Leica M-Monochrom

[fahim mohammed]

Announced May, 2012.

There has been a lot of discussion on the various fora about this camera. The good and the bad.
But I have seen no mention or discussion of this product on OPF.

I have seen the results from this lovely camera and played with the files that some folk have very kindly provided on other forums. Beautiful results.

I wish Leica success with this camera product. On a personal level, I shall wait and see what Photokina has to offer in September. Maybe the Leica M10. Maybe with a cmos sensor and live view. And maybe a much higher price tag!!

In my opinion, and for me, Leica camera products ( M specifically ) have never been a ' value ' proposition. For a much less financial outlay, one could find technically much more advanced products than this or other Leica M offerings.

However, for me, the sheer simplicity, the package size, and aesthetics of raising a Leica M camera to take a photograph is a pleasure. I have not found this in any other cameras that I have used. And the Leica M lenses..in a class of their own. For me the process is as important as the end result.

And yes, I am biased towards Leica M products ( and even more ill prepared for the financial outlay required! ). Be they the M cameras or the M mount lenses.

So what do the esteemed OPF members feel about The Leica M Monochrom, or the Leica M9 ( M9-P).

 

[George Holroyd]

I owned an M6 TTL with a Voigtländer 50mm lens and found it to be the most fun of any camera I've ever carried. My favorite photos of my wife were taken with that camera and lens, wide open in low interior light with nothing more than 400 speed film. Leica are expensive, though, especially among used film bodies, let alone their lenses. But, if I were still shooting film, I'd use an M.

As for (any of) the digital M series, there Leica has lost me. As you stated, one can buy superior electronics and sensor for a fraction of the cost of a digital M. However, it goes a little deeper than that, for me at least. Leica seem to have stubbornly refused to make the simplest of updates, such as the rear-LCD resolution on the M. There really is no excuse for that, in my opinion. And the Monochrom-M is no exception, having the same 230k screen as the M9/P. Likewise, and much more importantly, they have yet to abandon the use of CCD. I know that it is widely speculated that the M10 will have a CMOS sensor but that remains to be seen.

Whatever Leica was, they are no longer.

 

[John Wolf]

I've owned both digital Ms -- 8 and 9 -- and enjoyed them despite their trade-offs. In what is already a niche product line, the Monochrom seems ultra-niche.

I shoot B&W exclusively and would love to have one, but probably not as a main or only camera. Maybe using one would convince me otherwise. But the ability to alter gray tones using color channels is one of the true revolutions of digital B&W photography. Losing that capability and returning to physical filters is not a step I would relish, even despite the Monochrom's remarkable rendering and higher ISO capability.

All that said, who wouldn't want one?!

John

 

[Asher Kelman]

Today, Fahim, there are interesting options. The small GXR fitted with an M mount provides arguably amongst the best menu on any camera and can take any M, (or screw mount, Eos, Nikon, Pentax) lens with an adapter and then one has live view and modern edge detection technique for Manual focus.

The advantage of using color sensors is the capability of choosing to assign any color to different tonalities. That way clothes with the same reflectivity can be distinguished by tone. That allows use of the full range of the gray scale creatively.

Still, if I owned a Leica M anything, I'd choose it too. It's a "real camera". Still, would folk, given the cash in hand, choose the Leica M-"anything" instead of one of the many choices today to mount the finest Leica lenses themselves?

Asher

 

[fahim mohammed]

George, thanks for your comments. I, too , agree with most of what you have written. However, therein lies the allure of Leica for me. The screen. I really use it minimally, to perform some admin tasks or set some parameters. Occasionally to check the histogram. For that, and for me, a high resolution screen is not needed. I did not have one with a film M. I really do not need it now except for some very basic functions.

Leica was on the verge of failure; or so people thought. They introduced the M9. Their financials have never been stronger. It is reported Leica shall even distribute dividends!!

As to the ccd sensor, I believe ( correct me if I am wrong please ) the majority of digital medium format cams today use a ccd based sensor. Yes, if high iso is needed the current Ms have an issue. I shoot 1250 on my 6 year old M8 and I am happy. But a less noise higher iso offering would certainly be welcome.

For me, it remains the cam of choice for the kind of photography I do. I curse it often, but love it too!


Kindest regards.

 

[fahim mohammed]

Hi John.

Right on John. Niche and ultra-niche. Leica's marketing strategy is geared towards that.!! Their markets
are where luxury brands are growing. In the Far East, their exclusive outlets are next to LV, CD, Channel,
etc.

