why
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
why
>>2782588
Excellent picture and build quality, low number of produced cameras.
It's a camera you can use for life.
>>2782588
>why
why what. why are you poor? dunno, poor life choices or skin color.
>>2782597
good luck finding the specific card reader / usb input in 70 years
>>2782597
You could say that about many cameras that are half the price. Is that literally all youve got?
because they don't sell $4000 worth of features and performance
they sell $2000 worth of features and performance, and $2000 of "bragging rights" for the Leica elitists
what was once a sign of having the best optics and camera in the market and being able to afford it, it's now just a sign that although there is something else better at a lower price, you still prefer to spend more money for an inferior and more expensive product just for the brand name
Still not as good as the Sony Rx1 Mark ii
>>2782656
You know how I know that you've never used a Leica?
Quality does NOT scale with price.
Any retard knows this, it's literally an equation of supply vs demand. Now if the demand is based on some illusory myth that Leica is the "best", or something - of course you'll have people flocking to it.
I can get why Leica was damn popular in the day, it was just the superior choice to those who could afford it, but now the market is so saturated with decent to excellent cameras, they can't ride on the coattails of their former success.
>>2782658
Because anon isn't euphoric about a price-hiked meme camera with literally nothing but its name to its name, I'm sure that's how.
>>2782658
Not the anon you replied to, but I have used a leica, and while the build quality and image quality are very nice, they are extremely overpriced.
>>2782658
shooting digital Leica is like not having the cake and claiming its delicious
its a shitty compromise nobody really needed
>>2782683
Pretty much this.
>>2782792
They don't. Have you ever seen one in the wild?
>>2782793
no, maybe because i live on a third world cunt
but if it's for sale it means that it gets bought
>>2782794
They make 12 of them, give two away to the CEO, and one to some famous photographer, and then put it on sale saying "LESS THAN 10 REMINGING! LIMITED EDITION!" and people who like to collect things buy some. You can't really think about Leica cameras the way you think about any other camera brand. They're not meant to be approached the same way.
Back in the day, the M3, M6, etc, weren't priced quite so ridiculously, and weren't so ridiculously behind everyone else in terms of features and usability, so it made sense to have them as the "Top tier camera" but now, they're worse than pretty much everything around, unless you're specifically looking to buy a Leica which you do for the mystique and honor of having one.
>>2782597
my friend drone dropped from 100ft thanks to a prop failure
the sony 5100 that was attached still works
even the fuckin kit lens works
THAT is a camera you could use for life
>>2782588
>>ITT /p/ shows yet again its failure to understand basic economics.
>>2782816
>look at me i read le invisible hand man
is it worth the cost of a car?
>>2782821
>I'm proud of my ignorance
>>2782830
>the market regulates itself dood trust me XD
>>2782830
This is what fujifags believe while shoveling over priced lenses up their ass.
>>2782831
>if I strawman and meme hard enough I'll win internet points!
>>2782832
What? Where did that turn to Fuji?
>>2782816
>economics
>commodity fetishism
check this libertarian out.
>>2782849
Sonyfags are getting more advanced in their irrelevant trolling.
>>2782865
Advanced? Or desperate? It's like that one strange autistic friend in your friend group who's standing there thinking about Attack of the Clones while you're all having a good conversation about food, and how there's this new place that opened up downtown and maybe you could get a table there tonight, and he just blurts out "Yeah, but Boba Fett is a clone, so..." out of nowhere.
>>2782588
The funny thing is that Leica is basically the same as pic related with a red dot slapped on and a massive price hike
>>2782889
nvm I'm thinking of the Typ 109
>>2782889
It's full frame ya dingus. MFT is DEAD.
>>2782588
Because for someone who wants a very certain type of camera, it's the best one you can buy.
It's an amazing camera, but it's not made for mass appeal. If it's not for you it's not for you, but at least try to minimize the time you spend crying about the price.
>>2782910
>Lets throw a lot of money down a hole because we can!
>What's that? It's "stupid"
>hahaha, you must be poor or something!
>>2782916
>I can't accept or understand that people other than me have different values than me.
>>2782923
No I can't understand why being a fucking moron and throwing money down the drain is something rational.
If it does the exact same thing as every other high-end digital camera, and like 5 times the price, WHY would you waste that kind of money?
I learned as I grew up and made my own money, that buying the most expensive version of something doesn't necessarily imply it's in anyway good. For £3000 I can buy a fucking insane system, something that can last me for years.
