Leica announces M-Monochrom and the X2. - General Discussions on Fuji X Series Camera Forum - Fujifilm X-Pro1 X-E1 X100S X100 X20 X10 XF1 X-S1

persiyan

Hand-on with the M-Monochrom and the X2 announcement at DPReview.

Any thoughts? The X2 will retain its $2k price tag, has an improved AF, a new 16.2MP censor, and a hot shoe for an OVF(sold separately). Other than that it looks pretty much unchanged. So at $2k, the X2 is still vastly lacking compared to the X100. The M9-M on the other hand looks good, the samples look great, very sharp, and very usable at high ISO, the iso1600 samples look like iso200 on my X100. But their pricing is shooting steam in all directions, with the M9-M at $8k and their new Summicron 50mm for $7200 as well.

mattmaber

The M9-M samples do look impressive, though were I to have a Leica Id rather have a film leica.
Note the Hermes edition of the M9 has no hotshoe ".. to further emphasise the unique status of this limited edition".
Ive been using my X100 in B&W mode with m-hard highlights and hard shadows and love it. Now I've also turned down sharpening entirely and at the highest ISOs theres lovely noise. =D

ragecat

I'd rather get a color m9 for $2k cheaper and convert it to black and white :P
That x2 is a lazy joke. They basically did nothing to the x1. The x100 is still king

persiyan

They know how to sell a niche product, the M9-M might not be in color, but it has exceptional sharp detail and ISO performance, the M9 sucks severally at high ISO. The fact that it's b&w only also gives it an even stronger old school sense. I wouldn't be surprised if those who can afford it take the plunge. The interesting thing is that this sensor should be cheaper to manufacture, so this M9-M should be over all cheaper for them to make than a regular M9, yet they are charging a lot more for it.

FinePixCamera

There are charging more because there are always fools who will pay for it.

jac

In true typical Leica fashion - Charging more for considerably less. The M9M doesn't even have the Leica script engraving on the top-plate LOL..

Now the X2, is truly a joke, not even an f2.0 lens..

jac

Double post

ragecat

jac said:
In true typical Leica fashion - Charging more for considerably less. The M9M doesn't even have the Leica script engraving on the top-plate LOL..

Now the X2, is truly a joke, not even an f2.0 lens..

+1
Yeah the x2 is just the definition of lazy. I'm a fan of Leica but this announcement was just a blatant fail.

DennisHolzberg

ISO Comparison X2, X1 and X100

Click on the link and you can see a comparison in ISO performance for the Leica X1, X2 and the Fuji X100.
X100 is way better in high ISO than x1 (we already knew that) and x2.

jac

I have been shooting leica M gear and lenses for several+ years now, I found it hard to swallow the prices back then, but Leica pricing is just getting completely ridiculous now. I look back and glad I bought the lenses when I did.

Fuji now has a lot of margin to make a good full-frame body with M-mount (or via their M-adapter, hopefully a smart one) and give photographers a financially viable alternative with cutting edge innovative technology. Not out of date tech that is repackaged in some special edition b/c they are as slow as molasses in the innovation department. I hope to be proved wrong in Photokina later this year, but regardless, it will be stratospherically expensive putting it out of reach for a lot of photographers..

cosinaphile

leica exists because a segment of the elite supports its illusion of grandeur
and quality uniqueness..... years ago when the price of the leica was more in line
with other quality cameras , shooters like bresson could choose leica for its technical solurtions and lens quality

now , in the modern economic world leicas elitist prices are a poster child
for what is wrong in the modren world

your milage may vary ......for me corporatism is ......well you know

ragecat

yeah but the thing is... that's why ferrari exists or louis vuitton or fiji water (lol). some things are just super luxury items that the price will never be justified even though you are getting premium quality.

i believe there is somewhat of a falloff or saturation point when it comes to "you get what you pay for. but at the same time... doesn't mean i wouldn't want one just to show off or say i've got the best

pcg

The Monochrom will be outrageously expensive because (1) it's German, and the quality will be superb and (2) Leica expects to sell a minimal number. Pros who largely shoot B&W will buy it--early reports are the IQ is stunning, and ISO performance excellent. It's apparently not possible to buy the usual M and convert color to B&W and obtain a similar IQ in mid tones. It's genuinely innovative.

