People complain Nikon D3x, but no one complain the M9 price

<p>Hi all. Just adding my two centavos here. Is there a lot of pros working with Leicas for lets say, portrait, commercial, architectural or even fashion that people like me can see the quality of the Leica versus Cannon or Nikon. Is there anyone selling large archival prints using Leicas? I read lots of articles online and they all point to medium format digital or FF cannon or Nikon and even large format equipment but not Leicas. I'm not an expert but I think there has got to be pros out there using this great camera system and all this talk can't be just smoke and mirrors right. I mean, the Leica system is world known for it's lens quality and all but where is the overwhelming proof? I see lots of my counterparts using Hasselblad DSLR for all sorts of applications and even Cannons and Nikons but not one is using a Leica.<br>

Any help with this would be informative.</p>

<p>Thanks and please don't bash me, I'm just making an observation here. I don't own a Leica so I can't speak from direct experience just wondering.</p>

<p>Ed</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Is there a lot of pros working with Leicas for lets say, <strong>portrait, commercial, architectural </strong>or even<strong> fashion</strong> that people like me can see the quality of the Leica versus Canon or Nikon?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />I don't know of any working pros shooting those subjects with a Leica. Lots of pros shoot Leica on their own time, and many advanced photographers who don't photograph for a living shoot Leica, but when there are clients and budgets and assistants involved that usually means SLRs. That doesn't make Leicas unworthy; it just means that rangefinder cameras are not usually considered ideal tools for the tasks you list.</p>

<p>There are many, many samples of full-frame digital camera files from Canons, Nikons, Leicas, and other cameras that can be downloaded should you want to make your own prints and compare the output from the various cameras. But I doubt you'll see much difference either way as other factors play a bigger role in the result than which camera was used. Most high-megapixel 24x36mm cameras have fairly similar output up to 400ISO or so and rare is the viewer who can point to a print from a full-frame camera and identify the brand of camera used to make the photograph.</p>

<p>One might choose a Canon or Nikon or Leica or Sony for reasons related to its handling or working style or the lenses one can use with it, but few owners of these cameras would claim that their camera produces "overwhelmingly" superior files to other cameras in that format class.</p>

<p>People don't complain about Leica prices? That is an utterly absurd statement</p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3900931">Eddy Mendoza</a> wrote: <em>"... Is there a lot of pros working with Leicas for lets say, portrait, commercial, architectural or even fashion that people like me can see the quality of the Leica versus Cannon or Nikon. Is there anyone selling large archival prints using Leicas? I read lots of articles online and they all point to medium format digital or FF cannon or Nikon and even large format equipment but not Leicas. I'm not an expert but I think there has got to be pros out there using this great camera system and all this talk can't be just smoke and mirrors right. I mean, the Leica system is world known for it's lens quality and all but where is the overwhelming proof? I see lots of my counterparts using Hasselblad DSLR for all sorts of applications and even Cannons and Nikons but not one is using a Leica."</em></p>

<p >I don't know about overwhelming proof, but when I take prints of my wildlife photos to gallery owners I get a curious reaction.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The vast majority of wildlife photos are made with Nikon or Canon equipment. I've used some Nikon and Canon equipment but I'm now using Leica-R. The prints I show gallery owners were make with a mix of Nikon and Leica equipment and none of the prints have any notes attached that would suggest what equipment was used. The prints made with the Leica equipment get the most attention: at first, the viewer is speechless (sometimes they visibly jump back when they see the first print); next, they comment on the color quality and detail; and finally, they ask what camera I'm using. Happens every time. In one case the gallery also represents a Canon Explorer of Light photographer, in another case the owner told me before he saw any prints that he's had his fill of wildlife photos and he doubted he'd be interested. Typically the photos selected for display in the gallery were all made with the DMR and Leica-R lenses. YMMV.</p>

<p>Hi Ralph, thanks for the response. I do understand all of your point but I still don't know why anyone would buy a camera system that good just to shoot everyday images. My left side of the brain says if it's that good someone out there must be taking advantage of it. One can't simply pay thousands of dollars to shoot images and not make money from them. Maybe I'm looking at this from the wrong perspective. I own several cameras and some (the most expensive) are used for work and others (cheapest) are used for pleasure. I'm looking at buying a Leica (S2) now but the only one that catches my attention is way too high in price ($40K) and I don't know if it's even available yet. I'm waiting for my local pro-camera place to get it so I can rent it and decide if it's worth more than the one I use now (H3D 31) which is a beast and only $18K. Maybe i should start with an older model? </p>

