with a not so honest seller.

I hear you. I didn't know you had a problem. Knock on wood, I've been lucky. Call Camera Co-op. It doesn't cost anything to look and feel. That sounds so bad. I did it. I had an M3, M5 and M4-P in my hands for about 30 minutes.

[venchka]

Wandering? Stampede. Free fall. Way off topic. All these numbers make my head hurt.

Andrew, this is for you. Could I have done it with another camera? Probably. Fact is I had several choices that day and I picked a Leica camera, Konica lens and Kodachrome.





You can't say Leica without including B&W.

Another Konica lens.

[AndrewCCM]

Wayne,

I really like those last two B&W's. They have a very nice look to them...

[venchka]

Thanks. That is Kodak BW400CN processed and scanned at CVS. Konica 28mm/2.8 M-Hexanon lens. Go figure. The Kodachromes suffer from my ancient scanner and no scanning talents.

I suppose I should stick to B&W. On the other hand, Kodak listened. To us. First there was Ektar 100 in 135. Then 120. Now in 4x5 & 8x10. I may have to get an 8x10 camera. And to think that I once turned down a Jobo processor. DUMB!

[Flea77]

Originally Posted by KJ Smith

Did you read the comparison between the G10 and H2.

If you can't tell those two apart, at what point is enough MP enough. That was my whole point.

Yes I read the article, especially where it said '13X19" prints' which is why I said 'The extra MP is for larger prints, or more area to crop, take your pick.' I completely agreed with you and even went so far as to say 8MP was enough for 8x10.

Originally Posted by KJ Smith

All the numbers and calculations mean nothing.

Interesting because if you take a 13x19" print and shoot an image at it at 250ppi you get a resolution of 3250x4750 which is just about exactly 15MP, the resolution of the G10 in that article you linked to. Most stuff I have read says that the optimum ppi for printing ranges from 225 to 300 depending on the printer so that falls right in line with my math. Just saying....

Allan

[venchka]

Math don't make pictures. Holgas do.

[d2creative]

I just got to this thread. Late again. Sorry.

About the first post in this thread... true. Old leica film bodies hold their value extremely well making the purchase of one a no brainer. Too bad it isn't like that for their digital counterparts. Yet, the M8 was flawed in some ways. Maybe the M9 will do better.

Now in response to these kinds of questions....

Originally Posted by toverman

Leica users also use $1,500 hammers to drive their points home. No doubt very well made and full of history. So? Convince me that it matters.

Originally Posted by AndrewCCM

Does anyone that owns Leicas here actually post any pics that make you want to go get one? Not meant disparagingly, I just personally have not seen something posted that makes me say to myself, "wow...that is spectacular...I could never shoot that with my gear..."

It's a serious question, not a argumentative statement.

All I can say to these is, I went to Europe over xmas and took my M9 with one 35mm lens and I took my D700 with several of nikon's top lenses. Guess which set of gear almost never left the hotel, and when i did take it I almost wished I didn't.

All but two of these shots were taken with the M9.
Europe 2009
Could they have been taken with the D700? Absolutely!
But I had a hell of a lot more fun with the M9 and it was soooo much easier compared to carrying around all that heavy equipment. It was the perfect travel camera. And the detail in the raw files when viewed at 100% is amazing, which should be expected at 18mp.
Could it replace my D700 for my paying work? Not at this time. Part of that is the fact that I don't have the right lenses, but the D700 is so damn good at it's job, it just makes everything so quick and easy in that respect.
Different tools for different jobs.

[venchka]

Dennis,

Well said. You didn't need your $1,500 hammer to make your point. Let the pictures do the talking.

[dwilliams35]

Okay, I can buy a leica, use it for ten years, then sell it for what I paid for it. Lousy rate of return...

[venchka]

This just came through at the Leica Users Group. I can vouch for the lens. I have owned a similar lens since the mid-70s. It is a classic. One of the 10 all time best, unique lenses.

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 02:17:55 -0800
From: Richard Man <richard@imagecraft.com>
Subject: [Leica] FS: Leica IIIA and Nikkor 50/1.4 SC
To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org>
Message-ID:
<eb6799211002200217x2e9ed6b1s48ba660a8f8056f0@mail .gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

http://www.dragonsgate.net/pub/richard/PICS/Nikkor50/

It occurs to me that the Leica IIIA won't be much use once the Nikkor is
sold :-) so may as well put it on the block too.

So:

$200 for Leica IIIA
$320 for the Nikkor 50/1.4 SC

--
// richard <http://www.imagecraft.com/> blog: <
http://imagecraft.wordpress.com>
// portfolio: <Another California
>
// mailing lists: <http://www.imagecraft.com/contact.html>
[ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all previous
replies in your msgs. ]


------------------------------

[tml]

That would be wonderful to be able to sell a camera for what you had paid for 10 years ago! I wish I could do that with my Nikon and Canon gear!!!