If I decide to go film, I can buy a sweet medium format, and have enough for an enlarger and printing set up!
>>2782928
>I now state in a lot of words that I can't understand or accept that different people have different values from me.
>>2782794
>no, maybe because i live on a third world cunt
>but if it's for sale it means that it gets bought
I live in such a place and there are several boutiques in the major upscale shopping centres.
Note that word: boutique.
Nikon/canon/pentax etc., don't have their own special fancy boutiques in malls to make buyers feel special.
You just get them at an electronics retailer or camera shop.
It's a luxury good.
No one here cares about taking good pictures with them, they just want to be seen with one because materialism and being seen to own expensive crap is pretty much the goal in life of everyone in the sity I'm in.
Sure, there's some old people that shot film leica, but 100% every digi model's bought by someone so that they can parade it around their necks.
The place is stupid like that.
There's a current meme fad for teenaged girls to have a small mirrorless camera around their necks when they go out.
Usually the sony a5k or a fuji a2 or something with a selfie function, because that's all they use it for.
Leica may make good cameras, but like all luxury goods they will increasingly market themselves to the tastes and predilections of those that will still pay for them: the spoilt rich in developing countries who have a chip on their shoulders and something to prove.
Same thing's happening in the luxury watch world.
>>2782940
No I can accept you're a fucking stupid cunt. Lets agree on that? Deal.
>>2782955
>I now get butthurt over the fact that other people have different values, that I can't understand or accept that, and am being called out for it.
Guy, not everyone values money the way you do. There are a *lot* of people for whom buying $10,000 worth of a camera and single lens has the same financial impact as you buying a McDonald's cheeseburger.
>>2782955
a study on the anger of the poor in modern capitalist societies right here
>Why would anyone throw $5000 at a camera?
>I mean you can get similar results for a fraction of the cost!
>Why would anyone buy a Porsche?
>I mean you can get to work in a Civic
>Why would anyone buy a Rolex?
>I mean you can tell time on a Seiko
>Why would you buy an iPhone?
>I mean you can just use a TMobile phone to make calls
Everyone dumps their money into expensive, unnecessary things that usually have a shit performance ratio (ie anime figures, "designer" furniture) - why can't fags apply that to cameras?
Affluent fag here. I bought one – It's a dream to use. One of my better decisions.
>>2782961
>Why would anyone buy a Porsche?
Performance car. Higher quality, lighter parts, better engine
>Why would anyone buy a Rolex?
Better quality smaller parts. Will function for much longer.
>Why would you buy an iPhone?
Better unification of hardware to software. Cleaner sleeker design. Simple interface.
I fully understand your point, and I know absolutely nothing about the Leica. But does it even have sort of justifications for the price? I think it comes down to less about the people buying it and more about the people charging the price for it. Just playing devils advocate. Or shitposting, you pick.
>>2782899
mft is the only system where I can buy one lens that I like, then use it on a high res studio camera, a super 16 raw video camera, and on a stabilized drone gible, at extremely low cost and most importantly weight. (for flight)
>>2782588
Dont forget real manual focus. Not that focus by wire shite. The EVF is incredible. Touchscreen LCD.
>>2783013
All those attributes you listed, reworded to relate to cameras, you *could* apply to Leica
Concerning the latter, its just the matter of scarcity coming from a NICHE producer who holds an apparent(ly) competitive advantage (lenses)
These questions are fruitless since you probably justified some stupid shit that you believe is the apex of its domain for yourself unless you came out of the womb as a buddhist
>>2782588
It's a nice camera aimed at:
1. Nouveau-riche who like expensive stuff
2. Old rich people who want a nice, pretty camera with a good reputation
3. Rich and clueless
4. Rich gearfags
5. A very, very, very niche group of people with a large budget who are proficient with a manual rangefinder system and like their features, (comfortable zone focusing, older control schemes, compact size compared to an SLR, etc.) but for some reason don't want a Leica M camera with a wide angle lens.
It gets hate from poorfags who are in sour grapes mode, and gearfags who don't understand the appeal of a simple camera based solely around manipulating the three (well, four counting ISO/ASA) basic principles of photography, and close-minded people who think STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE. The three groups often overlap into a venn diagram of jealous hate and gearfaggotry.
More practical options exist, but they aren't as comfy.