As ragecat notes, Leica has also thrived in the last couple years on its luxury status. Like it or not, and I happen to like it as I want to see them prosper, there are those who can afford the cameras. They largely invented the 35mm category in the late 20s. May they be making superb image-making machines 100 years from now. [No, I no longer own Leicas, but would own several today if money was not an object.]

FinePixCamera

cosinaphile said:
leica exists because a segment of the elite supports its illusion of grandeur
and quality uniqueness..... years ago when the price of the leica was more in line
with other quality cameras , shooters like bresson could choose leica for its technical solurtions and lens quality

now , in the modern economic world leicas elitist prices are a poster child
for what is wrong in the modren world

your milage may vary ......for me corporatism is ......well you know

Well said!

pcg

Frpm a hands-on review of the camera at Luminous Landscape:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/leica_m9_monochrom.shtml

"What is it, and Who is it For?

M Leicas are a niche product. Ignoring collectors for the moment, these cameras are for people who understand and appreciate the gestalt of rangefinder shooting. A digital M Leica is also old school, though having digital and old school in the same sentance may at first seem an oxymoron. Prime lenses, manual aperture ring and shutter speed dial, and little else. Just what you need and little more. But the Leica Monochrom is even older school because it hearkens back to the days of shooting B&W film. Put the two together and you have a niche product within a niche.

Poo Poo

Let's get the poo pooing out of the way first. A lot of people simply are not going to get it. "It" being the need for an expensive digital M Leica that only shoots in B&W. That's OK. This camera then is simply not for you. So lighten up, and recognize that there are people for whom the rangefinder ethos and the monochrome aesthetic is a passion and a calling. There's nothing elitist going on, just a different mindset and sensibility than yours.

Frankly, it's going to be depressing to read some of the online forums over the next few weeks, where self-proclaimed experts are going to question the raison d'etre of the M Monochrom. So be it. But, as we'll soon see, there is something special going on with this new Leica, and so if developments in the state of imaging technology interest you, though an MM may not be in your future, read on..."

mattmaber

Is it not possible to take a regular sensor (which I guess is RGB) and make each RGB sensor just measure tone rather than RGB?
Surely then each camera could be high quality B&W as well as colour.
I understand the niche desire of the Monocrom (I for one would like one) but not why its so expensive (apart from it being Leica, though I think they may betray the days of Bresson and co with their exclusivity removing accessibility to all the great photos out there) and why its so MORE expensive than the M9.

I love the look of Leica's and appreciate the simplicity but I wouldn't want a digital Leica as it stands as they seem to be so technically behind.

I do wonder if Fuji could introduce the rangefinder focusing method into an X camera or if it does require the secondary 'window' for the overlay (even in this digital world) - maybe the overlay could be 'faked' somehow so its the method of you manually focusing whilst not the actual method the camera focuses (if you see what i mean) as after using my little 35mm Yashica its a GREAT way to manually focus, so quick.

FinePixCamera

mattmaber said:
Is it not possible to take a regular sensor (which I guess is RGB) and make each RGB sensor just measure tone rather than RGB?
Surely then each camera could be high quality B&W as well as colour.
I understand the niche desire of the Monocrom (I for one would like one) but not why its so expensive (apart from it being Leica, though I think they may betray the days of Bresson and co with their exclusivity removing accessibility to all the great photos out there) and why its so MORE expensive than the M9.

I love the look of Leica's and appreciate the simplicity but I wouldn't want a digital Leica as it stands as they seem to be so technically behind.

I do wonder if Fuji could introduce the rangefinder focusing method into an X camera or if it does require the secondary 'window' for the overlay (even in this digital world) - maybe the overlay could be 'faked' somehow so its the method of you manually focusing whilst not the actual method the camera focuses (if you see what i mean) as after using my little 35mm Yashica its a GREAT way to manually focus, so quick.

Leica has long past the point of betraying photographers from days past. While Leica was always expensive, you didnt need $10,000 for a body and single lens. A collection of lenses covering the most used focal lengths is well past the obscene level of money. Leica further rubs their extravagance in your face with their utterly phony $50,000 ferret skinned luxury limited edition.

And as you correctly noted, their cameras are spec'ed straight out of 2003!! What. A. Joke.

At least their lenses are top quality stuff. Stupidly priced but good quality.

I shot with film rangefinders and never saw the fascination with it. It's just a focusing method. If Fujifilm could make their X lenses manual focus closer to a Zeiss lens then they would be half way through the battle to shut Leica down. All they need next is a full frame sensor.