I am with you that I would love to have one. Warts and all.

Kindest regards.

I've owned both digital Ms -- 8 and 9 -- and enjoyed them despite their trade-offs. In what is already a niche product line, the Monochrom seems ultra-niche.

I shoot B&W exclusively and would love to have one, but probably not as a main or only camera. Maybe using one would convince me otherwise. But the ability to alter gray tones using color channels is one of the true revolutions of digital B&W photography. Losing that capability and returning to physical filters is not a step I would relish, even despite the Monochrom's remarkable rendering and higher ISO capability.

All that said, who wouldn't want one?!

John

 

[fahim mohammed]

Asher, Yes there are options. But they are options.

A Leica M ( digital or film ) has in-built intangibles that I cannot define. Having been a banker, I would find it very difficult to argue in favor of a Leica digital M in terms of pure technical specifications and financials.

But, for me, photography is more the just technical details. Sure they are very very important. I would be
a fool to deny the available options to a Leica M. I have a few of those too.

But who ever said that a Leica purchase has only to do with rationality. Each one of us bonds with a camera. It is a personal bonding. For me, it has to do with size, simplicity, the pure pleasure of operating
a precision instrument as I focus. Just the three basic controls in photography..A, S and the ISO. Of course, one uses .dng. All these come together seamlessly for me in a Leica M.

And, yes..I would be lying to myself if I did not admit that it is also about possessing an extremely beautifully crafted tool. Additionally, I am also seduced by the marketing aura of a legend. But it is not just a pretty face either.

And just why is it that there seems to be a proliferation of M lens adapters to fit many different manufacturers cameras? The M lens. Using an M lens on anything else than a Leica M, seems a little strange to me. Besides, this has caused an escalation in prices of M lenses to new highs!!

Best wishes.

Today, Fahim, there are interesting options. The small GXR fitted with an M mount provides arguably amongst the best menu on any camera and can take any M, (or screw mount, Eos, Nikon, Pentax) lens with an adapter and then one has live view and modern edge detection technique for Manual focus.

The advantage of using color sensors is the capability of choosing to assign any color to different tonalities. That way clothes with the same reflectivity can be distinguished by tone. That allows use of the full range of the gray scale creatively.

Still, if I owned a Leica M anything, I'd choose it too. It's a "real camera". Still, would folk, given the cash in hand, choose the Leica M-"anything" instead of one of the many choices today to mount the finest Leica lenses themselves?

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

.........

And, yes..I would be lying to myself if I did not admit that it is also about possessing an extremely beautifully crafted tool. Additionally, I am also seduced by the marketing aura of a legend. But it is not just a pretty face either.

Fahim,

Let me add that the Leica family was one of the highest moral characters in world War II. During the murderous reign of the Nazis he helped many escape by creating a huge number of "sales reps" that needed to go abroad. This they were modest about. So Leica was a man of great moral as well as engineering distinction.

Asher

 

[George Holroyd]

If the upcoming M10 is comparably priced to the Nikon D800E, I will probably go for the M. However, I'm unable to imagine a world where Leica wouldn't overcharge to the extent possible (and beyond) for the camera. As for lenses, MTF charts don't mean much to me, I'm much more interested in content than technical perfection. Besides, if I sprang for a new M body, I couldn't afford to put new Leica glass on it. The experience of using an M body is what I miss about the M6. Unfortunately, I just can't wrap my head around the idea of paying such a high premium to replicate that experience in digital form. Not when Leica expect me to ignore the ever-widening technology gap between the M and virtually every other camera on the market.

 

[Michael Nagel]

At the time when I was really interested in the Leica M series, I could not afford one. Now I am looking at the development and must see that the niche is too small for my photographic interest and the buzz around the brand has become too large for my taste.

There is one thought that popped up immediately when I read about this model:
If you want to generate the impression of using a red filter, you will have to use a red filter when shooting. There is no way to do this in post-processing.

Some might like this demand for rigor during shooting, but I do not like this data reduction. I am not very fond of post-processing, but b/w conversion is something I prefer to do that way having all information present. This is just my personal view.

Best regards,
Michael

 

[fahim mohammed]

Hello George.

Leica management have clearly stated that they shall not compete on price with the mass market cam makers. Unfortunate for someone like me, who really enjoys using their M system.

I would not hold my breath that a M10 ( or whatever it is named ) shall even be close in price to the
Nikon D800E.

