Sony Had a goal of getting a Leica M240 in a couple of years but now...

I don't think you could say with certainty any image couldn't be taken with a specific camera for sure except perhaps a Noctilux for it's shallow DOF and bokeh characteristics. While the image above is sharp but sharp images can be made with many cameras and might have more to do with being on a good solid tripod and head than sensor or lens characteristics.
 
I don't think you could say with certainty any image couldn't be taken with a specific camera for sure except perhaps a Noctilux for it's shallow DOF and bokeh characteristics. While the image above is sharp but sharp images can be made with many cameras and might have more to do with being on a good solid tripod and head than sensor or lens characteristics.

I assume you refer to my picture. It was taken with a 24mm lens, the RX1 has a 35mm one. My comment referred only to the FOV.
 
Cool. Another pointless Leica bashing thread. A couple of questions.

If the 240 is such a poor camera how come there's such a huge waiting list for it? Or are they all idiots drinking the Leica cool Aid?

If the products are so deficient, how come Leica is currently the most profitable camera company in the world by percentage profit?

Medium format digital cameras have exceedinlybpoor high ISO performance and limited close focusing abilities. How come they're still used?

Gordon
 
Cool. Another pointless Leica bashing thread. A couple of questions.

If the 240 is such a poor camera how come there's such a huge waiting list for it? Or are they all idiots drinking the Leica cool Aid?

If the products are so deficient, how come Leica is currently the most profitable camera company in the world by percentage profit?

Medium format digital cameras have exceedinlybpoor high ISO performance and limited close focusing abilities. How come they're still used?

Gordon
Gordon,
In the link that I posted I mentioned the tendency for Leica owners to rabidly defend their brand at any cost...you just illustrated it well.

This wasn't a Leica bashing thread...not at all...but I can see that you took it that way.

If you read that link that I posted you'd have a nice laundry list of the deficiencies of the M240, you may not be bothered by them...more power to you...that doesn't affect me one bit if you use one. I found that, for an $8,000 camera, the deficiencies, when all added up, didn't warrant spending that kind of cash...that's all...you obviously see it differently.


PS: A little lesson on logical thinking for free; the fact that a LOT of people use or like something doesn't automatically mean that it is of a certain quality or has a certain value...the two don't necessarily go together.

LOTS of people think that Lady Gaga is great music...or that Pet Rocks were the best thing since sliced bread...but that doesn't mean that they are.

That's what's known as a logical fallacy.
 
Evening all...

D'you know what I did today?

I cut down a holly tree.

Very prickly, your average holly tree.

I've had enough pricklyness today.

I trust I'm clear.

Carry on.




Sent from another Galaxy
 
Gordon,
In the link that I posted I mentioned the tendency for Leica owners to rabidly defend their brand at any cost...you just illustrated it well.

This wasn't a Leica bashing thread...not at all...but I can see that you took it that way.

If you read that link that I posted you'd have a nice laundry list of the deficiencies of the M240, you may not be bothered by them...more power to you...that doesn't affect me one bit if you use one. I found that, for an $8,000 camera, the deficiencies, when all added up, didn't warrant spending that kind of cash...that's all...you obviously see it differently.


PS: A little lesson on logical thinking for free; the fact that a LOT of people use or like something doesn't automatically mean that it is of a certain quality or has a certain value...the two don't necessarily go together.

LOTS of people think that Lady Gaga is great music...or that Pet Rocks were the best thing since sliced bread...but that doesn't mean that they are.

That's what's known as a logical fallacy.

Firstly, I am a Leica user and "fanboy". Fair enough. But I'm also very aware as an ACTUAL Leica user of what the camera can and can't do. I also use several other systems. Guess what sunshine, your beloved Sony is just as limited and flawed as any other camera.

Of course it was a bashing session. You hide behind the veil of the internet and make a nice big list of a cameras "deficiencies" based on other stuff you've read on the web. You could have said "I was considering a M240, but my Sony suits me perfectly". Or "Now I have the Sony, I can't imagine needing anything more". Or " FOR ME, the Leica doesn't provide what I need in a camera". No. You made a list of "facts". Bashing plain and simple. Presented as a doctrine on a camera you've never used. My opinion is you're trying very hard to justify the 2.5K you've just dropped on the Sony. A camera which has:

- No way of using a flash and a viewfinder at the same time.
- No way of shooting anything but a 35mm lens without cropping.
- No direct access to shutter speed, aperture and ISO at the same time.
- poor handling.
- no provided external charger. On a 2.5K camera?
- filters? hoods?
- very poor distortion control from the Lens.

But I'm sure you'll be a better photographer with the Sony than you would be for a Leica. After all it's a far superior camera right?

See no camera is without limitations. And some cameras have unique qualities that make them a joy to use regardless of their limitations. Photgraphy is not always about high ISO and megapickles. A personal opinion is one thing. A sermon is another. But if you feel better about your purchase, why not, huh?

Anyway, who are you to say that Lady GaGa doesn't make great music or that pet rocks aren't totally awesome? Yet another personal opinion stated as fact. Thanks for the lesson But I hardly think you are qualified to teach me anything. Certainly not about cameras.

Gordon
 
And while I'm in the mood (yes, I'm in a mood) you may want to check one of your "facts". The M240 can provide a higher magnification image than the RX1 when used with the 90mm macro lens for close ups. 0.3x vs 0.26x. Close focusing and magnification aren't the same thing. But of course, you already knew that.

