rangefinders would be awesome for street photography, but they truly have some limitations where SLRs kick ass over them. or so i have read. i've actually never used one.
i can't see myself shooting DH with those cameras,,,, but i would love to look cool taking some shots in NYC with that thing... too bad they cost 5K plus.... without a lens...
I might be all over one when the price comes down for used ones. If it works more reliably and with fewer quirks and issues than the M8 apparently does, anyhow.
Personally, I prefer a rangefinder. I like them for shooting some action stuff because of the lack of mirror blackout during exposure...only thing is the lack of longer lens capacity. I use a twin-lens for my medium format for the same reason.
It has some pro implications (photojournalism and documentary, for some people/circumstances), but it's certainly not the general use tool the vast majority of pros would want. I wouldn't think it would even be in competition with the D3 or any other SLR for pro use...they're just very, very different animals.
However, it WILL cause a major bit of consternation for dentists over whether to buy it or an SLR with capacity way beyond their needs.
Now to really get your juices boiling, here's an excerpt from Ken Rockwell weighing in on this...
"...I know the new LEICA M9 is a much better idea than a DSLR for the serious digital landscape, travel and nature photographer, but I thought it would take longer for everyone else to figure it out.
Most people don't realize how fast a company can fall into the past when that company fails to make the right product, prices it wrong, or another company comes out with what we really wanted instead.
When smug companies think they rule the roost and can abuse their customers by overpricing the D3X (only worth $4,999 but still priced at $7,500), or hold out on introducing the D700X so they can milk us on the D3X instead, they are so screwed when another more respected company like Leica comes out with a better product for less money.
In this case, Nikon has been making their cameras and lenses bigger and heavier for no good reason each year, so when the Leica M9 comes out at about one third the weight of a pro DSLR, and for less money, Nikon just screwed themselves. The all-metal LEICA M9 weighs less than a plastic D90 for crying out loud!
My personal emancipation came last year when I upgraded to LEICA from Nikon when Nikon priced the D3X so improperly high that Leicas cost less! I was waiting for the D3X for a year, and when it came out priced abusively high, I looked around, and realized that Leica was a bargain by comparison.
Now that anyone can buy a real German Leica full-frame camera (the M9) for less than an overweight, overpriced old D3X, who would want to carry a digital Nikon anymore for travel and landscape photography? Not me!
That said, I just got a D3000 and a D300s in my hot little hands to review, but first I want to belt out an M9 lens recommendation page for all of the rest of you upgrading to Leica.
As an historical note, Leica has been making 35mm cameras and lenses since the 1920s.
Nikon never made cameras until the late 1940s, or after after World War II. Prior to and during WWII, Nikon instead specialized in making instruments for mass destruction: long-range rangefinders for artillery, military binoculars, especially large ones used on ships, and aircraft bombsights. Nikon's instruments were instrumental in Japan's terrorist attacks against America at Pearl Harbor (there was no declaration of war, and the Japanese invented suicide bombing using airplanes: kamikazes).
Nikon's warmongering divisions were disbanded after WWII, and the few guys left at Nikon sat around and wondered what to do next (ref: Rotoloni). In the late 1940s, Nikon cranked out their first rangefinder camera, intended to compete with Leica and using the same lens mount as Contax. By 1956 Nikon's best rangefinder camera was Nikon's new SP, which had some more features than the new LEICA M3, but less overall quality.
In the 1950's Nikon was second or third fiddle, behind Contax and Leica.
In 1959, Nikon leap-frogged everyone with their first SLR, the Nikon F. As we all know, the Nikon F was an incredible hit, and SLRs have pretty much put Leica out of business ever since. The Nikon F was simply the older Nikon SP rangefinder camera, with a prism welded on.
Ever since the 1960s, Leica has been playing catch-up until last week.
Old rivalries never die, and in this case, it is all of us who benefit.
