Leica. What happened ?

I expect a lot of flak over this opinion piece. However, I am speaking as a former Leica owner that was vested in several M bodies and quite an assortment of Leica M lenses. Hell, I even owned the R9 and DMR with an impressive collection of R lenses. Having stated that, I feel I have earned the right to voice my opinion as an actual user of Leica gear with experience.

 

The great camera company which Oskar Barnack helped bring to prominence with the advent of the first mass produced 35mm camera has gone through quite a few changes in its history.  With a history of cameras ranging from the Leica I, to today’s M, Leica has been providing the camera so many photographers relied on for so many years.  There is no denying that Leica is one of the corner stones in the world of photography. Along with their cameras, Leica earned high respect for their optics. To this date, Leica lenses are considered some of the best in the world of photography and other industries where optics are involved. But what happened? A camera company which was responsible for the first mass produced 35mm camera for the masses has become a company for the few.

 

While other companies like Sony, Fuji, Olympus etc… introduce cameras with advancements in technology and features that are actually useful to photographers at a price point most can afford, Leica seems to have lost its focus and sense of what photography is. Although they still manufacture in limited production some great cameras, their attention seems to have shifted towards the collectors and Badge wearers.  Let’s face it, when you’re marketing a new camera like the Leica T and your selling point is a video of a technician polishing the body for 45 minutes or the Fedrigoni X2 covered in fancy white paper, you have to ask yourself who is Leica targeting here? We can rule out the working photographer or the amateur photographer needing a camera to earn his or her living.  What is Leica thinking?  How on earth are these types of cameras supposed to make me a better photographer or capture a better picture? Even more importantly for Leica, how is the company going to earn the respect of the pros and amateurs that are serious about photography when they continue to introduce fashion statements rather than working tools.

 

As a real photographers tool, the M cameras along with their lenses are undeniably the choice for many; especially the street photographer.  However, at what cost?  Not all photographers can afford six or seven thousand dollars for a camera with limited capabilities, poor quality control and long waiting times for repair while others surpass in both deliverability of a product and customer service. Is the M or its variants really worth the dollars they command when the competition can offer so much more for far less?

 

There is something to be said about shooting with a rangefinder camera. The stealth approach, quiet shutter, size, etc … which allows you to approach your subjects without notice or intimidation. However, thanks to Sony and others, this is no longer an excuse for anyone defending a rangefinder camera solely on the basis of the above notes.  The size, electronic shutters, superior sensors, image quality, video capabilities, NFC and the ability to use M lenses on a Sony or Fuji, debunk the underlying reasoning for using a rangefinder camera.  By no means am I saying they should not be used. I still have an MP with a 50 lux that I shoot now and then with film. I am just saying one needs to come up with a better excuses for spending 7000.00 vs 1500.00

 

But why? Are we simply paying for the bragging rights to display the Iconic red dot and forgetting about photography? Take for example the electronic view finder for the Leica M240. It is a $250.00 Olympus VF-2 viewfinder. However, after rebranding it and replacing the words Olympus with Leica, the price doubled to $500.00.  Now that you know this, would you still buy the Leica viewfinder or the Olympus one? If you choose to buy the Leica viewfinder, then you might as well stop reading this short article. It would be like discussing politics or religion. No matter who is right or wrong, no one will see any truth in an opposing opinions.

 

Leica has lost its ability to be pioneers in the industry.  Yes they have the S2 which is 10 times the cost of a Nikon D800 or Sony A7R both of which can perform equally if not better than the S. But still, it seems that Leica cannot think beyond the M. They actually had a fantastic idea with the DMR for the R8 and R9. I personally owned one and think the DMR could have been a game changer in the industry by giving photographers an upgrade path to newer sensors without throwing away a perfectly good body.  They could have set the standard for Nikon and Canon to follow. But they dropped that idea like a hot potato.

