Leica M8 - is the lens mount THAT expensive?

Tony Polson wrote:
You don't even have to pay Leica prices; the Zeiss Ikon costs half the
price of a Leica M7 or MP body, and the Voigtländer Bessa R2A/M or
R3A/M costs about half the price of a Zeiss Ikon. They all have Leica
M mount and they all accept the superlative Leica M glass.

The difference with the cameras you just listed is that they're not
digital like the M8.

jeremy wrote:
Spare me the sarcasm. Show me where the images created by Leica are SO
superior to everything else that the average viewer takes one look and
gasps, "Look! That was a Leica photograph!"

Speaking of pictures. Why is it that the pictures that Leica has in
their PDF brochure for the Leica M8 (look online) are decades old? I'm
more than positive that there are very talented photographers out there
using the Leica M-series that have produced photographs that are much
more recent than, say, 1954.

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote in message
link.net...
jeremy wrote:
I've read about several informal "blind" tests where the participants
were unable to determine which camera took which photograph. ... So how
much is Leica's legendary (or should I say, "mythical") margin of
superiority worth?

[Gag reflex off]
It isn't about the destination but the journey.
[Gag reflex on]

A Leica is just a nice thing to have, it is beautifully
built, nice to hold, makes a nice sound ... but it takes
the same picture.

A Chevy will get you there just as well as a Bentley.
But the Bentley is more fun in ways that have nothing to
do with getting somewhere.

Is there any photo taken with Leica equipment that couldn't have been
taken with a Nikon or even a Minolta?

_Even_ a Minolta ???? Like Nikon's take better
pictures than Minoltas ????

There are very few true dogs in camera land. 99% of the
cameras work better than 99% of the photographers using them.

Oooops, this is an equipment newsgroup. My bad.

Most photographic equipment, unless you are a pro, are just toys.....Even my
F5 is basically a toy. I could be taking just as good photographs with a
camera that cost 1/4 as much money. But, I wanted the more expensive toy,
and the extra money wasn't that much, so why not? - And, the same thing can
be said for the Leica owners. If their budget permits it, and they really
want the toy, then why not? But when it comes to justifying their purchase
with their photographic output, then they've got a real problem. It usually
can't be done.

"nathantw" wrote:


Tony Polson wrote:
You don't even have to pay Leica prices; the Zeiss Ikon costs half the
price of a Leica M7 or MP body, and the Voigtländer Bessa R2A/M or
R3A/M costs about half the price of a Zeiss Ikon. They all have Leica
M mount and they all accept the superlative Leica M glass.

The difference with the cameras you just listed is that they're not
digital like the M8.


You obviously haven't spotted the fact that this discussion is taking
place in a 35mm forum. Do keep up.

;-)

"nathantw" wrote:

Now it appears that Leica folks will be faced with the same situation I
faced a decade ago. Do they spend $5645 for a Leica M8 or $4500+ for a
Canon or Nikon SLR that will basically get them the same 10MP picture
(yes, the Canon and Nikon have more pixels...I know)?


But it *isn't* the same picture, unless you take all your shots at f/8
or smaller apertures.

The reason people (including me) are prepared to pay the price for a
Leica M8 is that it takes Leica M lenses. You can argue until the
cows come home that you cannot see any difference in the pictures.
Maybe *you* can't.

I can, and that is why I use Leica M film gear. To me, it is worth
every extra penny it costs over other brands. It is also why I have
ordered an M8.

If you cannot see the difference, you clearly do not understand what
the difference is. And until you understand, you are not entitled to
criticise the decisions made by people who do.

jeremy wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...
You really have to get your money's worth out of a digital body in the
first three years.


But that is a real shift in the way Leica bodies are perceived. For the
past 50 years, at least, Leica customers held the presumption that they were
buying gear that would last. Are people going to pay out big bucks for a
camera that will almost certainly be eclipsed by future technological
improvements? Digital cameras have shifted from being durable items to
semi-disposable ones. Leica is going to have a hard time adjusting to that
new reality.

