L E I C A
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
http://petapixel.com/2015/11/19/leica-m-typ-262-is-a-return-to-the-basics-of-digital-m-rangefinder-photography/
Seriously? How come they get away with something like this?
>changes
>smaller red dot
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Comment Screenshot Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1241 Image Height 2030
Of course the red dot is smaller, they had to cut costs somewhere to make it cheaper.
>>2706732
>'Budget' Leica M
>costs more than $5000
>they had to vut costs
Again
>$5000+
This company is a joke.
>no live view
lol
Max ISO of 6400.
How is this camera better than an M9 or M-E? Do they want to go bankrupt? Aren't they worried that more and more people use their lenses on Sony and Fuji bodies? Shouldn't they try to offer that approaches Sony dynamic range or Fuji colors?
The M9 is the only interesting digital camera Leica made. Not too thick, unique color signature.
the wb button isnt next to the iso button
>>2706731
Let me just adjust the white balance of my sooc jpegs with this new dedicated wb button. Oh wait, no live view, I'll just guess it; This is so much better than having a Sony a7rii and zeiss lenses, by not having liveview I've recaptured the joy of film of not knowing what I've done wrong until it's too late.
What's the deal with those cameras? How come they're so expensive? And who's using them?
>>2706731
>No live view
>No video
>No way to use an EVF
>Smaller red dot
>$5000
>Budget
>Cheap
>Affordable
Using Leica digital is stupid.
I had the chance to use a digital leica for a couple of days.
It's shit.
Smartphone tier, except you can use fancy lens.
>>2706797
Meme cameras for Chinese noveau riche.
>>2706797
>What's the deal with those cameras?
Leica are a German camera and lens manufacturer who made rangefinders back when they were still a thing and never quite got the memo when they stopped being a thing. Nowadays they try to "recapture the magic" of shooting an old film Leica by being grossly impractical, having no automatic features but still barely being able to change anything and manually focusing on a ridiculous rangefinder focusing screen.
>How come they're so expensive?
Originally they had a reputation for excellent build quality and ridiculously sharp lenses. They capitalised on this and marketed themselves as a luxury brand, even their lens caps are like $80 because it's got their name on it.
>And who's using them?
Chinese people who know nothing about cameras but want a status symbol they can take photos with, old people who never got told the second world war is over, Christian Bale, and this one African kid who keeps getting posted here.
For more information watch the digital rev episodes with Leica where Kai wonders around extolling the virtues of Leica whilst taking blurry, out of focus, poorly exposed shots
>>2706816
Thanks mate. Almost bought one with my dad's credit card. Who's Kai, by the way?
>>2706818
Digital Rev host - basically a YouTube photography man from Hong Kong who thinks he's Jeremy Clarkson with a hard on for Leica
>>2706816
you called?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model DSC-T700 Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2009:09:05 14:59:13 Exposure Time 1/400 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 100 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Auto Focal Length 6.18 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3648 Image Height 2056 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
You're all retarded and jealous. You pay for the outstanding sensor and DSP, as well as rock solid construction and lifetime. If you would have any clue and seen e.g. just the shadow performance of a leica you wouldn't dare anymore trying to make "funny" jokes about 'em.
Hurr durr live view. You are some infantile mental disabled autists.
>>2706826
Okay Wei-Chun Chang
>>2706826
>U arr retaded and jearous. U pay fo outstanding sansoh an DSP, as werr as rock sorrid construction an rifetime.
There is nothing imminently wrong with the mode of operation of digital Leicas. The rangefinder design offers a somewhat more relaxed way of seeing, as well as total freedom from tunnel-vision and finder blackout. Ergonomically, these cameras are still the same as ever, with the exception of a bit of weight and thickness. Shit like Live View is totally irrelevant: how many Leica users actually use that?
Spec chasing is dumb here, since Leica is the only company in the world still making this kind of camera. Value for money is also fairly nonsense here, since it's all relative anyway. The market is segmented: these cameras weren't designed or built for you.
>>2706731
When people pay this kind of high end price, you need to give them some sort of high end spec.
This camera has none, except for the small consolation that it's full frame. But that's not enough.
There is no market for this shit.
>>2706731
ITT: people who post on a shit tier gear board talk like they could run a 150yo 300 million dollar company.
>>2706835
>Spec chasing is dumb here
Honestly I would feel pretty insulted if someone offered me this camera.