 

What did they do instead? They Introduced the M8, a great step in the right direction, then the M9, a logical step forward. However, since the first M8, they have exploited every possible combination of cosmetic changes while offering little to a photographer in terms of technical advancements. Let’s look at this from a realistic and factual perspective. We had an M8, then an M8.2 to address the short comings and IR issues of the M8. We then get the M9 with a full size sensor.  To this point all looks good with the expected continuous improvements.  But wait. We have then seen the likes of a white M9, a Titanium M9 with no strap lugs, an M9 without a red dot, an M9P, an M9 with different skin and an ME. I may have missed one or two. All of these variants introduced in the span of a few years without any real major feature which justify an upgrade and cost hike.  Now take the Sony A7.  The A7 was a revolutionary camera which packed a solid punch for around 1600.00. Not only was it a full size 35mm sensor camera that could take M lenses or just about any other type of lens, but it was a camera that delivered.  Fast forward a year to the A7II. Better auto focus, better build, and yes, in body image stabilization for the same price as the original A7.  True upgrades to a camera worthy of mentioning.  If the A7 was a Leica product, we would have gotten the cosmetic changes of the speckled paint, a video of a technician creating the speckled finish and a hefty price hike.

 

What next? Leica forward thinkers have stalled without a sense of new direction. The M needs no further gimmicks to improve it aside from the usual sensor upgrades in the industry. It was god at the first M9. What Leica needs to do is get rid of their fashion statement mentality and focus on what Sony and Fuji are doing. Be innovative, daring and most of all a supplier. Come up with ideas that will take off and benefit the photographer in volumes and not just a few. Hire engineers and designers which will spark ideas worth bringing to fruition. Forget about cameras like the T. There are some things that others do MUCH better and at a fraction of the price. i.e Sony A6000. Don’t insult us by showing us boring videos of a camera being polished. If you feel that showing us such mundane advertising adds value to your product, at least tell us how it makes it better than the competition.  If Leica wishes to justify their astronomical pricing do so with something unique. How about Leica M lenses with native E or X mounts.

 

37 Comments on Leica. What happened ?

  1. Leica cameras are not too expensive, they are just not worth buying anymore. I cut my teeth on a Leica IIIf, then a IIIG, then M3, M2R, M4-2, M6 and I paid dearly for Leitz glass. And I was making good money when I was working (retired 17 years now). And I was happy to pay for the best hardware. But as soon as I recognized the writing was on the wall for film, I jumped into digital, and sold all but the lenses and a couple of M6s (for a Nikon Coolscan 2000 and fast Mac computer, plus a bunch of removable hard drives.) My son worked for Bear Images in Palo Alto and he was selling linear scan digital cameras for $30,000 + (this was in the 80s) to the boys at Apple. I was selling MRI scanners and watching the hospitals switch to digital (CT and MR) and the extinction of x-ray film. So, I had first hand experience of the wave of digitization coming to us all.
    Leica did not respond to this shift in techology. They had no experience with digital, they stuck their collective heads in the sand.

    So, My first digital camera was the Toshiba PDR-M70, $1000 for 3 MP. I have three of them and two still work, and I posted some pictures recently on LI. Then I got sidetracked with Nikon DSLRs, and couldn’t understand why the pictures weren’t better. It was the glass, stupid of me – the Toshiba had a dc vario Summicron, and the Nikons had “Nikon” glass. I waited for Leica to make a digital body but there wasn’t anything. I waited and waited, and finally moved over to Lumix cameras because of the Leica glass. The DMC-LC5 had a dc vario Summicron f 2.0 like the Toshiba, and suddenly my pictures came back to life. I bought the Digilux 1 and three more LC5s and an L10, all with Leica glass. Later Lumix cameras didn’t produce the same images (I bought a bunch and finally gave them away.)

    Then came the NEX-5 with the M to E adapters, and I was in business again with my favorite Leica glass. I now shoot with 4 NEX bodies each set up for its own lens and adjusted for specific image properties (Portraits, landscapes, Architecture, BW.)

    Good Leica glass is readily available worldwide. And I can put it on FF, APS-C, m4/3, and even on 1/1.7” digital bodies and make whatever picture I want. Leica can go and suck eggs as far as I am concerned. You want rangefinder experience? Shoot chromes, and you won’t need no stinking time consuming computer to see the results. ** There is no display monitor that I can afford that can project the gamut of colors of chrome film. (10 bit displays are needed – $25,000.)

    That being said about the SONY products, there are also some lovely Fuji sensors that make pictures as good as anything I have ever seen on LI from any Leica camera. I am still fond of what comes out of the old M8, though the failure rate and difficulty of getting repair parts stops me from buying one.

    By comparison, I have no problems with the NEX cameras, and never had to clean any sensor. And the NEX-5 series work with every lens even extreme WA. And I can shoot with the 135mm Hektor and the 400mm Telyt f5 on the NEX – try that with the M9. Another LI poster is shooting Leica R lenses up to 400mm on his a6000 and Nex-5 with a cheap adapter.