<p>Ed</p>

<p>M8- See Rinze Van brug work.</p>

<p>I use Nikon. If I ever get to spend $8k on a camera, it would be on a Leica.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do understand all of your point but I still don't know why anyone would buy a camera system that good just to shoot everyday images. My left side of the brain says if it's that good someone out there must be taking advantage of it. One can't simply pay thousands of dollars to shoot images and not make money from them. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those people are called Dentists.</p>

<p>I use an M8 because as I've gotten older, my heavier cameras make my back hurt after a while, and the Leica is a bit lighter and less bulky and awkward. If I could justify that much money, I might well buy an M9. So I guess I'm saying weight and bulk might be an issue.</p>

<p>To Les Berkley: Yes, You are right. I'm sorry, no much time to post or to put some photos on PN. Just coming from NY. You can see now some M9 taken on Travel theme I just add to my portfolio after your kind comments. Also one on Landscape I think. Hope you like them.</p>

<p>Doug Herr is one of the few people who's images I've seen made with Leica and the DMR or the old slides he shot scream Lecia as opposed to some other system. I'm not usually one to really buy into Leica uber alles, but Doug's images certainly support that little seperation and color rendition. I don't see it in my own M photos or really anybody else that comes to mind. Don't blush Doug... just calling it likes I seez it..</p>

<p>As Dieter and Carl note, it's about business model. With simple cost/volume/profit analysis, Leicas MUST cost more because there are far fewer people who want a more specialized tool, so R&D, manufacturing, and all other costs must be allocated in the price of far fewer units sold. <br />But, yes, there are always those who buy objects purely for status and snobbery. But why complain? They are helping reduce manufacturing cost per unit. Continued sales keep the product viable and on market. Since snobs never actually use the equipment, they preserve these gems for future generations.</p>

<p >It's apples and oranges. On body weight alone, the Nikon 3x is two and a half times as heavy as the Leica M9. (52.6 ounces versus 20.9 ounces, size also matters.) That is because the Nikon 3x is a general purpose workhorse camera for pros, while the Leica M9 is a more specialized, lean, mean, street shooting machine. In the sky, it would be a Blenheim bomber versus a Japanese Zero.</p>

<p >Ask Bjorn Borg if he wants his tennis racket to weigh two and a half times more. The Leica does a lot less than does the Nikon, but what it does, it does better. Some folks will pay for that.</p>

 

<p>I have to agree with Barry, for while I do buy the superiority of Leica optics taken <em>as a whole </em>(although other companies make great lenses too), I suspect that the reception Doug gets from his shots is mainly due to the fact that he is a photographer with very high standards and therefore presents only excellent work. He might be as successful if he used Canon or Nikon, but since he does not it is rather difficult to tell. Then you would have to know the reaction of the gallery owner to his non-Leica shots to see if this was a real effect. Having shown myself now to be a little sceptical though, I am a great admirer of the Leica R optics and wish I felt I could have carried on using them myself. I am one of many who was disappointed to see the system die.</p>