The SL at least offers high end spec like 0,8x magnification EVF, which no one else in the world offers.
This one? Nothing.
>>2706843
Again, you're spec chasing. It's useful if you enjoy shooting with rangefinders, full stop. These are incredibly expensive to build and calibrate, and nobody else in the world makes them, not even Cosina Voigtlander or Zeiss anymore.
>>2706841
>People buy them for the red dot.
Have you ever actually met a Leica user? Most of them don't want the red dot on their camera. They rarely actually talk about the brand's prestige, never talk about specs, never talk about the shit that you guys do on /p/. They talk about traveling to interesting places and taking interesting pictures, shit that you guys would never understand.
>>2706844
They talk about traveling to interesting places and taking interesting pictures, shit that you guys would never understand.
Guys I think he's serious.
>>2706844
>These are incredibly expensive to build and calibrate
lol, no they're really not, that's ridiculous
The cost of making a rangefinder has absolutely nothing to do with Leica's veblen pricing. Cheap rangefinders used to be ubiquitous, and while they do need more precision tuning than an SLR, they're not really any different in terms of material cost.
>>2706834
>Herro werrcom to shitty wok, mei i take ur oda purease?
>>2706844
When you ask north of 5000 dollar for a camera, you should Always give it some kind of spec that make it stand out. Always.
For example the Leica SL has incredible high pixel density EVF with largest magnification offered in the consumer market.
Make them offer something the cameras half their price can't offer.
If you don't do this, you put your brand and business at risk in the long term.
>>2706861
>you should Always give it some kind of spec that make it stand out. Always.
Like a true mechanical rangefinder, which no other camera-maker on earth offers?
>>2706841
If you think a good sensor has anything to do with the maximum gain which gets switched behind, you are such a burning idiot it hurts my eyes. Please just vanish.
>>2706887
Again, yo, it's about the rangefinders.
And you're insane if you think that a digital Contax N-like design could ever work. It had a fuckton of problems on film... think moving a digital sensor around would be any better?
>>2706872
I sure hope you're right Anon. But I have a feeling this isn't cutting it.
>>2706861
>When you ask north of 5000 dollar for a camera, you should Always give it some kind of spec that make it stand out.
It's called the Leica badge.
>>2706844
>Have you ever actually met a Leica user? Most of them don't want the red dot on their camera
Mine's always hidden a Zhou case. I taped off the top Lieca words and chipped out the paint from the front, so it's pretty much all black, no logos / words.
Hate people that come up to "talk cameras", I just want to shoot.
>>2706919
Nice photo.
1/?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1774 Image Height 1774
>>2706844
>These are incredibly expensive to build and calibrate
Yeah, sure.
This is the excuse I hear from every Leica fan.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 30D Firmware Version Firmware 1.0.4 Owner Name Erik G Magnuson Serial Number 0420302050 Lens Name EF50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2010:08:07 20:03:15 Exposure Time 1/160 sec F-Number f/6.3 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/6.3 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1600 Image Height 1181 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Evaluative Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Large Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Unknown Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Macro Mode Normal White Balance Auto Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Camera Actuations -505282400 Color Matrix 129
>>2706999
distracting tangent on the left side, really boring subject, sloppy exposure.
>>2706872
fuji x10-t
my dad has one and it has live view, too
>>2706731
Leica M bodies remain the best digital option for using M mount glass.
Suck it up, poorfags.
>>2707380
>M mount glass.
i'll stick to my non m-mount zeiss thanks
zeiss>leica
>>2707380
You ever see leica glass on dxo?
Can you guess why?
They're awful from a technical standpoint. Much like leica's sensors.
>>2707380
But this body doesn't even have focus peaking.
And no liveciew makes it arguably worse than DSLR for manual lens.
>>2706742
jpg kiddo
>>2706844
>Have you ever actually met a Leica user?
Here's the funny part about a Leica user: They want a Leica camera, but they don't want it to be obvious, but they also want it to be obvious when people talk to them so they can humblebrag and feel better about themselves.
>>2706731
oh look, another fox/grapes thread!
hilarious
don't mind me, I'm just over here shooting with my Leica IIIf/M6/M9.
>>2707513
It's a 5000 dollar camera with underwhelming specs. There is no envy here, just criticism.
>>2706999
I'm ok with the picture even if I'd make some minor changes to it but I don't understand why you need a really absurdly expensive camera to do this.
Any DSLR and many point and shoots could take this exact shot.