    The Leica AG ownership obviously likes “bling” and people who buy modern Rolex and Breitlings are the target market for them.

    Leica M bodies are not too expensive for some of us – they just don’t compete with modern cameras, and they aren’t worth the money. There are many M-9 quality issues, and there are many M-9s on the used market at half price. Even if they could be bought for the price of an A7r, who would make that choice?

    And another thing, who in their right mind is doing street photography in inner city USA with $12,000 of Leica badged camera hanging around their neck?

    ** of course I have many Mac computers (15 at the moment) and spend endless hours doing picture work. But I am retired and alone most of the week, so what else is there to do that is so satisfying?

  2. It is unfair to chastise Leica users, as some of the above have, that they are drones ready to pay anything for their items. The paradigm shift to digital has resulted in a serious issue that Leica was especially unprepared for; take an M2-M7 in hand and you will see why. THEY WERE BUILT TO LAST FOR DECADES and remain relevant dependable. I just picked up a 50 Summicron Rigid and 35 Summaron f/2.8, both over 50 years old and they are masterpieces of mechanical engineering. The approach that Jorge speaks of, the DMR, was the way Leica should have dealt with sensors and their brief lifespan, because as a small company they don;t possess the resources of Sony or Nikon to quickly update models. But by the same token, Leica can also not expect customers to remain if an outdated sensor is stuck into an $8k body or chipsets used are not upgradable when new hardware appears, like the latest EVFs from Olympus.

  3. The M8.2 does not address the short comings or IR issues of the M8. It provides a less noisy shutter without 1/8000, framelines optimized for a different distance, a sapphire screen to reduce chance of scratching, and some different finishes and/or paint jobs. It’s basically an M8-P in the same way as there is an M9-P and now an M-P.

  4. Here somebody that shoots with the Fuji X system and wants an M6 for film.

    mikael siirila, the Fuji X system is MADE IN JAPAN, not in China, so it’s no excuse, it’s not made by children 😉 but I agree with the defense of the artisans video of Leica, they are the brand’s trademark marketing.

  5. A Leica lens in native X-mount – now that would be something to die for. In the meantime my old M3 will languish in the cupboard and its dual range Summicron will live its second life (via an M-X adapter) on my X-T1.

  6. If you got great shots with an M9 back in 2009 — you still get great shots with it! Technical progress is just as secondary to photography (and vain) as the “special edition” cosmetics of a camera. We have been lured into thinking that a six figure ISO is something we cannot work without. Because we are lazy to use tripods, impatient to wait for the best light, unwilling to learn how to get the best of our gear and obsessed with pixels and over-processing.

    Photographic art did much better with film, and still does. Photographers once patient artisans and discussed artistic views, not nerds ranting about gear manufacturers.

    And. Leica is a cheap brand compared to camera manufacturers like Alpa, Linhof etc. And they don’t even make sensors or lenses! Why should everything be made as cheap as possible?

    These European camera makers are not willing to have their products made by modern-day slaves in developing countries just to bring down prices. Polishing a camera body is not about vanity but a way to show respect to how things are made and who makes them. There is a reason why we don’t see videos of chinese children soldering parts for your Sonys and Fujis. High prices are not greed but the cost of having values worth holding.

    • At the moment it is only its Q cameras that are worth buying (I own one and enjoynit thourghly ). I bought an M9 before that but was dissapointed with its quality. As far as I am concerned the M9 with all its quality issues was Leica’s first desposable camera.

  7. Wow, Leica user are just like Apple users, they are willing to buy any product no mather if it worth, they are like robots

  8. Yes.Yes.Yes. Someone with enough balls to say it clearly. Yea sir they are a bunch of greedy assholes but i am glad. When i felt the need to upgrade to m9 the pice for me was so high that i wept inmy sleep dreaming. Than one morning i felt that there is something wrong on another level. Than it hit me like a thunder. Film. No more stupidity and tech review sites just me and my desire to capture light and form. I bought the best m3 from bhphoto and waited 5 monts for my friend to deliver it from usa. Bought for her summicron dual range and it is enough. I am happy. I dont care anymore about anything new Leica related . I just shoot. And film is the reason. Go film and forget all this crap.