>>2783029
>Not that focus by wire shite
Finally someone who gets it.
>>2783014
so is this an offer to how us your high res studio work, drone footage, and indie film or are you just a massive gearslut?
j/w
>>2783031
>All those attributes you listed, reworded to relate to cameras, you *could* apply to Leica
So it has higher quality parts and performs better than cameras in it's class? Or is it just the name and access to quality lenses? I am 100% legitimately asking, because like I said I know hardly anything about it other then the specs from the pic OP posted.
>>2783042
Are you playing devils advocate or trolling?
>>2783042
Fit and finish are second to none, if you care about that.
Lenses are great and smaller than other kinds of ilc systems
Some people prefer the way you use a rangefinder versus other kinds of cameras
There's a built in romantacism that appeals to others
The sensors are generally crap for the price though.
Also, if you're already invested in the Leica system and used to using one, then why not?
Most of it is the name but it's not a matter where they're a great name applied to shit (like some of the prior non-ilc choices they released) or a rebadge of something else just to jack up the price (like the Hassleblad dSLR).
It's a lot like buying a BMW instead of buying like a Honda.
>>2783045
Per camera sold, Leica has more problems than any other manufacturer. Guess what - some old guy with shaky hands isn't as precise as a $300,000 purpose made robot with no fatigue, tolerance for error, or distracting personal life.
>>2783045
>It's a lot like buying a BMW instead of buying like a Honda.
No, it's like buying a Morgan in stead of buying a BMW. Worse in every way, but at least it's hand made and more expensive!
>>2783158
I never claimed that they were reliable.
Maserati has god tier fit and finish too, but you're more likely to have to stick it into a shop for three weeks than drive it continuously between oil changes.
>>2783162
That's my mistake and misunderstanding then. I retract my snarky attitude.
I totally get the cost of Leica's rangefinders. They're a very complicated optical product, and made in small enough numbers that there isn't an economy of scale to drive prices down. I also get their new mirrorless pro camera, if it performs as well as early reports say it does.
However, the Q is another story. There's nothing all that special about it. The glass isn't amazing, there's no mechanical complexity, and when I held one the build quality didn't strike me as all that different from an X100 or something. It's basically an RX1RII with less pixels, a slightly wider lens, and an extra grand tacked onto the price. I guess, when you consider the extra build quality and accept that the Leica lens is "better," the price sort of makes sense, but it's not something I'd buy even if I had all the money in the world.
>>2783188
Ming Thein strongly disagrees with you.
>>2782590
>Excellent picture and build quality
Uh...I have news for you anon.
>>2783032
>comfy
Such a vague, non-commital adjective that basically means whatever you want it to, rendering you impervious to rebuttal.
>>2783214
doesn't that describe anonymity as well?
>>2783217
Sure.
ITT: We post retarded reviews by people who bought the Leica Q
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Unknown Metering Mode Unknown Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash
>>2783220
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Unknown Metering Mode Unknown Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash
>>2783222
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Unknown Metering Mode Unknown Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash
>>2783192
>Ming Thein
I just looked him up.
Dunno, I don't really see anything in his review that changes my mind. Maybe it's great for a certain kind of photographer doing a certain kind of photography, maybe I just don't "get" it, but it's not something that attracts me.
As a professional user, I don't get it. It's not versatile enough to be an only camera, and why carry it around alongside a DSLR kit, as Ming Thein says he will, when you could have a first-party 28/1.4 instead?
For casual use, it doesn't make much sense to me either. I don't really get this whole crop of compacts with big lenses in general, because they're big enough that you have to carry a camera bag if you want to put them away, and that same camera bag will probably hold a DSLR or FF mirrorless with a good prime on it instead. You could probably match the Q's quality with a Nikon D610 and a 28 f/1.8, and that setup would cost half what the Q does and isn't much bigger or heavier.
I'm sure the Q is a great camera, but the only true purpose I can see for it is as a shoulder ornament for rich tourists.
>>2783199
FUUUARK
I want to cum on that camera so bad. Why does SONY make them so sexy?
why the fuck do people pay for le ebin red dot
lecia is literally best at nothing
they are fucking garbage
>>2783268
For basically the exact same reasons you used
>le ebin
>literally best at nothing
And likely are incapable of posting without using memes.
>>2783272
>i can't defend lecia's shitty objectively horrible cameras or lenses so i'll claim someone posting 4chanian on 4chan has an invalid opinion
lol
>>2783273
Nope, not in the least. It's actually rather telling of your intelligence level that you think that was the point.