As Cosinaphile said earlier, Leica is a poster boy for what is wrong with corporations today.

mattmaber

@mattmaber The hermes one is particularly odd as it has no hotshoe, apparently ".. to further emphasise the unique status of this limited edition" as i said earlier.
Id never criticise someone for spending hard earned money on whatever they want (however expensive) but this just seems odd for what Leica SHOULD represent.
I always thought of Leica as expensive, yes but for quality reasons. Im happy to spend what may be percieved as more that the usual PC gubbins for my Apple Macs as I know I can work well with it and it works the way I work (and I can't stand the Windows UI) tho thats another argument. But Leica should also represent good photographers surely? And not all great photographers have the money to blow on Leica.
Its just at a weird elitist phase where they may run out of decent photogs using Leicas so you only get crap or 'names' that Leica can hand cameras - maybe.

As for the rangefinder focusing system - I have a little Yashica Minister III and having been used to SLRs and DSLRs and a noob to RF focusing, I love it. So easy and quick. place middle over focus point, move patch in place - bang, done. SO MUCH easier.

FinePixCamera

A little more cost for quality, yeah sure, no problems there. I paid 2 big ones for my Mac Book Pro and could have spent much much less for a Pee Cee. To me the cost is worth it. Would I have paid $10,000 for a Mac Book Pro? HELL NO. I wouldnt pay that much even if it was wrapped in aardvark skin or whatever the heck skin is in fashion with high society.

Look at Leica's new 50mm f/2 lens. $8000! 8 grand for a 50mm lens. No. Frigg'en. Way.

I'd give up photography before I start paying that kind of money to keep going. Walking around with an M9 and that lens snapping photos of places I travel would be a profound insult.

mattmaber

true enough lol

ragecat

i totally understand where you guys are coming from but leicas are a luxury product. would you pay $1M for an enzo ferrari that has no stereo or power windows and then use that as your "travel" car?

i mean personally im sure you guys don't hate on ferrari for creating such a product and charging all that money for it.

i see it the same as a leica. i would like to own one one day when its more practical to spend that kind of money but if i never get to own one its completely understandable.

same with swiss luxury watches

leica isn't "what's wrong with corporatism". its a luxury product. if spending that much money on a luxury item isnt for you then thats cool but its different for other people.

don't hate them cause they're beautiful

FinePixCamera

In no way, shape or form would I EVER consider a Leica camera on par with the excellence of a Ferrari.

ragecat

what about a porsche or a bmw or a mercedes benz or any car that costs more than it should?
or any luxury watch that costs more than it should.
a solar powered g-shock is a more technologically advanced piece of time keeping technology than an automatic analog rolex with diamonds on it and a sapphire crystal face.

yet a rolex costs literally 1000x more money.

do you troll around the rolex forums telling them they are out of their minds buying rolexes when they could be rocking a digital watch that has more functionality and costs a thousand times less?

and don't get the wrong idea here i love g-shocks and swiss timepieces the same. but i recognize what one is for and what the other is for and i don't hate a hand-made piece of luxury time keeping beauty solely for the fact that its expensive.

just trying to make a point here.

leicas are leicas they will always be expensive
rolexes are rolexes " " " " "
ferraris are ferraris " " " " "
etc etc

mattmaber

I think maybe the fact that the purpose of a Leica .. a camera .. is to (without hopefully sounding too pompous) make 'art' the fact that the paragon of photography artificially out price them selves from many great photographers just feels in someway wrong to me.
Im not saying Leica should be budget, but when only Seal and arab millionaires can afford them its a bit strange.

FinePixCamera

A Ferrari is expensive

mattmaber said:
I think maybe the fact that the purpose of a Leica .. a camera .. is to (without hopefully sounding too pompous) make 'art' the fact that the paragon of photography artificially out price them selves from many great photographers just feels in someway wrong to me.
Im not saying Leica should be budget, but when only Seal and arab millionaires can afford them its a bit strange.

Plus there is no good material reason a Leica camera should cost $10,000. They are so under spec'ed it is pathetic. Leica lenses are also over priced, but at least they perform at the top the lens game.

A Ferrari, on the other hand, can do things 99% of other cars can not even dream of.

A Canon Rebel can outperform a Leica camera in many, many ways.