Of course SLRs are completely different kinds of cameras from rangefinders. SLRs are far smarter for close-ups, macro and ultra-tele use, while rangefinders are far better for travel, wide-angle lenses and most of what actually matters in practical photography. Polarizers and grads are easy to use with rangefinders, especially with TTL meters as Leicas have had since the 1970s. Simply preview the effect, then put the filter on your lens with the same orientation. "
Now to really get your juices boiling, here's an excerpt from Ken Rockwell weighing in on this...
"...I know the new LEICA M9 is a much better idea than a DSLR for the serious digital landscape, travel and nature photographer, but I thought it would take longer for everyone else to figure it out.
Most people don't realize how fast a company can fall into the past when that company fails to make the right product, prices it wrong, or another company comes out with what we really wanted instead.
When smug companies think they rule the roost and can abuse their customers by overpricing the D3X (only worth $4,999 but still priced at $7,500), or hold out on introducing the D700X so they can milk us on the D3X instead, they are so screwed when another more respected company like Leica comes out with a better product for less money.
In this case, Nikon has been making their cameras and lenses bigger and heavier for no good reason each year, so when the Leica M9 comes out at about one third the weight of a pro DSLR, and for less money, Nikon just screwed themselves. The all-metal LEICA M9 weighs less than a plastic D90 for crying out loud!
My personal emancipation came last year when I upgraded to LEICA from Nikon when Nikon priced the D3X so improperly high that Leicas cost less! I was waiting for the D3X for a year, and when it came out priced abusively high, I looked around, and realized that Leica was a bargain by comparison.
Now that anyone can buy a real German Leica full-frame camera (the M9) for less than an overweight, overpriced old D3X, who would want to carry a digital Nikon anymore for travel and landscape photography? Not me!
That said, I just got a D3000 and a D300s in my hot little hands to review, but first I want to belt out an M9 lens recommendation page for all of the rest of you upgrading to Leica.
As an historical note, Leica has been making 35mm cameras and lenses since the 1920s.
Nikon never made cameras until the late 1940s, or after after World War II. Prior to and during WWII, Nikon instead specialized in making instruments for mass destruction: long-range rangefinders for artillery, military binoculars, especially large ones used on ships, and aircraft bombsights. Nikon's instruments were instrumental in Japan's terrorist attacks against America at Pearl Harbor (there was no declaration of war, and the Japanese invented suicide bombing using airplanes: kamikazes).
Nikon's warmongering divisions were disbanded after WWII, and the few guys left at Nikon sat around and wondered what to do next (ref: Rotoloni). In the late 1940s, Nikon cranked out their first rangefinder camera, intended to compete with Leica and using the same lens mount as Contax. By 1956 Nikon's best rangefinder camera was Nikon's new SP, which had some more features than the new LEICA M3, but less overall quality.
In the 1950's Nikon was second or third fiddle, behind Contax and Leica.
In 1959, Nikon leap-frogged everyone with their first SLR, the Nikon F. As we all know, the Nikon F was an incredible hit, and SLRs have pretty much put Leica out of business ever since. The Nikon F was simply the older Nikon SP rangefinder camera, with a prism welded on.
Ever since the 1960s, Leica has been playing catch-up until last week.
Old rivalries never die, and in this case, it is all of us who benefit.
Of course SLRs are completely different kinds of cameras from rangefinders. SLRs are far smarter for close-ups, macro and ultra-tele use, while rangefinders are far better for travel, wide-angle lenses and most of what actually matters in practical photography. Polarizers and grads are easy to use with rangefinders, especially with TTL meters as Leicas have had since the 1970s. Simply preview the effect, then put the filter on your lens with the same orientation. "
There's a Leica owner who actually, you know, takes pictures with his camera?
I thought they just placed their camera atop a mahogany shelf in their study, had the houseboy dust it from time to time, and pompously bragged about it's German quality at parties while smoking a Davidoff cigar and posing in a Napoleon-esque stance.
There's a Leica owner who actually, you know, takes pictures with his camera?
I thought they just placed their camera atop a mahogany shelf in their study, had the houseboy dust it from time to time, and pompously bragged about it's German quality at parties while smoking a Davidoff cigar and posing in a Napoleon-esque stance.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.