[Leica] M9 thoughts!

[michael at rosenblumtv.com (Michael Rosenblum)]

At 18 mps does the M9 now obviate 6x6 or large format in general.
Is there any purpose to 'large format' any longer? Is there a  
difference?

On Sep 11, 2009, at 7:40 AM, Mark Rabiner wrote:

> If it is true that the M9 does not give several f stops above ISO  
> 1600 use
> like a  Canon 5D or a Nikon D3 does its because the M9 is part SUPER  
> CAMERA.
> Its 18 mps makes it closer to a 24.5mp D3x.
> Than a normal D3 has which 12.1 megapixels. So its pixel sites are  
> much
> bigger. Less noise all measly 12.1 MP's  of them.
> The super camera D3x goes for $7,999.95 mega dollars.
> $999.95 more than an M9.
> It has smaller pixel sites so not such great super high iso  
> performance.
> No one cares. They're covering a side wall of Grand Central Station  
> with a
> print from one anyway.
>
> But Leica would get you back I think with the cost of the glass.
> 6 grand USD for a 21mm or 24mm f1.4 or Super Wide Angle/Wide Angle
> Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm with finder!
> Canon and Nikon does not compete with that premium nitch of lens  
> making.
> They're like to settle for glass a less exotic end for their big fat  
> dumb
> zooms; soon to be pass?.
> Nikon and Canon likes to harvest their glass in this local solar  
> system.
> TEN grand USD for a Noctilux with no f5.6 shifting.
> FOUR grand + each for a half dozen other Leica lenses.
> You'd save money in the end dishing out the extra grand for the  
> Japanese
> super camrea.
>
> I'm glad I've already got my Leica glass in the 90's when life was   
> simple
> and grain was yellow.  And a dollar didn't cost 5 bucks.
>
> Putting this glass in front of a Leica M9 I'm going to get results  
> which
> outclass the huge super cameras.
> Even if my wides are 2.8's instead of 1.4's.
>
>
> Mark William Rabiner
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>