  9. Dear all,

    I was reading this article, and just had to say my 2 cents. It seems that we glorify the old Leica. But apart from The original Leica 1 and the Leica M3, Leica has not been on any revolutionary path. Leica has always been in the pursuit of excellence, and was never a cheap camera for the masses. I remember reading in Robert Capa’s biography, that he could not afford them in the beginning of his career, and used mass-brands instead.

    And the excellence still is present in Leica, in their own german way.
    Build Quality they are second to none. And image quality they can compete with the best of them.
    Leica has never been on the forefront of technical evolution. Heck, the M-series have not changed ( bar adding a sensor instead of film ) in any major way since their invention in the early 50’s.

    If anything, instead of blaming Leica for loosing their game, we should congratulate the Fuji’s and Sony’s of this world to build mass products with the quality they do.

    But if there is anything that i seem to feel from most of the comments , then it is the fact that most among here don’t understand photography, and only judge on technical merit.

    I have spend many years on assignments with a huge variety of cameras. Canon, Phase One, Hasselblad, Fuji, Leica, and in the end, it is not the camera that makes you take better pictures, it is the man behind the camera. And choosing the camera that best suits your style, and the job it is required to do.

    Leica in my humble opinion still stands very alone as the safeguard of pure photography. It is the kind of camera that delivers unparalleled quality of images, if you take the time to learn to use it properly. And in the right hands, none of those so-called drawbacks you all mention are actually preventing you from great photography, on the contrary : They force you to become a better photographer. And that is worth every dime, nickel and penny i have ever spend on my M9 and on my Leica S.

    So if you think that camera’s like Sony’s A9 are better, than the M9, good think so, but then you don’t understand photography, then you care more about settings and computers than about the image.
    And stop bashing a brand just because it refuses to cater to the mainstream. Leica has always been an individual company, for individual people.

    So to sum it up, if you want cheap new avant-garde technology, lot’s of settings, and computers who only distract you from what is important, then please don’t by a Leica , because it will be your biggest disappointment.

    But if you are looking for a no-nonsense high quality camera that does not distract you from the art of seeing, from the art of photography, then a Leica is what you need. Or a Hasselblad, or a Phase One, or so many of the other brands that amateurs don’t seem to understand.

  10. This is just another article knocking Leica for no reason.

    We are fortunate; the market offers many different choices of equipment. Choose the solution that suits you best, use it and enjoy it. No-one is pretending that Leica is the solution for everyone. It is a niche product and has been since the rise of the SLR started in 1959 with the Nikon F.

    If Leica is not for you, don’t buy it. But please don’t criticise Leica just because it isn’t the best choice for you.

    • Not criticizing Leica because its not the best choice. Criticizing Leica because they are stuck in a hole and cannot get out of it. Nothing new from Leica in bodies to justify their price point. And just to prove my point that nothing changes but cosmetics, the New M240 in limited numbers for around 8600.00 with a new logo on the top. Where is the innovation in that?

      They still make great glass :)

  11. Good post, Jorge, and well promoted. Should earn you many clicks….;-). That said, you are mostly right of course. But who else is producing a rangefinder these days? Many Leica users actually love the rangefinder experience. That means interfacing with the world through a high quality wide angle optical viewfinder, trusting the (usually) well aligned rangefinder mechanism, using very fine and small lenses, and interacting with a very well built machine using familiar controls. The Sony A is not offering that, even though it has all the innards required to shoot great images. The Fuji X tries to mimic that to an extent, but is not full frame and is plagued with an oddball sensor design. Let’s not start to compare build quality or tactile feedback. At this point in time, there still is no M but the M. Wish I could afford it.

  12. I honestly agree with everything has been said in the article. I would love to have for example a better ISO results however, to me taking picture is a full experience and Leica feels just right.

    After one year with an M240, I know how to shot and control post processing. In addition, shooting with fixed lens gave me a better knowledge of prospective and I shot with more awareness. With a new camera I guess I would have to start from scratch even though it will give me better results (based on the data sheets).

    What I really would like to have from Leica is the possibility to mount AF lenses (T and S) fully functional. That would give me a full package, sometimes it’s nice to point and click and certain pictures cannot be taken with an M at f1.4.

  13. Just a quick follow up. I just read of a rumor where a new Monochrome will be announced shortly but without letters on the top plate. Possibly a new sensor.

    And you can now buy a blue M240 for approx $8700.00

    • I have a half dozen leica M lenses that also sit around because their digital offerings didn’t seem worth the money. But I always liked the small form factor and all my Leica lenses are from F2-4 for the sake of compact size on and off the camera. I have like you Nikons and fast glass like your 50mm f1.2 ais. But there you have 1/8000 second to compensate for fast glass if need be.

