Leica M9 Full frame

Rangefinders dont have a mirror like SLRs, so the distance from the lens to film/sensor is shorter, in turn, light disperses at a wider angle, causing vignetting on digital sensors.

This is particularly a problem for digital sensors because of the nature it receives angled light. (SLR full frame sensors are more prone to vignetting for the same reason)

Notice with the new sensors, microlenses towards the edge of the sensor tilt the beam of light so it can be better received upon the sensor.

If you think about it, this is quite revolutionary and opens the way for other camera producers to introduce compact full frame cameras. Awsome! :)
 
Last edited:
koffiejunkie said:
I just don't know much about Leica's models and I don't tend to pay too much attention, because they're just unrealistically expensive.
Click to expand...

Yes they are astonishingly pricey. US$20000 will be get you the camera and say 2 premium lenses at best.

The reason being, is it's pedigree of fine quality and reputation.
More iconic images have been captured with a leica M in history than any other camera. So for some, in particular, photojournalists and street photographers who are in pursuit of a priceless image, they are prepared to pay the price.

Personally though, I would still prefer a new M7, if I could afford one. Because film is really where it's heart is.

EDIT: I forgot to add that avid wealthy collectors are another reason why Leica can claim top dollar.
 
Last edited:
Moklet Kcuf said:
Yes they are astonishingly pricey. US$20000 will be get you the camera and say 2 premium lenses at best.

The reason being, is it's pedigree of fine quality and reputation.
More iconic images have been captured with a leica M in history than any other camera. So for some, in particular, photojournalists and street photographers who are in pursuit of a priceless image, they are prepared to pay the price.

Personally though, I would still prefer a new M7, if I could afford one. Because film is really where it's heart is.

EDIT: I forgot to add that avid wealthy collectors are another reason why Leica can claim top dollar.
Click to expand...
Where did that stat come from?
 
bwana said:
Where did that stat come from?
Click to expand...
With a little frustration I have not been able to trace an article I had read last year, detailing the influence of Leica Rangefinders, so let me safely rephrase-
Arguably, more iconic images have been captured with a Leica rangefinder in history than any other camera.

I admit, one can't dismiss famous photographers who used Rollieflex, Hasselblad or Contax/Ziess. And the later contenders like Nikon, Canon, Minox , Mamiya etc. Then we can branch off into types of photography and photographer. So I understand your jump to correct me bwana.

But I can begin to substantiate my case upon one man alone, Henry Cartier Bresson, arguably the most famous and influential photographer of the 20th century. Throughout his career he almost exclusively used a Leica rangefinder with a 50mm lens.
Then there are some other notable (and googlable) photographers who use/used Leica RF's, many of whom would I'm sure see Bresson as peerless: André Kertész, Robert Capa, Yousuf Karsh, Fred Maroon, Jim Marshall, Joe Marvullo, Sebastiao Saldago, Robert Frank, Edward Steichen, Elliot Erwitt, Robert Doisneau.

Whether or not I am right, it's fair to say that Leica rangefinders and lenses have for a long time, been highly desired, proven and respected cameras.
 
HTF can you people say it is fugly. It's a camera and in all honesty I would not mind one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X