The new Summicron 50mm APO...over US$ 7000.00; But I suspect that that too shall be in short supply. There is no shortage of buyers for Leica M equipment..even at seemingly ridiculous price points.

MTFs do not tell the story. The image taken with a lens does. And the M lenses, shine in this respect.

The M body..in a package that has undergone very few changes for such a long time defies logic. And that is why I believe Leica would be very reluctant to change it. And that might be one of the reasons it commands such a high price. The form, the fit, the placement of the essential controls...

Come September I shall know whether it was sensible of me to go on a Ramen diet!!

Best wishes.

If the upcoming M10 is comparably priced to the Nikon D800E, I will probably go for the M. However, I'm unable to imagine a world where Leica wouldn't overcharge to the extent possible (and beyond) for the camera. As for lenses, MTF charts don't mean much to me, I'm much more interested in content than technical perfection. Besides, if I sprang for a new M body, I couldn't afford to put new Leica glass on it. The experience of using an M body is what I miss about the M6. Unfortunately, I just can't wrap my head around the idea of paying such a high premium to replicate that experience in digital form. Not when Leica expect me to ignore the ever-widening technology gap between the M and virtually every other camera on the market.

 

[fahim mohammed]

Hi Michael.

You have put forward a very valid and rational view point. Many, me including, agree with you the shortcomings of the digital M system.

But then again, there is more to the desire to own a Leica M system than a simple logical rationalization of the pros and cons of it. My Nikon D700 leaves my M8 in the dust for sports, macro, tele, af, low light,
continuous mode. Not to mention the splendid Nikon flash system. Weather proofing is a joke on the M.

The Nikon also gives me a backache when carried for even a few hours.!!

Each camera system, in my opinion, has its pros and cons. And each one of us has to assess their individual situation and purchase what would suit each one of us better.

For me, that have traveled abroad a lot, a M with 2 lenses suffice. I am sure a rugged P&S would too.
But I would miss the pleasure that I derive when I use a M. I believe many others believe that too.

Good luck and best wishes.

At the time when I was really interested in the Leica M series, I could not afford one. Now I am looking at the development and must see that the niche is too small for my photographic interest and the buzz around the brand has become too large for my taste.

There is one thought that popped up immediately when I read about this model:
If you want to generate the impression of using a red filter, you will have to use a red filter when shooting. There is no way to do this in post-processing.

Some might like this demand for rigor during shooting, but I do not like this data reduction. I am not very fond of post-processing, but b/w conversion is something I prefer to do that way having all information present. This is just my personal view.

Best regards,
Michael

 

[George Holroyd]

I'm afraid you're right. My next upgrade will most likely end up being the D800E as a result. I am considering a manual focus 50mm lens to go with it, though. I'll still miss the simplicity of the M series.

 

[jake klein]

I would love to have a full line of Leica lens because of the quality control in manufacturing.


But paying exuberant prices for equal or worse technologies baffles me.

I get the whole "feeling" thing when it comes to their camera bodies. But for the price being paid, the sensor and electronics inside the body should equal or exceed the other 35mm digital bodies available.

 

[Jerome Marot]

Complaining that Leica did not make the M series more "modern" is a bit paradoxical: the M series main attraction is that it has gone unchanged for so long. One should not forget that its primary market are the collectors. Besides, Leica does have a modern camera in their line: the S2. It is actually extraordinary that such a small company as Leica managed to develop a new camera system from scratch and faced at the time with the decision to either kludge the M system or revive the R system, developing the totally new S system was a far better choice.

As to the monochrome M9: quite frankly, for the price I think it makes much more sense to get a M6 or Zeiss Ikon and few rolls of B&W film. And if all you need is a 28 or 35mm lens, you can get one of these second hand:

 

[jake klein]

Complaining that Leica did not make the M series more "modern" is a bit paradoxical: the M series main attraction is that it has gone unchanged for so long. One should not forget that its primary market are the collectors. Besides, Leica does have a modern camera in their line: the S2. It is actually extraordinary that such a small company as Leica managed to develop a new camera system from scratch and faced at the time with the decision to either kludge the M system or revive the R system, developing the totally new S system was a far better choice.

As to the monochrome M9: quite frankly, for the price I think it makes much more sense to get a M6 or Zeiss Ikon and few rolls of B&W film. And if all you need is a 28 or 35mm lens, you can get one of these second hand:

I would like to have a M9 or M9 moncochrome just as is, except with D4/1DX ISO capabilities for what they cost. Everything else can stay as it is!