      I went to the CES just 2 weeks ago in Vegas where I live. I got a chance to handle the Sony A7s.
      I think that could get my M lenses out of storage. Of course the camera is small, and the viewfinder is bright
      and detailed, and for me a 12mp camera is enough just like the D700 was good for blow-ups to 30 inches.
      Even without the Genuine Fractal software to pump up a file.

      The big A7s advantages seem to be its the best Sony with M lenses, 15mm VC lenses and even 25mm ZM
      lenses work with that camera, both which are in the closet now.

      I would like a couple of the A7II features though , the 5 way stabilization, I have this on my Olympus EP5
      works well, its like a mini M with 16mp. Also, the A7II has the shutter button in a better place on top of the grip instead of the camera body, so you don’t have to move you hand to get to the command dial. I am sure that the recent $500 price drop means a next gen A7s is coming.

      The A7s silent shutter was impossible to hear in a noisy place like the CES show, that is one feature that
      is equal to or better than the Leica. And the high ISO feature is over the top. If I was Sony I would add some resolution MPs for those who want more landscape or cropping abilities and sacrifice a bit of ultra high ISO most will never use. A clean 12,000 ISO is as high as I ever would go.

  14. Thank you very much for this opinion piece. I agree with much of what you have said, in particular that many of today’s Leica products seem to be fashion statements rather than tools for serious photographers. The usually exorbitant price tags for many of the Leica products puts them out of the price range for most people, and the people buying these products for the connotations of having that famed red dot, further inflate prices beyond anything reasonable.

  15. It’s all a bit the same as with watches. Leica has become the Rolex of the camera market. Do they make good watches? Likely, but why wouldn’t others do? Do they make beautiful ones? Not to my opinion. But taste differs. Some will pay with an arm and a leg to own one. Do they make the most advanced watches? No most other brands are completely cutting edge from a technological point of view, in producing this in big masses. But Rolex is Rolex, and Leica is Leica. I hope they don’t make a mistake with this kind of business model, because indeed, it is an extremely difficult market and even the most expensive camera has become some kind of’ ‘consumable’. And in Europe, we are doing a lot of things very wrong these days, not the least by not investing in more R&D and technological progress.

  16. Jorge,
    your point of view is absolutely true, BUT there is also Leica point of view.
    Why on earth they should do all that you request? The market share is well up, the periodical price increases confirm this.
    Why should they invest money in R&D?
    You already mentioned, that the targeted customers are not photographers but collectors….

    • Jorge,
      please replace my last sentence with this:

      You already mentioned that the majority of targeted customers are not photographers but collectors….

  17. If you look closely @SONY NEX and A7* line you must recognize: All are cameras for masses but are replace frequently by new versions. NONE is developed thoroughly. If you look at A7 line only: Four cameras within a year, 4 lenses available only – somehow ridiculous.

    LEITZ works and ever worked differently. Even the first LEICA was affordable it was expensive. A normal earner had to pay almost a years income for it. Taking this in account it is more affordable today. People who WORK with a LEICA are different. They PLAN their images, take one at a time, not 200 within a day, just a handful. So results are better because images are no mass product like LEICA is no mass product.

    LEITZ lives in its own space. It will exist even if SONY produces a A21xyz….

    Cheers

    • Well… if I”m honest, I know quite a few excellent photographers – working with the very best DSLR gear – that really lived towards owning once a Leica M. When they finally owned it, they got extremely disappointed. Leica is very specialized in optics and fine mechanics, but lacks good experience in electronics, being outsourced to Jenoptik (a serious mistake, they should have taken full ownership of this R&D themselves). Very quickly they experienced how poorly the exposure and AWB control works, how the M9 in particular lacks a decent ISO-behavior. Going over to the M.240 didn’t improve a lot, two of them were even having technical issues with the sensor (another weird choice, Leica apparently didn’t want to go to Sony for obvious reasons. Many ex-M9 owners don’t like the M.240’s colors). As I described below, Leica really did do everything to become a kind of Rolex. But in the digital age, it doesn’t matter anymore how much gold and jewels you put in a watch, the real technical content counts. Most stepped after a while back to DSLRs or Fuji X, Sony A and even Panasonic. I really have a hard time to still believe in Leica M as a true, professional solution that can stay ‘timeless’, but yes, they have their own realm and maybe the M.241 brings something nobody expects. I doubt.