Gordon
 
I'm about to sell my M9 and M lenses. I have always had a like/not like (soft love/hate) relationship with the 4 or so Leica M's I've had since the early 90's. I am usually happier with the images I get with the XPro1 and XE1 as well as the RX1. The first two I had were M6 at different periods then the preordered M8 when it first came out before the IR issue was known. The M9 was a step forward as is the Monochrome and 240 today but I think I'll give up on Leica. the max ISO IQ is not as good as Fuji or Sony. The high cost doesn't justify the image quality to me. I know some people love their Leica's and I can understand that to but it doesn't hit the bar for me. I guess I'm just not the M type.

Let me know what lenses you have that you may be interested in getting rid of! I may be interested.
 
Firstly, I am a Leica user and "fanboy". Fair enough. But I'm also very aware as an ACTUAL Leica user of what the camera can and can't do. I also use several other systems. Guess what sunshine, your beloved Sony is just as limited and flawed as any other camera.

Of course it was a bashing session. You hide behind the veil of the internet and make a nice big list of a cameras "deficiencies" based on other stuff you've read on the web. You could have said "I was considering a M240, but my Sony suits me perfectly". Or "Now I have the Sony, I can't imagine needing anything more". Or " FOR ME, the Leica doesn't provide what I need in a camera". No. You made a list of "facts". Bashing plain and simple. Presented as a doctrine on a camera you've never used. My opinion is you're trying very hard to justify the 2.5K you've just dropped on the Sony. A camera which has:

- No way of using a flash and a viewfinder at the same time.
- No way of shooting anything but a 35mm lens without cropping.
- No direct access to shutter speed, aperture and ISO at the same time.
- poor handling.
- no provided external charger. On a 2.5K camera?
- filters? hoods?
- very poor distortion control from the Lens.

But I'm sure you'll be a better photographer with the Sony than you would be for a Leica. After all it's a far superior camera right?

See no camera is without limitations. And some cameras have unique qualities that make them a joy to use regardless of their limitations. Photgraphy is not always about high ISO and megapickles. A personal opinion is one thing. A sermon is another. But if you feel better about your purchase, why not, huh?

Anyway, who are you to say that Lady GaGa doesn't make great music or that pet rocks aren't totally awesome? Yet another personal opinion stated as fact. Thanks for the lesson But I hardly think you are qualified to teach me anything. Certainly not about cameras.

Gordon

Like I said....you keep making my point about rabid fan boys for me.

I already said that it wasn't a leica bashing post...and I'm well aware of what the RX1 will and won't do...thanks.

We can add this to the list of threads on the internet where someone makes the mistake of saying anything negative about Leica's and then gets bombarded by the Leica Police...lol...

I'm outta this thread.
 
As a M9 owner with a swag of lenses, plus two other systems including full frame Canon with L-glass and m43 with the best lenses, I have to say that when I need the best image quality in the smallest package, I reach for my M9. No other camera gives me the kind of look that the M9 does.

For all of its flaws, I can count on the M9 to give me the most personally pleasing images of which I am capable. And for that reason, my desire for a M240 isn't that great. If I really need to go outside the M9's performance or size envelope, I still have a 5D Mark II for high ISO quality, and the EM-5 and GH3 for a smaller setup with zooms and broadcast quality video.

The RX1 looks like a super camera, and I'm sure that for many people it is better than a M240. Smaller, cheaper, autofocusing, better DR and colour depth, perhaps. But if you want to change focal lengths or go below f2, you will need to look elsewhere.
 
One thing that the I'd like to add to this discussion, is that it might not be a good idea for all camera manufacturers to up the size of the sensor without building in some kind of in-camera stabilisation. I'm currently using a D800e with its monster sensor, coupled with two of their three "holy trinity" lenses (the 14-24 and the 24-70) and its a %$*^$ getting usable images from it. The sensor can pick up minor shakes and wiggles, so much so that if one breathes on the camera when its firmly fixed on the tripod, the images show ghosting (a bit of an exaggeration here, but you get the drift). Nikon recommends that one use the camera with the mirror locked up to get sharp results. All this coupled with the fact that the rear LCD is gawdawful rubbish at critical focus, makes shooting this camera painful enough to reconsider photography completely. For me, that is.

The point I'm trying to make is that maybe 24mp in the M240 is skirting the edge of what is acceptable without any artificial stabilisation built into the M body. I mean one is already grappling with MF to begin with, and then have the sensor capture camera shake as well might not be the best thing for the image. This could be another reason why M9 users prefer that camera over the M240?

Anyways, this thread was an interesting read for me. I'm sure I would be one among many considering a Leica, and this thread made me realise it's not for me.
 
I'd love to....I checked out a weekly challenge but didn't see a monthly. Can you fill in the blanks for me?

Karen (Briar) started our August pic-a-day challenge: https://www.photographerslounge.org...-compact-photo-challenge-august-2013-a-20211/

We are at day 5:https://www.photographerslounge.org...-compact-photo-challenge-august-2013-a-20701/

And here's day 4: https://www.photographerslounge.org...-compact-photo-challenge-august-2013-a-20677/

Just jump in, it's never too late to join the party :)
 
I reckon that all cameras suck.

Sorry, but since 2012 this one is no longer acceptable as an excuse:tongue: They have come a long way, the compact digitals as far as technical capabilities are concerned and if the output, i.e. the pictures, are lacking, it`s us, the monkeys behind the shutter who might be the weakest link in the equation :clapping:
 
Back
Top