If a Leica were 10 to 20 times better than a Rebel, then maybe that cost is justified by extremely high performing parts or incredible engineering. Instead, it appears Leica prices are the result of extremely inefficient hand building of the cameras, including various "Interesting" problems like cracked sensors, wiped out SD cards, etc.

pcg

Ratty, you always have a nasty, and predictably illogical, opinion for any topic that catches your shifty eyes. You've done it again. Your ratty tail is scratching back and forth, spasmodically, and your ratty eyes glittering in that dark cave you favor.

You are the essence of troll. The know it all, know-nothing loud mouth who, without a single qualification, lectures us all.

flysurfer

pcg said:
Ratty, you always have a nasty, and predictably illogical, opinion for any topic that catches your shifty eyes. You've done it again. Your ratty tail is scratching back and forth, spasmodically, and your ratty eyes glittering in that dark cave you favor.

You are the essence of troll. The know it all, know-nothing loud mouth who, without a single qualification, lectures us all.

Why all these unprovoked personal attacks? I can't find a single word about the actual topic in your post. It's all 100% personal. One may not agree with the views posts by FPC, but at least they were very much on topic.

pcg

The "attack" was not. It was a call-out that, once again, this individual, who specializes in projecting a constant aura of mastery, wrote a series of incorrect and ignorant statements, all crafted with his usual tone of immense expertise. He's been banned from other sites (sometimes multiple times because he's adept as changing his ID), for this identical stunt, although his tone in this particular thread is simply obnoxious.

I visualize this miserable human, who here calls himself FinePixCamera, as either a frustrated 15-year, or even more likely, as merely a nonhuman, robotic voice, the result of a small program of code written by someone at MIT who is trying to perfect the voice and characteristics of a web troll.

By the way, "Ratty Mouse" was a moniker he used for himself on other sites, and many of us watch his shifty moves here with some amusement. "Ratty" was in fact a perfect name choice, ironic indeed, and perhaps the one honest thing he has chosen to say to us all.

ragecat

pcg said:
The "attack" was not. It was a call-out that, once again, this individual, who specializes in projecting a constant aura of mastery, wrote a series of incorrect and ignorant statements, all crafted with his usual tone of immense expertise. He's been banned from other sites (sometimes multiple times because he's adept as changing his ID), for this identical stunt, although his tone in this particular thread is simply obnoxious.

I visualize this miserable human, who here calls himself FinePixCamera, as either a frustrated 15-year, or even more likely, as merely a nonhuman, robotic voice, the result of a small program of code written by someone at MIT who is trying to perfect the voice and characteristics of a web troll.

By the way, "Ratty Mouse" was a moniker he used for himself on other sites, and many of us watch his shifty moves here with some amusement. "Ratty" was in fact a perfect name choice, ironic indeed, and perhaps the one honest thing he has chosen to say to us all.

+1

persiyan

FinePixCamera said:

Plus there is no good material reason a Leica camera should cost $10,000. They are so under spec'ed it is pathetic. Leica lenses are also over priced, but at least they perform at the top the lens game.

A Ferrari, on the other hand, can do things 99% of other cars can not even dream of.

A Canon Rebel can outperform a Leica camera in many, many ways.

If a Leica were 10 to 20 times better than a Rebel, then maybe that cost is justified by extremely high performing parts or incredible engineering. Instead, it appears Leica prices are the result of extremely inefficient hand building of the cameras, including various "Interesting" problems like cracked sensors, wiped out SD cards, etc.

Why did you choose the Ferrari example to specifically pick on? What about the Rolex example, do you think a Rolex does anything better than 99% of other watches? But even without succumbing to similes, Leicas are handmade, they are the only digital rangefinders to my knowledge, and they are luxury items made out of high quality materials packaged in a distinctive look. The last point in that sentence would alone be enough to put a higher price tag on the item. Think designer clothes, designer furniture, designer anything. You don't like it? Don't buy it, if no one does eventually they'll have to drop prices. However, people still buy them; you say they are inferior, yet I haven't heard a bad thing about them coming from any one specific owner. Only praises, if not for the image quality, at least for sheer enjoyment of shooting a rangefinder.

