joerglemann
New member
Though many of the arguments floating aroung here sound quite logical for me, I ask myself why was Leica in the past several times financially in big trouble though they sold bodies and lenses that high priced???
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
The 5D2 and its quality and price were also the main reason, why I kind of switched from Nikon to Canon. Got tired of waiting for high speed Nikkor primes and did NOT want to pay for the D3X as its IQ did NOT convince me. And price is far too high for that IQ.Well said . Scary thing is not many D3x are selling but the 5d2 is selling like hots cakes. Big price difference
Fully agree!This is exactly a point I was about to make and it's very common in the electronics world to "give away" the hardware in order to profit on accessories (read: lenses, batteries, cases, extended warranties, etc.) I think that would be a best case scenario for Leica is they are to remain viable. I fear your last scenario may be the case though (overcharging on body and lenses) but we will see soon enough I guess.
The main feature which people wanted was a good and FF digital solution! And it did not happen, since they started discussing the DMR - remember this was back in 2001.That is a tunnel view on a complex situation. The R system probably wasn't selling well because it was missing features that people wanted. The M system wasn't selling because there was no digital solution for the longest time. The financial difficult arose out of improper management behaviour in the face of low income. Much more cannot be said without more detailed numbers.
Are you saying the d3x does not convince you regarding quality and IQ, but the 5dII does?The 5D2 and its quality and price were also the main reason, why I kind of switched from Nikon to Canon. Got tired of waiting for high speed Nikkor primes and did
NOT want to pay for the D3X as its IQ did NOT convince me. And price is far too high for that IQ.
Thus the 5D2 won. And finally Canon over Nikon - at least in my equipment.
See how fast this finally can happen.
So which MF-system will you buy now?I need and want to work now with a high end MF digital system and thus Leica's S System is just dead for me!
What's the issue with the lenses? If I were to get another 35mm DSLR, it would probably be Nikon rather than Canon just FOR the lenses, especially the 14-24mm G, so I'm curious to hear what you're referring to.I am with Tom here. In every test or testimonial I have seen, the IQ of the D3x has never once been the issue, as it is simply better than other 35mm cameras at this time. The issue is price, and perhaps the lenses.
I'm fairly sure that Canon and others (even P1) are performing noise reduction in-camera. Unfortunately reviewers don't take this into account when comparing noise between cameras, so it becomes a dirty marketing trick to an extent, although for some people they are happier to have the camera do it than do it themselves anyway. I just wish people didn't compare the images as if on equal footing, and didn't perpetuate the myth that RAW files contain only 'raw' dataI believe that it smoothes the images too much as higher ISO.
Partly it is public knowledge, partly it is just a personal take. The 14-24 and 24-70 are by all accounts fantastic lenses, as is the 200/2. There are some other lenses in the range with the same high quality, but there are also many which are older or problematic in some way. For example, the first 70-200/2.8 review I saw on FF remarked that the edges were really not up to the level of quality of the middle, and that a review of this lens was in order. The 85/1.4 is not nearly as good as the Leica 80/1.4 or the Canon 85/1.2 II. The 50/1.4 is a plastic wonder, which bothers me personally. The 100/2.8 VR is not meant to be as sharp as the previous version. There are simply many of the older Nikon primes which don't measure up to the standards the D3x demands. Most of Nikon's recent lenses are DX lenses. Very few FX lenses have been released in recent times. I have little knowledge of the long teles. I think in general that they are very good, and the most common criticism is that not enough of them have VR.What's the issue with the lenses? If I were to get another 35mm DSLR, it would probably be Nikon rather than Canon just FOR the lenses, especially the 14-24mm G, so I'm curious to hear what you're referring to.
No trouble at all for me, the 14-24mm and three PC-E lenses would cover 99% of my work.In general, I have a very high regard for the Nikon system, but if you pick only the best lenses, you might have some trouble filling in your lens lineup.
24PCE, 28/1.4, 35/2.0, Sigma50/1.4 (I prefer it to the Nikon 50AFD and also compared to the new Nikon 50AFS), 85/1.4 , 105/2.0DC, 135/2.0DC, 180/2.8, 200VR all excellent lenses IMO. I agree about the 70-200VR though - I sold it since I have not found that lens great. Plus you have all the MF-options like Zeiss or Leica (with Leitax adapter)Partly it is public knowledge, partly it is just a personal take. The 14-24 and 24-70 are by all accounts fantastic lenses, as is the 200/2. There are some other lenses in the range with the same high quality, but there are also many which are older or problematic in some way. For example, the first 70-200/2.8 review I saw on FF remarked that the edges were really not up to the level of quality of the middle, and that a review of this lens was in order. The 85/1.4 is not nearly as good as the Leica 80/1.4 or the Canon 85/1.2 II. The 50/1.4 is a plastic wonder, which bothers me personally. The 100/2.8 VR is not meant to be as sharp as the previous version. There are simply many of the older Nikon primes which don't measure up to the standards the D3x demands. Most of Nikon's recent lenses are DX lenses. Very few FX lenses have been released in recent times. I have little knowledge of the long teles. I think in general that they are very good, and the most common criticism is that not enough of them have VR.
Secondly, the Nikon boke is often not all that pleasing. I think that Nikon often over-corrects spherical aberration, leading to harsh rings in the background. This might be a nice artistic effect if that is what you are after, but for general or pro portrait work, for example, it is not desirable.
In general, I have a very high regard for the Nikon system, but if you pick only the best lenses, you might have some trouble filling in your lens lineup.
For me the 5D2 IQ is more convincing, especially when I think about my preferred areas like landscape. The colors are just more neutral and the tonal range is better suited for what I need.Are you saying the d3x does not convince you regarding quality and IQ, but the 5dII does?
Most likely the H System, not sure if the 39MP or 50MP version.So which MF-system will you buy now?
This view is correct in general.I am with Tom here. In every test or testimonial I have seen, the IQ of the D3x has never once been the issue, as it is simply better than other 35mm cameras at this time. The issue is price, and perhaps the lenses. The issue with the 5D2 is lack of weather proofing and susceptibility to moisture and the environment, as well as something lacking in the IQ department. I don't quite recall what the issue is now, but I believe that it smoothes the images too much as higher ISO.
Maybe, also true in Europe.Here in the UK the street price of the Nikon D3x is far less than the street price of the Canon 1Ds MK111.
From your statement about the S2 it sounds 39MP would not make you happy for a long time so I would go 50MP.Most likely the H System, not sure if the 39MP or 50MP version.
While the 14-24 is an outstanding lens, I must say it is a bit huge - no wonder. Now again, for me the 16-35 II from Canon is much better suited and delivers at least the same stunning IQ as the Nikkor 14-24. I am not comparing MTF charts and not counting lines per mm etc! I just sa what my subjective impressions are.No trouble at all for me, the 14-24mm and three PC-E lenses would cover 99% of my work.
I know, but there is also price. But most likely I will go for the 50MP, as this is also the newer sensor design and from my calculations I will be able to do most of the large format prints I want to do without any upsizing. So no quality degradation through SW, which is important for me.From your statement about the S2 it sounds 39MP would not make you happy for a long time so I would go 50MP.