New Leica digital back info....

New info about the Leica digital back...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0306/03...adigitalr9.asp

I'm told it should have a street date of around Dec 1st.





Barney

The Leica SLRs are still mutants. R Leica optics are not sufficiently
differentiable from pro Japanese glass anyone would buy them except
for-what's the fancy word-size queen entertainment?

(Ted Azito) wrote:

The Leica SLRs are still mutants. R Leica optics are not sufficiently
differentiable from pro Japanese glass anyone would buy them except
for-what's the fancy word-size queen entertainment?


All this hostility towards Leica products, all because you cannot
afford to buy them.

How does the logic go?

If you cannot afford them, they cannot be any good?

TP snip
All this hostility towards Leica products, all because you cannot
afford to buy them.

How does the logic go?

If you cannot afford them, they cannot be any good?



I could afford to buy them, just not as many: I could swap my 200mm
Medical Nikkor even up for any of several R Leica lenses. Because of
the cam issues, which is even nuttier than the AI Nikkor situation, R
Leica lenses used can be very reasonable. Although you might make a
case for one or two of the pieces on a piece basis, in general,
Nikkors-pro Nikkors-are technically better optics than Leitz glass.
Leitz and Zeiss, as another poster succinctly summarized, use a few
different tradeoffs for subjectively more pleasing results in some
people's opinion. It's not mine. If Leica wanted to "cut heads" they'd
offer their lenses in other mounts, they don't. They're selling
mystique and bull**** to a great extent.

Panavision can very definitely afford German lenses. That they choose
(usually) otherwise speaks volumes.

(Ted Azito) wrote:

I could afford to buy them, just not as many


Thank you for proving my point.

TP wrote in message . ..
(Ted Azito) wrote:

I could afford to buy them, just not as many


Thank you for proving my point.

I don't have as many Nikkors as I could afford. I have M Leicas,and M
Leica optics, I use them more than anything else in fact, and if I had
to buy new glass all over again I'd look at the Voightlander lenses
very carefully before buying Leica. Undoubtedly the Leica _mounts_ are
probably a little better made.

(FWIW I have a SM Fed 5 I bought new for under $100. It's awkward and
a little clunky but I've shot some nice images with it. I bought a
SM-to-M adapter and used its standard 50mm lens on M's. The Leitz
glass is a little sharper and more contrasty, as are Nikkors on F's,
but you have to go to big print sizes to notice much and the Russian
optic-which is uncoated-is still very respectable. And what is the
lens alone worth, $30?)

But it's not for their optical prowess. It's availability. If Nikon
made a best-effort M Leica mount Nikkor-or one of several other
optical houses-I would probably buy one for spite. (There, are you
happy?)

Ted Azito wrote:

TP snip

All this hostility towards Leica products, all because you cannot
afford to buy them.

How does the logic go?

If you cannot afford them, they cannot be any good?




I could afford to buy them, just not as many: I could swap my 200mm
Medical Nikkor even up for any of several R Leica lenses. Because of
the cam issues, which is even nuttier than the AI Nikkor situation, R
Leica lenses used can be very reasonable. Although you might make a
case for one or two of the pieces on a piece basis, in general,
Nikkors-pro Nikkors-are technically better optics than Leitz glass.
Leitz and Zeiss, as another poster succinctly summarized, use a few
different tradeoffs for subjectively more pleasing results in some
people's opinion. It's not mine. If Leica wanted to "cut heads" they'd
offer their lenses in other mounts, they don't. They're selling
mystique and bull**** to a great extent.

Panavision can very definitely afford German lenses. That they choose
(usually) otherwise speaks volumes.

What's this big deal about Panavision; since when is it THE measure of
quality?
Kubricks "Barry Lyndon" was shot with Zeiss lenses, using only natural
light (often just candlelight for interiors).
I also read that Zeiss lenses were used for the making of "The Lord of
The Rings".
Perhaps Panavison is important mainly in the US context.

Chris

(Ted Azito) wrote in message . com...
TP snip
All this hostility towards Leica products, all because you cannot
afford to buy them.

How does the logic go?

If you cannot afford them, they cannot be any good?



I could afford to buy them, just not as many: I could swap my 200mm
Medical Nikkor even up for any of several R Leica lenses. Because of
the cam issues, which is even nuttier than the AI Nikkor situation, R
Leica lenses used can be very reasonable. Although you might make a
case for one or two of the pieces on a piece basis, in general,
Nikkors-pro Nikkors-are technically better optics than Leitz glass.

This is completely asinine. Leitz makes the best lenses on the planet, generally.

Leitz and Zeiss, as another poster succinctly summarized, use a few
different tradeoffs for subjectively more pleasing results in some
people's opinion. It's not mine. If Leica wanted to "cut heads" they'd
offer their lenses in other mounts, they don't. They're selling
mystique and bull**** to a great extent.

The other companies have told them 'no'.


Panavision can very definitely afford German lenses. That they choose
(usually) otherwise speaks volumes.

(Ted Azito) wrote in message . com...
The Leica SLRs are still mutants. R Leica optics are not sufficiently
differentiable from pro Japanese glass anyone would buy them except
for-what's the fancy word-size queen entertainment?

You're a moron.

I think that answers that.



(Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message . com...
(Ted Azito) wrote in message . com...
The Leica SLRs are still mutants. R Leica optics are not sufficiently
differentiable from pro Japanese glass anyone would buy them except
for-what's the fancy word-size queen entertainment?

You're a moron.