>>2707542
Well as we all know, the relative merits of a photographic tool is measured solely by its specs, right?
Speaking of which, mind telling me of a cheaper alternative that includes a full optical rangefinder?
If you're about to respond with the subjective reasons and situations where SLRs are better than RFs, spare me, because I don't give a shit.
>>2706731
>getting mad about something you'd never buy even if you could afford it
okay
Obligatory ITT: butthurt poorfags
>>2707190
>>2706851
Rangefinders are really expensive to produce if you want them to be reliable and last a long time. We're talking about very high resolution modern sensors and lenses. If you go on a long trip and your bag gets dropped and your rangefinder gets slightly misaligned it could ruin the whole trip.
Nobody builds cameras like Leica, not many manufacturers could even if they tried. The market is small, hence the mark-up. They are definitely a "luxury" brand, but there are plenty of accomplished professional photographers who have used and still use Leica.
A lot of dumb rich people buy Porsche's and let them sit in the garage. That doesn't mean Porsche doesn't make amazing cars. No Mustang owner would go into a Porsche forum and shit talk about how all Porsche owners are rich idiots. For some reason though, Leica trash talking on the internet is very common and 99% of the time it comes from people who have never even held a Leica let alone actually used a rangefinder.
$5k for one of the most compact FF digital cameras (and the only rangefinder) that could double as a hammer on a construction site and still function as a camera afterwards sounds reasonable to me.
>>2707606
>If you go on a long trip and your bag gets dropped and your rangefinder gets slightly misaligned it could ruin the whole trip.
This is a regular thing with Leicas though?
>>2707606
I own a rangefinder, a Bessa, which is cheap as shit and has never had issues with its RF getting knocked out of alignment. Heavier camera = more force = more potential knocking, btw.
The lens on the XE1 is a Leitz lens, double btw. :^)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SAMSUNG Camera Model SAMSUNG-SM-N900A Camera Software N900AUCUDNL2 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 31 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3264 Image Height 1836 Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:11:05 15:23:20 Exposure Time 1/15 sec F-Number f/2.2 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/2.2 Brightness 1.2 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Average Light Source Unknown Flash Flash Focal Length 4.13 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3264 Image Height 1836 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID C13QSGJ02SB
>>2707609
I've owned four Leica bodies and have never had an RF issue.
>>2707618
>Heavier camera = more force = more potential knocking
Lighter = less robust construction. Plus, Leica's aren't even that heavy, just solidly built (M9 weighs 1.3 lbs).
Also, you're comparing an old film camera with an old fashioned lens to cameras with high resolution digital sensors and modern aspheric, apochromatic lenses where a misalignment would be slightly more noticeable I think.
>>2707626
>Lighter = less robust construction
Lmao, bye Felicia
>>2707628
Who is Felicia? Lighter doesn't always mean less robust construction but it does a lot of times.
>>2707628
there's only around 100g difference between the 2 you plum.
>>2707437
That's what the rangefinder is for bumass
>>2707471
>Not shooting raw + jpeg
>Not using a grey card to set correct balance on the spot
>>2707636
It's different with focus peaking. It's like enhanced vision where the camera assists you so you see more easily where it's focused the most.
>>2707618
how come your Leica hasn't arrived yet?
lel did mom's credit card not go through?
>>2707380
Literally all the a7 cameras would like a word with you.
>>2707395
dxo can empirically measure a woman's snatch and tell you how good a lay she will be.
Or, you can try yourself and make your own mind up.
>>2707726
I did, then realised how much better my equivalent lenses from other brands were.
>>2707732
Which lenses?
>>2707735
Prediction:
>Names an empirically great lens
Pssh, no, you faggot, you have no idea. Leica lenses are way better than that.
>Are they? Can you post some photos or point to some measurement to back that up?
Fuck you, you poor faggot, you need to just go get one and try it to find out for yourself. i'm not going to spoon feed you.
>>2707703
TOP KEK
>>2707714
The A7s all have glass covering the sensors that cause aberrations when used with M mount lenses which are designed to be used with sensors with no filters. The effect is very pronounced with wide angles lenses and all lenses show image degradation until closed down to f5.6-8.
>>2707395
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1007 Image Height 996
Is someone really talking shit about Leica lenses?
>>2706790
If you're adjusting the white balance on the fly for every single shot then you are doing it wrong and probably missed all the shots you wanted to take anyway.