<p>What's so funny about this discussion is that the $7,000 Leica M9 does not come with a kit lens included. No one complained about that. I recommend the $10,000 Leica 50mm f0.95 lens. Then no one would have to complain about the cost of the camera! Seriously (if lens prices are not serious enough), it's not that the production is limited. It's that the cameras are hand made in Germany and <strong><em>that </em></strong>limits production. They'd make more if they could. That's what we want, a hand made Leica camera that takes all of Leica lenses. But the sensor has to do justice to the high quality lenses. Than means a custom designed Kodak sensor. Surely a lot of the $ 7,000 is for Kodak. Keep in mind, Kodak also cannot mass produce the sensor they provide either. So, they have to make more profit per unit to justify the development and production costs. Do you really expect that Contax or anyone else could produce a RF camera that would take Leica lenses that also has the same high quality sensor? What sensor and for what price? Do you really want a lower quality (I don' just mean pixel count) sensor after spending that much money on a Leica lens? The prices of the camera and lens match. I cannot see why Nikon users would complain at all: they have alternative Nikon cameras--including the D700--that takes the same Nikon lenses. They have a choice, so what's to complain about. I don't think a cheaper RF camera with a different sensor would be as viable a choice as the D700 is for Nikon users. Meanwhile, we still get responses like the one above: "The prints made with the Leica equipment get the most attention: at first, the viewer is speechless (sometimes they visibly jump back when they see the first print); next, they comment on the color quality and detail; and finally, they ask what camera I'm using. Happens every time." I suspect that this may bother non-Leica users more than the prices. This resonse has happened to me many times, first with my M6 and then again with my M8. More importantly, I can see the difference for myself and I am the one paying for it (okay, so's my wife!). </p>

<p>Maybe if the D3X looked much like a Photomic FTn with an LCD on back it would attract Nikon cult fans for who earning $8000 takes a few hours work in their medical or dental office. And, it wouldn't need most of the D3X features, including it's lack of high-ISO noise. They might even believe it's a good investment that will hold it's value, like they were saying about the M8 a couple years back.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For a few it maybe about the status but I'd buy an M9 if i could afford one. It's about the lenses, size, quietness and to die for build quality. I don't often print big so any old film Leica loaded with Tri'x will give me what I'm looking for. Folks who shoot candids with D3-1D bodies and 70-200's look like total geeks. </p>

Digital leicas are in their own category. You'd notice that most people who own leicas aren't all about the images these wonderful cameras produce, it is also about the experience. Leicas are small, handmade, built to a standard where it feels solid and gives the user a simple interface unlike most cameras out there. I use leicas exactly for these reasons. it is true that leicas can't be used for shooting sports and other things but it is built for a certain type of photographer that likes it the way it is so why knock it? I'd compare it to a hand-built british roadster like a caterham. These roadsters are expensive and barely have any features and for sure, you can't take them off-roading as they're built for a specific purpose and people buy them for the experience of using them as well as the fast speeds they're able to achieve. Both a chevy and the roadster would get you to your destination but the experience and the result would be a bit different. It's the same with nikons and leicas. They both take pics but the user experience and results are a bit different. If one prefers the leica, why criticize them? If one prefers nikons? What's wrong with that? If they both cost the same, then at least you got 2 choices now.

Richard, I'm begining to understand why certain people buy Leica cameras even though they're limited to what they can

do. It's just like the business man who buys a Harley and rides on the weekends. It doesn't mean they are bikers but it

also doesn't mean they shouldn't.

I personally think if you are going to spend $8000 or more on a camera system it either has to be able to pay for itself or

produce such an insanely better image than the competition and frankly everyone who I've contacted in this forum who

even vaguely supports the Leica system has not been able to prove by example. I've gotten either 1 image or a bunch of

substandard images that if I produce this kind of work to my clidnts I would of bedn out of business a long time ago.

 

I am now requesting everyone to show me their best images produced by any Leica film or digital. Don't be shy! Just show

me. I get a lot of talk but no action.

 

Here's my email. Go ahead and flood my email with your Leica images.

 

Let's put this nonsense to rest once and for all.

 

 

 

emendoz1@gmail.com

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3900931">Eddy Mendoza</a> wrote: <em>"I am now requesting everyone to show me their best images produced by any Leica film or digital. Don't be shy! Just show me."</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Here are a few made with the R8 & DMR</p>