I mean an X100 is also an overpriced camera, and I hear this argument from plenty of people who don't own one, or ones who used to own one, yet you bought one? This whole dilema people find themselves in with the desire to profes to everyone how much of a better deal they got for an item and how much of a sucker everyone else is for getting something different is completely pointless, and it's not about letting people know that they could have gotten something better, it's all just to make yourself feel better. Buy what you want, it doesn't matter what it is as long as you like it, that's all that matters.

ragecat

i agree. my x-pro1 was wayyyy overpriced but since it is literally one of a kind, it was worth it in my mind. the x100 is damn overpriced too, and so is the x10, but i love those cameras and i'm thinking of getting the x100 for my sister as a gift even though its way overpriced, primarily because she won't have the same experience shooting with another camera of the same class. i can afford it so its not a big deal to me.

my mom asked for a $1200 louis vuitton bag for mothers day. personally, i would have rather bought an imac for myself, but its a bag she really wanted. is it worth the $1200? in most people's opinions, hell no. but my mom is happy having that bag so that's all that matters. do i consider myself a better son than one who wouldn't ever ever EVER EVER EVER buy a bag that expensive for their mom solely due to the fact that there are way more functional and technologically advanced bags out there for a fraction of the price? no way! but again, it was my choice, she wanted it, i could afford it, so i bought it because i wanted her to have it.

one day, i will buy a leica. i could buy two d3s's for the same price as an m9 and a 50mm summicron but you know what? leicas are handmade, built to last with fine materials, have a distinctive look and i really enjoy the rangefinder style of shooting. so its totally worth it to me. to you? maybe not. but then again a lot of people have different tastes.

FinePixCamera

persiyan said:

Why did you choose the Ferrari example to specifically pick on? What about the Rolex example, do you think a Rolex does anything better than 99% of other watches? But even without succumbing to similes, Leicas are handmade, they are the only digital rangefinders to my knowledge, and they are luxury items made out of high quality materials packaged in a distinctive look. The last point in that sentence would alone be enough to put a higher price tag on the item. Think designer clothes, designer furniture, designer anything. You don't like it? Don't buy it, if no one does eventually they'll have to drop prices. However, people still buy them; you say they are inferior, yet I haven't heard a bad thing about them coming from any one specific owner. Only praises, if not for the image quality, at least for sheer enjoyment of shooting a rangefinder.

I mean an X100 is also an overpriced camera, and I hear this argument from plenty of people who don't own one, or ones who used to own one, yet you bought one? This whole dilema people find themselves in with the desire to profes to everyone how much of a better deal they got for an item and how much of a sucker everyone else is for getting something different is completely pointless, and it's not about letting people know that they could have gotten something better, it's all just to make yourself feel better. Buy what you want, it doesn't matter what it is as long as you like it, that's all that matters.

I choose Ferrari because that is a performance item, not just something that looks pretty. I justify paying high prices for cameras and lenses based on their performance value, not their looks or exclusivity. Others have a different priority and might find it easy to pay $8000 for a camera body because it is so rare. That has nothing to do with photography.

To address a few of your points about Leica cameras (not lenses). No they are not made of high quality parts. 230k LCD screens? That was state of the art 10 years ago. Today it is laughable. Compare the high ISO performance of the sensor to $500 APS-C cameras. The Leica is easily outclassed.

Leicas may be hand made, but so are Fujifilm X100 and X Pro 1's! Each X100 is hand built so clearly that is not a justification of the high price.

I don't see any compelling argument that the X100 is an overpriced camera. Unlike a Leica, the x100 offers substantial performance. A very shootable ISO 6400, an extremely tiny f/2 lens, a viewfinder that Leicaphiles have openly lusted after.

mattmaber

I would say the X100 was initially overpriced but not so much now, the X-Pro1 likewise is currently overpriced but I'm sure will come down.

Im not sure anyone can argue with a straight face that Leica's aren't overpriced. Whether or not someone should have the right to buy said overpriced cameras is another matter, so far as I'm concerned I dont care, if you can afford it so be it.

More importantly I'm my opinion is that whilst Leica should be struggling to be the pinnacle of cameras (and specifically rangefinder) they seem to be doing so only largely by perception at the moment and moreover thrusting themselves forward as the unobtainable pinnacle of cameras. Not really very good long term if you wish to be in business and used by people who actually take decent photos and not celebrity glittery or oil billionaires.

Maybe they CAN continue that though, after all they may wish to become what Vertu is to mobile phones, to cameras - an anachronism.

Never herd of Vertu? here you go, this piece of shit can cost $314,000

FinePixCamera

Wow....what a cell phone. Leica has a ways to go to compete with them for outrageous foolishness.

I agree with you, in that Leica is largely coasting now, not trying to push themselves to make the best camera they can.

The recent "updates" alone show that. The vast majority of comments I have read are not very positive.

Hello Photographer!

Categories