>>2707732
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh Photographer Roger Cicala Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2012:01:01 19:57:55 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 700 Image Height 314
>>2707762
I don't even know how to reach these graphs.
Is it just the higher the better?
>>2707768
https://photographylife.com/how-to-read-mtf-charts
>>2707766
what a misleading graph. WHICH 50 Summilux / Summicron?
>>2707606
I bought a minty M240 second hand from my camera shop. It had originally been bought new by a wealthy property developer who wanted to buy his wife "the best camera". She couldn't work out how to focus it, so it was traded in. Had less than 400 actuations on it.
I paid slightly more for it that a 5D Mk 111 or a D810 would have cost me.
My subjective opinion - it's a fucking awesome piece of gear and I have no regrets.
You don't have to buy this shit new.
>>2707776
The latest ones, not the Summicron APO though. It's saying the Leicas are better.
>>2707769
Which of these three lines would you say are the best?
I`was wondering if uniformity is important in such a chart. Let's argue the green line have the highest average, but has an unbearable dip at the middle.
Would it still be considered an excellent lens compared to the other two?
>>2707777
>minty
It's mint, not minty. Minty is a flavor, mint condition means brand new, as in it's in the same condition as it was when it came off the assembly line.
>>2707779
I know what it's saying. I'm not who you were responding to. Just thought it was misleading since it wasn't specific. So it's the ASPH Summilux? I'd like to know how the older ones performed in comparison.
I own 3 Leitz lenses, all of which are 60+ years ago. I use mostly Voigtlander, Zeiss, and Nikon glass on my LTM and M cameras. I like the older glass and pixel-perfect sharpness at wide-open isn't really that important to me, though I certainly can get that with some of my lenses at reasonable apertures. I have the 50mm f/1.1 Voigtlander which is a superb lens, and while big, really isn't that big compared to other lenses. I mean, it's not much bigger than the average 50/1.4 SLR lens. Easier and quicker to focus than the Nikkor 50/1.2 I've used on my SLRs.
>>2707763
They're trash bro.
>>2707689
Not nearly as fast or accurate in low-light situations.
Besides, the a7 sensor's thick glass causes reflections off of the rangefinder lenses, whose rear elements also happen to be really close, causing color shifts.
>>2707847
>Not nearly as fast or accurate in low-light situations.
I think you misunderstand what I meant Anon.
EVF's strength is directly proportional to the sensor's sensitivity. So if you take low light situation like the middle of the night, the rangefinder will be crippled, because it depends on your eyesight.
The EVF would have to potential to both be worse and better.
If it's a 10 year old smartphone sensor, the EVF would be screwed, if it's an A7S sensor, the EVF would manage.
Manual Focus is neither slowed down or speed up by low light, it's just working without a care, so long as the sensor is sensitive enough.
>>2707854
>So if you take low light situation like the middle of the night, the rangefinder will be crippled,
you've clearly never used a RF.
>>2707872
As much as I love my RF's, I can't deny that the a7 (a7s in particular) has a superb EVF. RF's are 100% fine at night provided you have enough contrast to focus off of, but the EVF can literally make things brighter than your own eyes can see.
>>2707873
EVFs are all well and good, but there's just something special about a good optical finder. It makes my willy go a bit stiff.
>>2707854
Manual focus in general depends on your eyesight.
Assuming perfect ultra-high-ISO performance (better than even the a7rII and a7s), an EVF with focus zoom or focus peaking could be better, but what you generally get is a ton of noise to focus through. I'd rather use a rangefinder.
Besides, focus peaking is either too sensitive or not sensitive enough. I need focus zoom to accurately manually focus at wide aperatures, which is way slower than a good rangefinder.
>>2707872
>oh yeah let me couple that total darkness with my split screen RF
>>2707846
People are allowed to talk shit about Leica prices but you can't talk shit about their lenses. Since you've clearly never used one I would say go look at the MTF charts but you probably have no idea what those are because you're a retard.
>>2707908
Are you talking from theory or actual practice?
>>2707911
I went to the store and tried a Leica camera and a Leica lens. I've looked at sample pictures from Leicas on the internet and in real life. I've even looked at MTF charts.
I wish I could know everything about a lens from an MTF chart like you can but I'm just a retard.
I'm a retard who thinks Leica lenses are trash.
>>2707782
do you want a blurry doughnut halfway from the centre of your frame? if yes, pick green
>>2707924
Which like type would you personally prefer out of those three?