      • I bought Kodak film two days ago. A lot of it. Leica’s in no trouble pal, but I’ll Like you anyway. That’s what you’re after, isn’t it?

        • Leica has taken a cue ( no pun intended ) from the competition and has since delivered the Q and now the SL. There is no denying that Leica is a boutique brand these days and definitely not what it represented in the past. They are wising up and seem to be moving in a new direction. As long as we don’t have the same Q or SL in three years with just a different covering or limited edition stamped on it then we can say Leica has turned the page.

          Yes, they are profitable now but not too long ago they almost went belly up. Sell enough high priced merchandise to keep the boat afloat and it works.

  18. Thanks Jorge. Unfortunately Leica has become only a company to earn money from people who mostly don´t even know what to do with the expensive gadgets they bought. But as long this works for the company investors will be happy and thats the only point nowadays.
    If I inspect photos from the Otus 85 or my Apo Sonnar 135 there is no lens in the Leica lens range coming close in terms of color errors.
    The really sad thing: if the myth of Leica will fade because of really lacking quality of the cameras, the death could come fasten than they could think of.
    The Ebay prices of used Leica gear looks great but have a look how many of these can be really sold. My recently sold Elmarit M 2,8/90 of the latest badge only sold for 700,00 EUR although some “Buy it now” are placed for 1.400,00 and more and then are relisted countless times.
    Regards from Austria
    Ernst

  19. You are completely right…i moved to Sony and haven’t looked back. Best decision in terms of gear I every made.
    The reason Leica doesn’t innovate is because it has no money….It is a company just keeping its head above water. We see exactly the same thing with Hasselblad…Companies on the edge of oblivion…

    • They almost went under several years ago but were then saved by non photographic investors such as Hermes and now Blackstone. So they do have some money now, but the real issue is it is too late for them to join those companies who make cameras for the masses such as Sony and Fuji. They don’t have the know how to do so without jeopardizing their “Brand” value they have achieved to this point. There will never be a $2000 (or less) Leica rangefinder with features that compare to the other companies. Even when they remove the meter they create a limited edition and charge you more; only Leica can seem to pull something like this off. So there’s been no innovation for some time (unless you want to say the S system is a innovative product; Module R was but not this.

  20. You will certainly incur the wrath of the Leica community on LUF if they get wind of your article. They cannot stand to have Leica criticized, even when the criticism is intended to push Leica to improve because they feel they have to defend the huge sums they have expended on their cameras and lenses.

    Leica’s edge in lenses is quickly diminishing with companies like Sigma that were thought of as second rate lens manufacturers producing lenses that perform as well or very nearly as well for a fraction of the price. Independent companies like DXO or LenScore are revealing that numerous lenses that sell for much less are close to or surpassing them is a few cases (Like Zeiss 55/1.4 Otus vs Leica 50/1.4 Sumilux).

    Some of the differences can only be seen at high magnification and are all but invisible at normal viewing sizes.

  21. Der Beitrag von TORALBA spricht mir aus der Seele ! Ich empfinde das in der gleichen Art und Weise.
    Seit dem Erscheinen der Leica M9 sind keine inovativen Entwicklungsfortschritte gemacht worden.
    Nachdem bei meiner Leica M9 im Jahre 2012 der Sensor getauscht wurde, iss mein Vertrauen in das “neue” digitale Leica-System verschwunden. Natürlich freue ich mich über das zuverlässige Funktionieren der analogen Leica M2, M7 und IIIf !
    Seit 2012/13 arbeite ich mit der NEX und dann mit der Sony A7. Beide Kameras bieten mir das, was ich Einbezug auf Entwicklungsfortschritte bei Leica vermisse.
    Ich freue mich schon auf die Sony A7 II.

    Gruss Horst.

  22. i own a M9 and I am really fond of it, of ita simplicity and of how it allows to continue taking photography in the old, pure manual way. Since I bought it, I never feeling the néed to upgrade To a new Leica for all the reasons you mentioned and also for the peculiar M9 image rendering. Said all that, I now own also a Sony RX1 and now I realise it has become my everyday camera whilst more and more often I leave my M9 at home. Ciao and best wishes. Umberto (umbe1958)

2 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Sony Tidbits… | sonyalpharumors
  2. Letting go of the past | JORGE TORRALBA

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*



WordPress spam blocked by CleanTalk.