«

jeremy wrote:

> I noticed a few changes on the Leica web site yesterday.

> The proof of the pudding is in the images the camera creates. I have the
> suspicion that the results will not justify the presumed astronomical price
> for this camera.

Since when has cost effectiveness been a consideration in buying
anything Leica?

jeremy wrote:


> But who will pay those extremely high prices for Leica optics, only to end
> up with what is essentially two different systems?
>

The same "cost is no object" people who already pay those extremely high
prices for Leica optics.

"no_name" <> wrote in message
news:OYdvg.20569$...
> jeremy wrote:
>
>
>> But who will pay those extremely high prices for Leica optics, only to
>> end up with what is essentially two different systems?
>>
>
> The same "cost is no object" people who already pay those extremely high
> prices for Leica optics.



I wonder . . .

Mechanical Leicas may have some appeal as collectable cameras. There is a
legitimate market for things like mechanical cameras--an item whose time is
past.

But, consider electronic items. What happens to old computers, old cell
phones, old Walkmen, old video games, etc.?

They end up in the trash--not in the hands of museums or collectors.

Is there any significant market for old digital cameras? None that I'm
aware of. The ones that get sold on eBay don't end up in display cases,
they are used to take photos.

Are discontinued Leica digicams collectible?

Will an R9 Digital be worth anything in 15 years? I suspect not. Will an
M5 or M6 be worth anything in 15 years? Probably plenty.

If you have to ask the price you are not a Leica person.

"jeremy" <> wrote in message
news:nbbvg.9261$Oj.5453@trnddc05...
>
> "John Francis" <> wrote in message
> news:e9jelt$18q$...
>> In article <xwavg.9247$Oj.6659@trnddc05>, jeremy <>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>Are you absolutely certain about this not being full-frame? Who would
>>>buy
>>>such a camera system?
>>
>> Ask the Nikon (or Pentax, or Minolta) DSLR owners. Ask almost all the
>> Canon
>> owners, except for the very few who bought the Canon full-frame offering.
>>
>
> But who will pay those extremely high prices for Leica optics, only to end
> up with what is essentially two different systems?
>
>
>
Well, it does double the effective focal length of your lens set....The idea
that you can shoot either digital or film with the same camera is also
intriguing......

"jeremy" <> wrote:
> "Chris Loffredo" <> wrote:
>>
>> Full frame? More like 1.37.
>>
>> That said, price aside, I'd rather have it than some Canon or Nikon
>> "technowonder"...
>
> I must have missed the frame size. I assumed, from the brochure, that the
> existing Leica lenses could continue to be used without change.
>
> That adds even another reason not to buy it--your lenses have one focal
> length when used with film, and other effective focal lengths when used
> with the digital insert. It's like having two completely different camera
> systems.
>
> Are you absolutely certain about this not being full-frame? Who would buy
> such a camera system?

Like most Leica owners, people with a lot more money than sense.

Their refusal to include a low-pass filter is, in my opinion, brain damaged.
The mathematics of discrete sampling tell us that you can't tell the
difference between a real signal and an aliased signal, so you can't, in
principle, remove Moiré in software. And unlike the DX consumer zooms and FF
primes* Nikon D2x users mostly use, the Leica primes will provide plenty of
contrast well above Nyquist. And, of course, it's a Bayer pattern, so Moiré
is color Moiré and even nastier.

This is, however, old news.

*: For the same FOV, shorter, smaller image circle lenses can provide higher
resolution, so the tiny pixels of the D2x strain the lenses available.
(Although this is less of a problem for long telephotos.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 2006-07-18 15:21:01 -0400, "jeremy" <> said:

>
> "Chris Loffredo" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> jeremy wrote:
> Are you absolutely certain about this not being full-frame? Who would
> buy such a camera system?