On a side note, seriously though, when is a company going to bring a 35mm digital sensor in a M9/nikon Fm style at a reasonable price point for hobbyists.

My only needs:
35mm or larger sensor
bulb -1/8000 shutter speed
center point metering
Hot shoe
100% viewfinder coverage.
D4/1DX Iso capabilities

Af would be a plus but not necessary.


Actually I wouldn't worry to much about the ISO capabilities either, I would just need the first 5 items to keep the cost down.

 

[Jerome Marot]

On a side note, seriously though, when is a company going to bring a 35mm digital sensor in a M9/nikon Fm style at a reasonable price point for hobbyists.

Cosina might do it (they build the Zeiss Ikon and Voigtländer), but they would probably start with an APS-C model. Unfortunately, an "amateur" full frame model from any manufacturer will be:
-expensive, because the industry still cannot do the sensor in one pass so they cost a lot
-expensive, because it will be a relatively small series
-expensive, because the main attraction for the prospective users is to use old lenses, so that the manufacturer cannot recoup much of their investment on lenses
-not very good with rangefinder wide-angle lenses, because one needs special adaptation of the sensor to get good corner illumination.

Once you realize the industrial constraints, you also realize that the M9 is not such a bad proposal after all.

 

[fahim mohammed]

Hi Jake.

Jake, I bought a 35/1.4 asph new from Leica. The lens hood getting stuck was a very minor issue.
Most of 35/1.4 asph, as I learnt later and admitted by Leica, suffer from extreme misfocus issues.
Leica Solms, to their credit, agreed to test, replace, pay for DHL hand courier postage both ways
for my Ms and this lens.

But it was a painful exercise, not the least because of the price!!
But at f1.4...the aperture an M lens needs to be used to appreciate the price...it was and is glorious. On film it is a gem.

It is the same with many items nowadays. Take watches for example. The luxury brands, mechanical, mostly unchanged for ages. Some even boast that they are heirlooms!! A simple digital watch would beat them on all technical fronts.

But, as in the case of Leica, the costs of production are very high. Exclude the rebadged Panasonic. The glass in the lens has to be sourced from scarce suppliers. Their db of lens designs
spans almost a century.

And above all, if one needs a digital full frame ( 35mm ) rangefinder, they are the only game in town.

The prices reflect that.

Best regards.

I would love to have a full line of Leica lens because of the quality control in manufacturing.


But paying exuberant prices for equal or worse technologies baffles me.

I get the whole "feeling" thing when it comes to their camera bodies. But for the price being paid, the sensor and electronics inside the body should equal or exceed the other 35mm digital bodies available.

I would like to have a M9 or M9 moncochrome just as is, except with D4/1DX ISO capabilities for what they cost. Everything else can stay as it is!

On a side note, seriously though, when is a company going to bring a 35mm digital sensor in a M9/nikon Fm style at a reasonable price point for hobbyists.

My only needs:
35mm or larger sensor
bulb -1/8000 shutter speed
center point metering
Hot shoe
100% viewfinder coverage.
D4/1DX Iso capabilities

Af would be a plus but not necessary.


Actually I wouldn't worry to much about the ISO capabilities either, I would just need the first 5 items to keep the cost down.

 

[fahim mohammed]

....
Once you realize the industrial constraints, you also realize that the M9 is not such a bad proposal after all.

Hi Jerome.

Very well said.

And I agree that a 35mm full frame rangefinder will never be cheap. Zeiss have admitted that they would be unable to produce a rangefinder digital 35mm cam at a less expensive price point than Leica. Zeiss, of course, get many of their lenses manufactured by Cosina.

I have film Ms. But it is becoming a hassle to find, carry, process film in most places. But wherever
I can purchase and process film ' cheaply ' I take my film cams along.

It is important that Leica never have mentioned that thier M-Monchrom is a replacement for nor a
tool to give a film look. It is a different medium. A different ball game.

Kindest regards.

 

[jake klein]

Cosina might do it (they build the Zeiss Ikon and Voigtländer), but they would probably start with an APS-C model. Unfortunately, an "amateur" full frame model from any manufacturer will be:
-expensive, because the industry still cannot do the sensor in one pass so they cost a lot
-expensive, because it will be a relatively small series
-expensive, because the main attraction for the prospective users is to use old lenses, so that the manufacturer cannot recoup much of their investment on lenses
-not very good with rangefinder wide-angle lenses, because one needs special adaptation of the sensor to get good corner illumination.