>>2707886
Focus magnification is a fuckton faster though innit cunt.
>>2707911
>ugh you've never used one, you should probably look at their mtf charts
Do you also know how a doughnut tastes by looking at its nutritional information? You retarded jew nosed cunt.
>>2707764
So why defend leica putting in a wb button?
>>2707945
Cameras have set white balance modes, it's pretty easy to not set it to fluorescent when you are out in sunshine.
Setting custom white balance usually involves taking a photo of a grey card. You don't need live view to take a photo of a grey card.
You take the photo, check the white balance, and then go about your business.
And like I said, if you are messing around with custom white balance every 2 minutes you are probably missing 99% of your shots anyway.
>>2707959
Why the fuck are you adjusting your wb? Who doesn't shoot in raw?
>>2707908
>total darkness
you can't photograph in that anyways you dipshit.
in reasonably dark conditions where one would shoot (bars, nighttime street scenes) RFs focus perfectly well. It's a direct optical screen with no lens in between. You can see just as well as your eyes. I do have excellent night vision though. Maybe you're just crippled.
>>2708004
Who are you kidding dude. RF is just about the worst way to focus in the dark, anyone that actually uses a leica would just use the distance scale.
Well done on pointing out that you're wrong and a moron in one post though.
>>2707872
YOU'VE clearly never used MOST rangefinders where if you don't have a spot of dramatic contrast to match in the (fucking tiny) patch, you have to sort of guess whether your scenes are matched up.
However...
>Taking photos in the dark
>>2708005
>>2708007
Sorry bro(s) but anyone who's actually used a Leica knows you're full of shit.
This strawman about "most" rangefinders (you mean cheap shitty P&S style? kek) is bullshit and you know it.
If you have enough light to shoot in reasonably, you have enough to focus in.
Now shut the fuck up and go buy a Leica and try it yourself, before posting again.
>>2708039
>go buy a Leica
No I actually like the "taking photos" aspect of photography.
>>2708042
>hurr durr
oh look, another shitty strawman. nice try cunt.
>>2707908
RFs focus fine in low light, not sure what you're talking about.
>>2708005
>worst way to focus in the dark
Shit I used my Epson R-D1 in the dark for like 10 years before I bought a new digital camera. It was my only digital camera and I spent any camera money on lenses. Even with very fast lenses you can become expert at achieving proper focus if you learn how.
A rangefinder is a surprisingly excellent all around camera. I traveled all throughout Japan for a month and my whole camera kit fit inside my Pelican 1200 case.
Anyway both autofocus and manual focus with SLRs have the same fundamental problems that any rangefinders do. Do you even know how autofocus?
Sorry forgot the OC, this one was with the Voigtlander Ultra Wide Heliar, with my wife in the oldest Catholic church in Idaho.
And the OC that shows that one can accurately focus an RF even under low light and critical conditions. This was with my Canon 50 f/1.2 on the R-D1. You can see his whiskers NP with a 60 year old lens wide open. The trick is to use your body and lean for critical tiny focus adjustments there skip.
>>2709880
You again. Fix your fucking files.
>>2707606
>We're talking about very high resolution modern sensors
I thought we were talking about leica
>>2710242
5DS & A7 User spotted
>>2709876
i'm glad you included the ceiling the way you did. i'm a shitty 'tographer so i'm not very qualified to discuss technicals, i just know that the ceiling tells so much about the kind of place it is. and as someone who's really into the history of art and architecture the ceiling kinda blew my mind actually
>>2710264
That whole place literally creaks with every step you take. It's all open as well - the back area has a selection of actual vestments and other items that were used in the church since early historical times. The Jesuits founded the mission and built the church.
That 12mm Ultra Wide Heliar is an amazing lens too. Pretty cheap for what you get and with today's high-ISO madness the fact that it's an f/5.6 lens doesn't matter as much.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Width 648 Image Height 1000
>>2706844
>They rarely actually talk about the brand's prestige, never talk about specs, never talk about the shit that you guys do on /p/. They talk about traveling to interesting places and taking interesting pictures, shit that you guys would never understand.
This guy's great.
>>2707764
Uh, depends on the kinds of shots you're taking. For anything studio or still life it's always good to have a reference WB.
>>2707969
>Who doesn't shoot in raw?
Reuters Photographers, now
>>2707908
Leica Concert Photog here to answer questions about quickly focusing Leicas in the dark