Also, le anything is reddit dude.
>>2783275
yeah ok
found a lecia owner
>>2783276
3/3 posts relying solely on memes. Can you break the pattern? I bet you communicate like this irl too.
at least sony users get something with objectively the best specs : $ for their meme cameras they don't take pictures with
leciacucks get literally nothing except a camera from a washed up company
>>2783277
>leciathreads are worth serious posts without memes or shitposts
>>2783282
So the answer is no, you can't break it.
Gotcha.
>>2783284
not in this thread bucko
>>2783279
Not that I disagree, but I dunno if I'd call Leica "washed up," they've been making money hand over fist lately.
It's just that they've been doing it mostly by selling Panasonics with red dots on them as status symbols to rich Chinese people.
>>2783289
>company making money = good cameras
nope
>>2783295
>thinking he said that
I'm not even a fan of leica, but you antileica people are legitimately stupid.
>>2782959
Aren't you an unemployed drop out living with your parents?
>>2783427
>implying that makes her wrong
>>2783428
>her
Are people really so poor that $4000 is considered allot to them?
>>2783801
>allot
It's not that it's "allot" it's that it's "allot" for what the camera is. For the uses and needs of most people, it doesn't hold up against a camera kit at a third of the price.
Most people don't stay wealthy by buying things that are three times more expensive than they need to be, simply because they can.
>>2782588
$4000 seems reasonable for the combination of high end full frame camera with top of the line fast wide angle lens, and that's before you factor in the leica premium.
>>2783813
>RX1
>>2783813
Point of diminishing returns.
>>2783032
basically this
>>2783429
>her
>isi
It is a she right?
>>2784267
Just a dropout trap living with his parents in some shit state.
>>2783032
>>Not that focus by wire shite
>Finally someone who gets it.
If you want manual focus, you can put a manual focus lens on any mirrorless camera without issue.
>>2784497
You're forgetting the lens's focusing scale with a hard stop at infinity, which lose their accuracy on when an adapter is used.
>reflex camera user/digital babby spotted
[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
>>2784537
Assuming that a 2mm adapter is enough to throw off a focus point a noticeable amount, even wide open, when focused at infinity (doubtful):
So now we're even MORE niche, to the point where it's for people who don't use a viewfinder or focus mechanism, want to focus at infinity (rather than hyperfocal) and don't know how to compensate for a completely consistent shift in the accuracy of a little line on a lens.
Good point.
>>2784537
>You're forgetting the lens's focusing scale with a hard stop at infinity, which lose their accuracy on when an adapter is used.
You trying to guess the distance to your subject and getting it wrong by 4 inches (on a lens with markings that jump from 4 feet to 8 feet to 15 feet to infinity) is going to be a lot more detrimental to your focus accuracy than the tiny baby bit that an adapter might throw off the accuracy of the scale, but considering that adapters are designed to maintain flange distance, it shouldn't be an issue in the first place.
>>2784540
>So now we're even MORE niche
>surprised that a niche product caters to the niche it caters to
kek
>to the point where it's for people who don't use a viewfinder or focus mechanism
u wot
>not knowing to turn lens with muscle memory and only using the RF or other focusing aid for fine correction before exposure
when wer u when reflex camera babbies killed photography
>>2784556
>not knowing to turn lens with muscle memory and only using the RF or other focusing aid for fine correction before exposure
Then where does the lens's focusing scale come into it?
Or are you suggesting that you have micron level accuracy in your muscle memory?
>>2784556
>u wot
If you're using the viewfinder, and in this case, a perfectly accurate EVF, then what do you need focus markings on the barrel for?
>>2783801
Being this detached from reality.
>current year
>>2784558
>are you suggesting that you have micron level accuracy in your muscle memory?
ye nigger
>>2782825
you do realize it's not meant for people to buy it, right? it's meant to be bought by photography and movie studios
it's like asking about Black Magic or PhaseOne cameras
of course there are people who own this kind of camera, but they're not the primary target
it's like asking "why the fuck do armored trucks exist? like, who needs a fucking bulletproof safe with wheels?"
Banks do. People don't.
Same principle.
>>2784566
I cant wait to jake olsen you one day if you become famous, you racist gook
>>2785867
I'll take that as a compliment, I guess. Thanks for thinking that highly of me.