The same (but with more cash and who appreciate absolute precision)
who buy less than full frame Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta Hassey, etc.
There is absolutely nothing sacred about the 35mm frame. In fact, it
was always a hinderance unless you wnated a small compact camera or
used reversal film. All during the years I owned my Nikon F, used
Dad's Leica IIIf, and my Nikon N90s, I have dreamed of owning a medium
format camera... the price was always a little out there for me. I
still might bite the bullet.... and get a 2 1/4 or 6.4.5.

I have seen plenty of great photos taken with less than full 35mm frame
cameras and I have seen plenty of pathetic photos taken with full fram
digital cameras and vicversa. Its the human on the other side of the
view finder that maters and if that human wants a Leica., then more
power to them. I know I apprecated the absolute precision and
smoothness of the IIIf. Changing the film with the removable base
plate was a pain in the you know where.. but other than that, is a
fine piece of equipment.

--
Jim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 21:59:06 -0400, Jim wrote:


>The same (but with more cash and who appreciate absolute precision)
>who buy less than full frame Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta Hassey, etc.
> There is absolutely nothing sacred about the 35mm frame. In fact, it
>was always a hinderance unless you wnated a small compact camera or
>used reversal film. All during the years I owned my Nikon F, used
>Dad's Leica IIIf, and my Nikon N90s, I have dreamed of owning a medium
>format camera... the price was always a little out there for me. I
>still might bite the bullet.... and get a 2 1/4 or 6.4.5.


Go for it. There's never been a better time.

A decent 645 kit can be had for under $400 on eBay,
and for a scanner you could do well with an Epson 4990
($400 or less, new) or a used Nikon LS-8000 (say, $800 or so.)

You'll get results on par with (or exceeding) a Canon 5D,
though with somewhat greater effort per frame.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

In article <xwavg.9247$Oj.6659@trnddc05>, says...

> I must have missed the frame size. I assumed, from the brochure, that the
> existing Leica lenses could continue to be used without change.
>
> That adds even another reason not to buy it--your lenses have one focal
> length when used with film, and other effective focal lengths when used with
> the digital insert. It's like having two completely different camera
> systems.
>
> Are you absolutely certain about this not being full-frame? Who would buy
> such a camera system?

It's been around for quite a while already and you have to put your name
on a waiting list to get one, in much the same manner as the Leica M8
(digital) will be made available.

Stick with your stuff, Leica isn't for sissies with holes in their
pockets.

--
http://www.nikongear.com/

jeremy wrote:
>
> I wonder . . .
>
> Mechanical Leicas may have some appeal as collectable cameras. There is a
> legitimate market for things like mechanical cameras--an item whose time is
> past.
>
> But, consider electronic items. What happens to old computers, old cell
> phones, old Walkmen, old video games, etc.?
>
> They end up in the trash--not in the hands of museums or collectors.
>

Now that's just not true. I can't speak for cell phones or Walkmen, but
old computers and old video game systems are -definitely- collectible.
I personally have a small collection of old 8-bit computers (and a
couple 16-bit ones), and have only stopped collecting them because of
lack of space (though if anyone has an Atari ST they want to get rid
of, I'm sure I can find room). I'm not alone...something as simple as a
web search for "old computers" will turn out several web pages. I'm
-not- an old camera collector...but I think the principle is the same.
Early microcomputers almost have personality: they have quirks, they do
things in unusual ways, and they're generally very cleverly designed.
Newer PCs are, with rare exceptions, all the same. (Apple does go to
some lengths to keep new models interesting.) I think it's the same
with, say, manual cameras: you really needed to learn and understand
the camera, and it showed in the design. New computers and new cameras
have the same failing: they're built for mass-market use by people that
neither understand them, nor really want to understand them, and thus
there is no emotional (?) connection to them.

Old cameras have an advantage over old computers: you can still take
really good pictures with an old camera, while there's no way that an
old computer can hold its own against modern technology. My calculator
is, quite literally, more powerful than several of my old computers.

- Darryl