<p ><a href="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/accipitridae/feha02.html">http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/accipitridae/feha02.html</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://wildlightphoto.com/mammals/lagomorphs/bthare04.html">http://wildlightphoto.com/mammals/lagomorphs/bthare04.html</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/corvidae/ybma01.html">http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/corvidae/ybma01.html</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/corvidae/stja03.html">http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/corvidae/stja03.html</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/ardeidae/greg03.html">http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/ardeidae/greg03.html</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/picidae/acwo02.html">http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/picidae/acwo02.html</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/anatidae/cago03.html">http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/anatidae/cago03.html</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/strigidae/leow01.html">http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/strigidae/leow01.html</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/troglodytidae/mawr02.html">http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/troglodytidae/mawr02.html</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/trochilidae/ruhu01.html">http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/trochilidae/ruhu01.html</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/anatidae/trsw01.html">http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/anatidae/trsw01.html</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/strigidae/buow04.html">http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/strigidae/buow04.html</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/anatidae/mall04.html">http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/anatidae/mall04.html</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Whether these would be "better" or not if they had been made with a D3x or other camera might be a question of personal taste but unless the two cameras are used side-by-side with lenses that produced an identical field of view and exposed at the same instant we won't "know" which system can produce a "better" photo - and if a difference is seen this would answer only the technical side of the question: left brain stuff.</p>

<p >There's also differences in how the subject responds to the camera, and differences in personal habits and preferences that would make one camera more effective and productive for a particular photographer: right brain stuff. What matters to me is not whether one camera is better than another, what matters to me is how productive I am with the camera.</p>

Hi Douglas, I've seen your work and I think it's awsome. I'm curious to see what the other 90% has to show. I was

reffering to the numerous posters without galleries. As I said before, I am looking to buy a new system and Leica is one of

them but most of the folks out there that are using these cameras are either shy about showing their work or fibing. I hope

it's not the latter.

 

Ed

<p>Eddy, what really mattters is how the Leica works for you, not how it works for anyone else. Might be best to rent one & see what happens.</p>

<p>That's my main problem! I live in Los Angeles and rent all my equipment from Calumet but they don't carry any Leica stuff, not even lens. I wanted to rent a Leica system for a wekkend and see what all the hoopla was about but can't. don't get me wrong, I think it's a fine camera and if I had the money to spend I would have gotten one a long time ago just to see what a lot of people are talking about. I buy cameras inspite of reviews. Case in point, I bought a Kodak DCS 14n a few years ago after I read horrible things about it. everything bad that could happen to a camera seemed to happen to this one from bad color casts to terrible images in sun light. I got it and after a few months of practice I am now able to create some of the most beautiful, perfect exposure and perfect color images I could ever get from a camera. Since then I bought other camera systems for specific jobs and find myself going back to the Kodak and shooting the same shot just to compare, and it always just looks better.<br>

I think I'll start with an older film Leica so as to not break my bank and try it out. Here is another problem, none of the older Leicas on ebay come with lens. They are mostly being sold without a lens. I suspect the lens fetch more money by themselves huh.</p>

<p>Anyways, good to talk to you and I'll contact you as soon as I have some new Leica images to show. You are truly and inspiration and someone to admire and use as a point of refference.</p>

<p>Ed</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=862488">Michael Ferron</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub7.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 20, 2010; 12:39 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>For a few it maybe about the status but I'd buy an M9 if i could afford one. It's about the lenses, size, quietness and to die for build quality. I don't often print big so any old film Leica loaded with Tri'x will give me what I'm looking for. Folks who shoot candids with D3-1D bodies and 70-200's look like total geeks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe for some it's important "to die for build quality" even it is obsolete in a few years, but what is more important to me is that it will work reliably right now and next week, and if not, that the company will make quick repairs or swap me a refurberished one. This experience I found with Nikon and Canon, however Leica made me wait some months to sort my M6, which is not even complicated like an M8/M9. <br>

And I agree on your last sentence, however is it not a straw man argument? Who will own Nikon or Canon has possibilities of smaller but still full-frame bodies (D700 and 5DII) as well very tiny bodies although cropped sensors. And for lenses why would someone choose 70-200 when it is available many single focal lenses within the same narrow range as Leica. Yes I think it is a straw man argument.</p>

<p> </p>

 

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=193587">Douglas Herr</a> , Apr 20, 2010; 02:21 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Eddy, what really mattters is how the Leica works for you, not how it works for anyone else. Might be best to rent one & see what happens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely agree! It is like I would ask Usain Bolt what brand of running shoes I should buy. True he is the champ, maybe the best runner in the world, but how can I think what shoes is confortable for his feet will be confortable for mine? Let alone think that if I wear his brand I can run in the Olympics! Yet people make simmilar assumptions about cameras all over the forums.</p>

 

<p> </p>