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!
I don't get the "this is expensive" argument. For a professional photographer who buys this camera and throws it into the dustbin after 150,000 exposures, the cost would be $0.05 per click. A typical event would for me equal a maximum of 2,000 clicks, which would then sum up to a camera cost of $100. Lens cost would be much lower, but let's say that other "hardware" costs are $100 too, and we are up to the grand sum of $200. If my income from photography can't cover that level of cost, I should look for other work (which I have, so I'm not a full time photographer anymore). For smaller jobs that require fewer exposure, portraiture for example, the mathematics look even more favourable.
Backup is of course an issue, but if this proves to be a reliable camera, a Leica T would be a great backup, although a separate WA lens would be needed to compensate for the crop factor.
Some claim that 24MP isn't sufficient, and that's fair enough, but I also think it's fair to say that users of the most common DSLR brand in the world, the one called Canon, haven't had access even to 24MP until very recently. Still, several of them have been able to make a living from their somewhat inferior cameras
For their own cameras, they make lenses for 3 different mounts, M, S and T/SL. Cine (PL) lenses are for cine cameras that Leica don't make themselves, and R lenses went out of production some 10 years ago. Most camera manufacturers make more than one mount. Pentax makes 3, Canon 2 and a half, Sony and Nikon 2 each.
I was actually mostly referring to the thread on the Sony Rumors website with 450+ comments already...
No, I don't, so I cannot buy it, but it wouldn't be 20,000, but 12,000. All my manual focus F-mount lenses can be used with an adapter, so as an initial investment, I would only need the camera body and the zoom, and even the zoom lens could wait for a while. Then I'm down to 7,500 plus adapter, which would be possible. Not many years ago, that was what people paid for Canon's and Nikon's top models, and since they came from film, they claimed it was cheap. And it was.
This cash flow analysis is totally wrong and I'm not even an accountant.I don't get the "this is expensive" argument. For a professional photographer who buys this camera and throws it into the dustbin after 150,000 exposures, the cost would be $0.05 per click. A typical event would for me equal a maximum of 2,000 clicks, which would then sum up to a camera cost of $100. Lens cost would be much lower, but let's say that other "hardware" costs are $100 too, and we are up to the grand sum of $200. If my income from photography can't cover that level of cost, I should look for other work (which I have, so I'm not a full time photographer anymore). For smaller jobs that require fewer exposure, portraiture for example, the mathematics look even more favourable.
Backup is of course an issue, but if this proves to be a reliable camera, a Leica T would be a great backup, although a separate WA lens would be needed to compensate for the crop factor.
Some claim that 24MP isn't sufficient, and that's fair enough, but I also think it's fair to say that users of the most common DSLR brand in the world, the one called Canon, haven't had access even to 24MP until very recently. Still, several of them have been able to make a living from their somewhat inferior cameras
Thats what I think is coming down the pike next. A Q type body with interchangable lenses who's native mount is the Leica M mount. It will incorporate a state of the art EVF or maybe a hybrid OVF/EVF and I suppose either a line of AF M mount lenses or possibly AF assist light in viewfinder. Whether the body will be considered as part of the M line or not, hard to say as crystal ball just went cloudy (running out to get more Windex as we speak
).
To be fair to Leica it is worth recognising that obsolescence in a technical sense is unavoidable for any digital camera system. So, in 3-4 years this system could fade away, although I doubt it for much the same reason the S system has not faded away despite a slow start.
Wrong diet Jorgen.
I don't get the "this is expensive" argument. For a professional photographer who buys this camera and throws it into the dustbin after 150,000 exposures, the cost would be $0.05 per click. A typical event would for me equal a maximum of 2,000 clicks, which would then sum up to a camera cost of $100. Lens cost would be much lower, but let's say that other "hardware" costs are $100 too, and we are up to the grand sum of $200. If my income from photography can't cover that level of cost, I should look for other work (which I have, so I'm not a full time photographer anymore). For smaller jobs that require fewer exposure, portraiture for example, the mathematics look even more favourable.
Backup is of course an issue, but if this proves to be a reliable camera, a Leica T would be a great backup, although a separate WA lens would be needed to compensate for the crop factor.
Some claim that 24MP isn't sufficient, and that's fair enough, but I also think it's fair to say that users of the most common DSLR brand in the world, the one called Canon, haven't had access even to 24MP until very recently. Still, several of them have been able to make a living from their somewhat inferior cameras
I came to a similar conclusion that this would've been the ideal travel camera system for me a few years ago when I traveled much more than I do now for work. The 24-280 range would cover nearly everything I wanted to do and I had more invested in my M kit than what this costs. That being saidI would still want 2 bodies and lots of batteries so maybe when I hit the lottery after I start playing the lottery I'll buy one for that purpose.
Yeah and it's worth noting that the SL only does 11fps with fixed AF and AEL (worthless) With continuous AF active you only get 7fps. So there's quite a gap between this camera and Canikon which does 11-12fps effortlessly. That's what the proven hybrid PDAF systems provide.
Weddings may as well be the zenith if you're positioned right. Ad budgets are pretty sparse. I work in NYC and though I do know a few people who own a Leica for personal work nobody shoots professionally with them as their main system camera. Once this system grows there is definitely something interesting here but they should have waited a year until they had their primes done. Also if they wanted to attract the pro market it would be $5000 with a lens. The price indicates to me this is for wealthy weekend warriors or just bored wealthy people. If you are a commercial pro and you get one of these thinking that Leica mojo will make up for what you could do with a 645Z or D810, you are looking at the world through red dot colored glasses. Something I see a lot from SL apologists.
The email from Leica actually says it s a pro cam that allows you to see the final picture before the shutter is tripped. I do not know of any other camera that makes it possible.
Oh Leica says it's a pro cam. That's settles it. Also any camera with an EVF allows you to preview the final image as do the SLRs in live view for tripod situations. That's why EVFs are so great, but Leica is not the first to employ them.
Leica calls this a pro camera, one has to look how a pro camera integrates with the rest of the system the maker provides as to perform tasks that where not served (or where underserved) up to that point... With this camera Leica provides the following:
) they will...