Once you realize the industrial constraints, you also realize that the M9 is not such a bad proposal after all.

I understand those constraints, just waiting for the technology to advance to diminish the high costs.

Which will be inevitable. What might Leica do then?


I'm just saying there aught to be a way to produce a small, basic 35mm digital body(rangefinder or not) at a price point an enthusiast will jump on. The sub 3k range.

The cost of the D800 can't be all sensor right? There is a lot of other advanced technology in that body. Why can't any manufacturer create a bare bones 35mm small bodied(M9/nikon FM size) with basic features?


I think it may simply be because they will lose far too many sales in other areas they are trying to profit in, mainly DSLR bodies.

 

[George Holroyd]

I understand those constraints, just waiting for the technology to advance to diminish the high costs.

Which will be inevitable. What might Leica do then?


I'm just saying there aught to be a way to produce a small, basic 35mm digital body(rangefinder or not) at a price point an enthusiast will jump on. The sub 3k range.

The cost of the D800 can't be all sensor right? There is a lot of other advanced technology in that body. Why can't any manufacturer create a bare bones 35mm small bodied(M9/nikon FM size) with basic features?


I think it may simply be because they will lose far too many sales in other areas they are trying to profit in, mainly DSLR bodies.

I'd look to Fuji to make that camera, based on the relative success of the X100. With the recent introduction of the X1-Pro, they seem committed to exploiting the gap between the full-size DSLR and the shrinking point and shoot market.

 

[Jerome Marot]

I understand those constraints, just waiting for the technology to advance to diminish the high costs.

Which will be inevitable.

Which may well never happen. It is not a technological problem, it is a problem of return on investment. The cost of designing and building steppers able to manufacture full frame sized chips in one pass is immense and the photographic market is not big enough to sustain it. Hence, the sensors stay expensive.

The cost of the D800 can't be all sensor right? There is a lot of other advanced technology in that body. Why can't any manufacturer create a bare bones 35mm small bodied(M9/nikon FM size) with basic features?/QUOTE]

When you design a camera like the D800 or the M9, there are very high designing costs involved, just to make sure it works. It is not the simple matter of dumping a sensor in an existing film body. If these costs are spread on the number of D800 sold, the cost per unit is bearable. If you need to spread these costs on a niche product, the added cost per unit gets uncomfortably high. It is not a technological problem, just an economical one.

Besides, the manufacturers gets much better return on investment on cameras like the NEX-7 (relatively cheap to manufacture, but sells for a good sum of money) or the Fuji X1 (maybe a bit more expensive to manufacture, but Fuji expects good profit on the lenses). Building a niche camera so that customers can save money by using old lenses is not an attractive proposal.

 

[jake klein]

Which may well never happen. It is not a technological problem, it is a problem of return on investment. The cost of designing and building steppers able to manufacture full frame sized chips in one pass is immense and the photographic market is not big enough to sustain it. Hence, the sensors stay expensive.

The cost of the D800 can't be all sensor right? There is a lot of other advanced technology in that body. Why can't any manufacturer create a bare bones 35mm small bodied(M9/nikon FM size) with basic features?/QUOTE]

When you design a camera like the D800 or the M9, there are very high designing costs involved, just to make sure it works. It is not the simple matter of dumping a sensor in an existing film body. If these costs are spread on the number of D800 sold, the cost per unit is bearable. If you need to spread these costs on a niche product, the added cost per unit gets uncomfortably high. It is not a technological problem, just an economical one.

Besides, the manufacturers gets much better return on investment on cameras like the NEX-7 (relatively cheap to manufacture, but sells for a good sum of money) or the Fuji X1 (maybe a bit more expensive to manufacture, but Fuji expects good profit on the lenses). Building a niche camera so that customers can save money by using old lenses is not an attractive proposal.

Yeah which is sad :-(

I guess I'll just have to pick up a cheap nikon film body and learn to develop myself!

 

[Asher Kelman]

Today, there are a number of good alternate camera body options for the superb Leica lenses. It's hard for me to imagine that a pure monochrome, (even a Leica), camera, (without RGB filters built in), can provide control over tonality representation, to the standards of a color sensor.

To make the best B&W pictures of colored scenes one needs to reassign colors to tones differently for each image. If Leica has solved that challenge, then I'd be interested.

Asher

 

[fahim mohammed]

Have a read through some of the rangefinder/film forums ( Leica forum, RFF, APUG etc. ) . I think you might be plesantly surprised at what is avaiable out there in film..without filing for chapter 11.