I remember the Franklin Library (subsidiary of the Franklin Mint) producing
a high-end set of vinyl LPs of the 100 Greatest Classical Works, back in the
60s. The recordings were supposedly pressed on special vinyl (red in color)
in dust-free pressing rooms, and were checked microscopically, etc. They
were probably great in their day, but now one can extract better sound from
a $35.00 portable CD player, plugged into any old stereo amplifier.

It seems like your knowledge of high-end audio is almost as profound as
that of Leicas.

Either you've never listened to a really good stereo system with a
properly set-up turntable, or a good ear cleaning with a box of Q-Tips
in long overdue...

Tony Polson wrote:
For example, the Leica M 24mm f/2.8 ASPH has a higher resolving power
at f/2.8-4.0 than any other brand of commercially available 24mm lens
at *any* aperture. The 21mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4 and f/2, 50mm f/1.0 and
f/1.4, 75mm f/2, 90mm f/2 and 135mm f/3.4 (all ASPH lenses) are also
superlative performers when used wide open.

FYI, the 50 f/1.0 has vignetting built in. I'm sure the design for that
particular lens hasn't been updated since Modern Photography or Popular
Photography's shootout of ultra-fast lenses decades ago. There was
extreme vignetting wide open because the lenses were usually used in
very low light situations.

Either you have a wrong idea of lens design or you really think that
Leica is magical. There's no way that any lens made by any company will
outperform a lens at F/8 when shooting one stop down or at f/4.

very rapidly as you open up beyond f/8 or so. But with modern Leica M
glass, you can effectively shoot at whatever aperture you need and get
outstanding results.

That just doesn't sound right. When you reach a certain aperture the
picture quality starts to fall apart. Do a test yourself. Put your
camera on a tripod. Shoot a scene at every aperture and then look at
the pixels (or the slide) at very high magnification. You'll see the
lens start degrading, especially at f/22 or f/32. You'll also find that
your assessment won't hold water at f/1.4 or f/2.

"jeremy" wrote in message
news:xthQg.402$Bh.327@trnddc03...

Depends upon how you factor the "Cost" aspect into the definition of
"Value." You can buy a lot of gear from other manufacturers for the price
of a single Leica item. If you want to throw your money at Leica, that's
fine. You earned it and paid taxes on it.

Some of us--especially those of us that don't earn our livings from
photography--have more mundane concerns, like car and house payments,
retirement savings, college funds, etc., making a Leica purchase somewhat
frivolous.

No doubt. I don't own a Leica because I have shooting requirements that go
beyond what a rangefinder can do. But if you can live within it's
limitations, and can afford it, it's a wonderful tool.

"William Graham" wrote in message
. ..

"Kinon O'Cann" wrote in message
news:UYdQg.1$1B.0@bos-

Then
again, to put things in perspective a Patek Phillipe men's watch STARTS
at $12000, but a Leica isn't made of gold.

An excellent analogy......There are dozens (perhaps hundreds) of watches
on the market that can (and do) tell time as well as a Patek Phillipe. So,
the owners of such a watch are wearing jewelry, and not time keepers. -
Much the same thing might be said of the owners of Leicas. It may capture
images as well or better than anything else on the market, but to pay $5K
for one, and over $1k per lens, is a bit of overkill for the minute,
mostly unobservable difference, don't you think? So, the Leica owners are
basically carrying jewelry, rather than cameras. And, in doing so, they
give up one important thing. They can no longer blame their equipment for
their bad photos....:^)

I don't buy the watch analoby because when comparing a Leica with cheaper
cameras, there's a world of difference in build quality, and the quality of
the lenses. Not an equal comparison at all.

Tony Polson wrote:
The difference with the cameras you just listed is that they're not
digital like the M8.


You obviously haven't spotted the fact that this discussion is taking
place in a 35mm forum. Do keep up.

;-)

Since I created the thread I'm fully aware of which groups I posted
this on. Since it's both digital and 35mm we can discuss both formats.

As you stated...and I quote:

" You obviously haven't spotted the fact that this discussion is
taking
place in a 35mm forum. Do keep up."

:-)