It’s funny reading a legit tech guru like Marco on one of my areas of expertise. Not that he pretends to be something he’s not; he just doesn’t “get” why a serious professional photographer [with serious money] would invest in a Leica system, and it’s amusing to see him try.
It’s the glass, silly. (Not just the 35mm f/2, either. And it’s certainly not about landscape performance.) Oh.. and the full-frame sensor in that tiny body. But mostly, it’s the glass.
He does get one thing semi-right: the M9 sensor is “disappointing” at high ISO’s. Then again, “disappointing” is subjective; I reckon I’d settle for Leica high-ISO grain if I could find the money for a full Leica system.
I can’t say I’m unhappy with my “rangefinder”-EVF-hybrid Fujifilm X system, though. Its high-ISO performance is breathtaking, and its price point is as diminutive as its size.
You should rent an X-Pro1 next, Marco.
question: can you tell by comparing photos whether an image was shot with a leica or a DSLR?
You already know the answer to that question, 85/1.2L devotee :)
I read what I think was the original post on the M9. It’s not really fair to say “But that also means that it’s very difficult to capture fleeting moments with it… the Leica is barely usable unless you have a very patient family” if he just rented it for the holiday period. It took me a good 6 months of using my M6 to become really proficient with nailing the focus, guessing the exposure correctly, etc. Now I am a lot faster than I ever was with my 40D!
But his other gripes about the M9 are correct, especially the poor battery and screen :P
Agreed on all points, Andrew.. And the same apply to Fujifilm’s X system (though to a lesser extent).