Developing a roll of B&W 35mm film requires the minimum outlay. Just type 50mm and Tri-X on Flickr and see what is being done!!

Good luck.

Which may well never happen. It is not a technological problem, it is a problem of return on investment. The cost of designing and building steppers able to manufacture full frame sized chips in one pass is immense and the photographic market is not big enough to sustain it. Hence, the sensors stay expensive.






Yeah which is sad :-(

I guess I'll just have to pick up a cheap nikon film body and learn to develop myself!

 

[fahim mohammed]

Asher, you might be very correct. I am not knowlegable enough in these technical matters to comment usefully. However, down at the Leica Forum, I waded through pages and pages of information addressing this same issue.

I am happy to report, I forgot everything by the last post!!

I just looked at the results and comments by some people whose work and opinions I respect.

Regards.

Today, there are a number of good alternate camera body options for the superb Leica lenses. It's hard for me to imagine that a pure monochrome, (even a Leica), camera, (without RGB filters built in), can provide control over tonality representation, to the standards of a color sensor.

To make the best B&W pictures of colored scenes one needs to reassign colors to tones differently for each image. If Leica has solved that challenge, then I'd be interested.

Asher

 

[George Holroyd]

It'd be interesting to see the sales numbers for the Monochrom-M versus the M9P. It would likewise be interesting to have statistics on how many established photographers come to use it for their work. Not counting the ones Leica loan out to the Magnum folks and select bloggers, of course.

Just as an aside, anyone else notice that Leica reviews are almost exclusively conducted in a vacuum? Comparing the M9 to the M8, and now the Monochrom-M to the M9/P rather than comparing the camera to similarly priced options from other manufacturers?

 

[fahim mohammed]

George, there is really no other camera to compare a Leica M9 ( M9-P ) with. Other than a M-Monochrom; but there too the only thing in common is the that they are both rangefinders!!

The M8 could have been compared to the Epson RD.

If one wants a 35mm full frame digital rangefinder; currently Leica is the only game in town. And Leica correctly state that an M9 is like no other!!

And the price reflects that fact or hype; depending on ones pov.

Regards.

It'd be interesting to see the sales numbers for the Monochrom-M versus the M9P. It would likewise be interesting to have statistics on how many established photographers come to use it for their work. Not counting the ones Leica loan out to the Magnum folks and select bloggers, of course.

Just as an aside, anyone else notice that Leica reviews are almost exclusively conducted in a vacuum? Comparing the M9 to the M8, and now the Monochrom-M to the M9/P rather than comparing the camera to similarly priced options from other manufacturers?

 

[George Holroyd]

George, there is really no other camera to compare a Leica M9 ( M9-P ) with. Other than a M-Monochrom; but there too the only thing in common is the that they are both rangefinders!!

The M8 could have been compared to the Epson RD.

If one wants a 35mm full frame digital rangefinder; currently Leica is the only game in town. And Leica correctly state that an M9 is like no other!!

And the price reflects that fact or hype; depending on ones pov.

Regards.

You're right, in that Leica currently is the only player manufacturing a digital rangefinder, but that isn't really an acceptable excuse for not comparing it to other similarly priced cameras. A rangefinder camera is still just a device used to record images, right? Unless the goal is simply to get to use a rangefinder as opposed to creating a photograph.

Elevating the importance of the rangefinder mechanism above image quality seems like nothing more than fetishism to me. Likewise, the thought of slapping a 7,000.00 50mm lens in front of an outdated sensor, color-filter array or no, defies logic. So, the question becomes, how much flexibility in terms of being able to produce an acceptable image in less than ideal conditions and how much of a premium (despite IQ issues and severe technology lag) are you willing to pay for a camera equipped with a rangefinder mechanism?

Leicaphiles are a very resilient bunch, to be sure.

 

[jake klein]

George, there is really no other camera to compare a Leica M9 ( M9-P ) with. Other than a M-Monochrom; but there too the only thing in common is the that they are both rangefinders!!

The M8 could have been compared to the Epson RD.

If one wants a 35mm full frame digital rangefinder; currently Leica is the only game in town. And Leica correctly state that an M9 is like no other!!

And the price reflects that fact or hype; depending on ones pov.

Regards.

Yes they are the only players in town. It is like no other.

I can dream though and I really would prefer a non-rangefinder 35mm sensor in a small body anyways!