Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/10/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>> ... by the always entertaining but controversial Ken Rockwell! Wait, I >> meant Erwin Puts. >> >> Anyway, in Part V (count them, FIVE) of his M9 reviews, something >> about dynamic range, something something that D3x > M8.2 > M9. Yes, >> M8.2 is better than the M9 when it comes to dynamic range. >> The D3x thing for me is frustrating. I'm not sure how long its going to be if ever that I come face to face with a Nikon D3x a camera on the street it will will appeal to commercial photographers and not at all to photo journalists. The Leica M9 should NOT appeal to commercial photographers and SHOULD appeal greatly to photo journalists. Despite its unnecessary MP's switching those proclivities making for smaller pixel grabbers making for high noise at higher ISO's making for less of a generalized PJ cameras. As I've said they need to come out with a Leica M9-P for people and PJ's who just want to take pictures and not have Mega Pixel Envy. Which is much more a commercial photographer kind of thing and not most everybody else. Even "serious" shooters of the amateur sort. A comparison to the existing M9 though a semi "super camera" is much more meaningful to compare with the Nikon D3 NOT X which many people are using and cost 5 grand not 7. As a PJ could be making that choice. Some would use it if it cost 7 grand not 5. With the X being the cheap one. But then you are making comparisons to ISO's the Leica does not even have. Hence the need for the Leica M9-P. They'll have us next out buying tripods. Mark William Rabiner