09-18-2012, 11:20 AM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1347964082' post='20232']
Strange question. You can also buy -say- a Ferrari or a Bentley although none of these cars is actually practical or economical.
Such luxury items exist because they've a personal value beyond purpose. And the world would be poorer without them anyway.
Other than that - let's face it - even the mainstream photo market is often way beyond arguments. It is obviously a religious market which can be easily concluded from those brain-dead "brand" war discussions. And you also don't need a 5000EUR setup for casual family shots.
However, let's have some fun anyway.![[Image: tongue.gif]](https://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)
[/quote]
I would say the Leica myth may have changed in the digital era.
You certainly shoot different when using a rangefinder compared to using an SLR. I would not agree that the outcome of a picture can only be judged by IQ in terms of resolution and noise characteristics as Vieux loop says. It is more about how you take a picture that changes what kind of pictures you take and this is where a rangefinder is just different.
In film days, Leica rangefinders were expensive, but kept their value on the used market. You could buy an expensive M6, which would last for decades (because Leica means not only expensive, but also good quality), and then sell it without much of a loss. This may still be true for the M7 and even more for the MP, but it is no longer true for the digital Leica rangefinders. When the M8 was introduced, some people thought it would not have a successor for many years, just to ensure the logic that any Leica camera should keep its value for a long time. Having introduced the M9 and now the M, it is clear that Leica is no longer anything more but a luxury thing for most people.
I think with naming the recent camera just "M" they again want to state that this is the final digital Leica rangefinder that you can now buy without having to worry about it becoming obsolete in a couple of years, but I don't think anyone believes in this any more.
Strange question. You can also buy -say- a Ferrari or a Bentley although none of these cars is actually practical or economical.
Such luxury items exist because they've a personal value beyond purpose. And the world would be poorer without them anyway.
Other than that - let's face it - even the mainstream photo market is often way beyond arguments. It is obviously a religious market which can be easily concluded from those brain-dead "brand" war discussions. And you also don't need a 5000EUR setup for casual family shots.
However, let's have some fun anyway.
[/quote]
I would say the Leica myth may have changed in the digital era.
You certainly shoot different when using a rangefinder compared to using an SLR. I would not agree that the outcome of a picture can only be judged by IQ in terms of resolution and noise characteristics as Vieux loop says. It is more about how you take a picture that changes what kind of pictures you take and this is where a rangefinder is just different.
In film days, Leica rangefinders were expensive, but kept their value on the used market. You could buy an expensive M6, which would last for decades (because Leica means not only expensive, but also good quality), and then sell it without much of a loss. This may still be true for the M7 and even more for the MP, but it is no longer true for the digital Leica rangefinders. When the M8 was introduced, some people thought it would not have a successor for many years, just to ensure the logic that any Leica camera should keep its value for a long time. Having introduced the M9 and now the M, it is clear that Leica is no longer anything more but a luxury thing for most people.
I think with naming the recent camera just "M" they again want to state that this is the final digital Leica rangefinder that you can now buy without having to worry about it becoming obsolete in a couple of years, but I don't think anyone believes in this any more.