Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/12/21

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Now 5D Mk II - Was Unbelievable
From: imagist3 at (Lottermoser George)
Date: Sun Dec 21 10:55:22 2008
References: <> <BLU121-DS680A361B7374EA7F19661D4F10@phx.gbl> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <p06230901c573b4daa375@[]>


It would appear that you've acquired a 5D Mark II.
I had hoped for a more enthusiastic report.
Can you tell me more re: comparing the image files between 5D and Mk II?
You seem to infer that they're still a bit mushy and/or plasticy  
(pardon my non tech terms).
I'm down to just the 24 to 70 L and 70 to 200 L IS - do you have  
experience with these two lenses on the Mk II?

Fond regards,

On Dec 21, 2008, at 3:29 AM, Henning Wulff wrote:

> Jayanand, I don't think the demand for the M8 is price inelastic  
> (I'm not Frank, nor do I speak for him, but I will jump in). It  
> just provides appropriate value, especially if you've acquired an  
> appreciation for the results of Leica optics. This is a hard sell,  
> but I don't think Leica would sell enough more M8's at 75% (say) of  
> the current selling price to make enough difference for them.  
> Rangefinders are just enough of an oddity right now that I don't  
> think a somewhat lower price would have done much for them.  
> Suggesting a price at 50% or lower of the actual selling price  
> would seem a bit naiive. You can't make up a loss on each item by  
> selling in greater quantities.
> There is no ideal digital camera. There is no ideal film camera.  
> There is only a camera which is a bit better for taking the  
> pictures that you want/can/aspire to take.
> The M8 is such a camera for a lot of the things I want to shoot for  
> myself. It does not do much for my professional photography, but I  
> enjoy both the shooting and the results from the M8 more than those  
> I get from the 5D and now the 5D MkII. The choices Leica has made  
> with the camera body and the quality of the Leica lenses make the  
> files sing. The Canon has problems.
> I still shoot 4x5 and panoramic formats on film and get them  
> scanned; I still shoot B&W 35mm on M6, M7, MDa, etc but the  
> majority of my discretionary shooting is with the M8. I have the  
> best that Canon has to offer in lenses, and I'll get the 21 Zeiss  
> when it becomes available, but the Canons have a tough row to hoe  
> to compete with the M8.
> The 5D MkII FF raw files are up to 40Mb in size, yet they can't  
> beat the content of the Leica 1.3x crop 10.1Mb files. It's like  
> scanning 800 ISO 35mm film at 5400dpi and getting a 250Mb 16 bit  
> file and finding out it doesn't have as much info as a 6 megapixel  
> DSLR raw file.
> Size only matters if it actually contains something significant. If  
> the Canon had WA lenses that were good, and if it didn't soften the  
> images at the sensor or software too much, then it would outdo the  
> Leica. As it is, the 5D MkII has excellent low light performance  
> (pretty much equivalent to the D700 or D3 if the file is reduced to  
> 12Mpixels), lots of features, a great movie mode etc, but few  
> lenses to truly exploit the 21Mp sensor. Under most conditions, it  
> can't outperform the M8 because the M8 has no smearing in the  
> sensor/basic processing and it has outstanding lenses. Yes, the 5D  
> has great 6400 ISO performance, but it does not have great ISO 400  
> performance compared with the M8. More of my pictures require ISO  
> 400 than 6400, and it's likely to remain that way. So the M8 works,  
> and the 5DMkII lags. It appears likely to remain that way for a  
> while, so the M8 comes out on top and the price one has to pay, all  
> things considered, seems reasonable. I'd like it to be lower, but I  
> realize that I have to subsidize the R&D as well as the production  
> costs. I don't think it's an unfair 'ripoff' price. It's also  
> enough better than the only remote alternative, the RD-1, to  
> justify the price.
>> Frank,
>> Are you saying the demand for the M8 is price inelastic? My view  
>> is that it
>> may well be today, in the present economic climate, but at  
>> introduction,
>> when the Leica cachet would have sold easily, a lower price would  
>> have
>> translated into a larger installed base by now. I really hope that  
>> the S2
>> system does well, considering the recession in the midst of which  
>> it will be
>> born...
>> Cheers
>> Jayanand
>> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Frank Dernie
>> <>wrote:
>>>  My opinion is that the market is so small for a digi-rangefinder  
>>> that none
>>>  will ever fly off the shelves. If the sales had been good enough  
>>> to pay for
>>>  the development of the camera and a bit of profit the service  
>>> would have
>>>  been good and there would have been RD2 and RD3 by now. Cosina/ 
>>> Voigtlander
>>>  would have continued if Epson did not.
>>>  IMO the opinion that the M8 is overpriced profiteering is  
>>> mistaken. At the
>>>  market size for such a product the volume they produce will  
>>> always be tiny
>>>  and the tooling and R&D costs have to be amortised over a few  
>>> units. It
>>>  could well be a loss leader to sell more lenses :-)
>>>  Frank
>>>  On 20 Dec, 2008, at 23:32, Richard Man wrote:
>>>   The alignment problem is exaggerated. It was very easy to fix  
>>> by oneself.
>>>>  If
>>>>  they price is at $1500 to $2000, it may have flown off the  
>>>> shelves.
>>>>  On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Harrison McClary  
>>>> <>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>   If it had not had all the problems I read about then I'd have  
>>>> gotten one.
>>>>>  But the stories about poor rangefinder alignment, and things  
>>>>> like that
>>>>>  kept
>>>>>  me away...also it was not exactly in the category I was taking  
>>>>> about, if
>>>>>  I
>>>>>  remember it was around 3 grand new.  They are still 1500 used  
>>>>> or so...I'd
>>>>>  rather save a few more pennies and get a used M8 with all I  
>>>>> have hear
>>>>>  about
>>>>>  the RD1.  Now had the RD1 been a decent camera with good customer
>>>>>  support...that'd have made a difference to me.
>>>>  --
>>>>  // richard m: richard
>>>>  // b:
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>  Leica Users Group.
>>>>  See for more  
>>>> information
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>  Leica Users Group.
>>>  See for more  
>>> information
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See for more information
> -- 
>    *            Henning J. Wulff
>   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
>  /###\
>  |[ ]|
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See for more information

Replies: Reply from henningw at (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Now 5D Mk II - Was Unbelievable)
In reply to: Message from leicar at (Aram Langhans) ([Leica] Re: Unbelievable)
Message from lists at (Harrison McClary) ([Leica] Re: Unbelievable)
Message from jayanand at (Jayanand Govindaraj) ([Leica] Re: Unbelievable)
Message from lists at (Harrison McClary) ([Leica] Re: Unbelievable)
Message from imagist3 at (Lottermoser George) ([Leica] Re: Unbelievable)
Message from lists at (Harrison McClary) ([Leica] Re: Unbelievable)
Message from richard.lists at (Richard Man) ([Leica] Re: Unbelievable)
Message from Frank.Dernie at (Frank Dernie) ([Leica] Re: Unbelievable)
Message from jayanand at (Jayanand Govindaraj) ([Leica] Re: Unbelievable)
Message from henningw at (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Re: Unbelievable)