If this camera were cheaper, say $4,000, I'd say it's really going to revolutionize things, and so that day is probably 3-5 years off.  For weddings it's not yet practical because you need *two* of them, and $14,000 is a lot of money. Going around with two bodies, a 35mm and a 90mm, and then a 21mm in the camera bag, is way, way lighter than a honky DSR setup with the big zooms.  Also, with that 90mm, you can just crop if you need longer telephoto.       

 

I've never owned a Leica, but I definitely would switch to their system now because I think they're going to be in it for the long haul and the M system has distinct advantages over the DSR's, and the digital display overcomes the framing problems with wide angles inherent in a rangefinder system. 

 

Now, suddenly all that older Leica gear is worth even more money than it was last month.  It bodes well for Hasselblad, if they ever come out with an affordable full-frame back for the classic system. Honestly, the only thing that is going to knock Leica digital off the top of wedding photo systems would be a Hasselblad digital back. 

 

 

A Hasselblad H2 is like $43K at Adorama.  :-o :-o :-o :-o

The Hasselblad digital is for 645, not 6x6.  They have one for rent for $600/day at K&R in Florence, KY.

Heh. You should ask them how often they rent that out.

K&R needs to rent that camera about 50 times before they break even, then they'll make $15K selling it. 

 

I agree, carrying around a $7K camera is asking for trouble, but a DSLR is probably going to attract more attention from thieves. 

 

 

I can't imagine owning something that expensive.  I don't take care of my camera like I should.  It's always out of the case getting dust in the sensor.  Not to mention I'm always putting too much methanol solution on the sensor to clean it.  I'd probably damage that beauty.

No matter how much one spends on a camera, within weeks something else just as good or better, for the same price or less, will come along. Digital technology brought photography into the same realm as personal computers, where chip technology breakthroughs open up new possibilities that drive newer, faster hardware that opens a market for more capable software, and around and around we go!

 

The pace of change and innovation was much slower when cameras were mechanical/optical, and the most frequent advances were in film (ISO, color rendition, and grain structure). Buy a top-of-the-line camera in any format, and you were good to go for several years. I bought my first SLR, a Zeiss-Ikon Contaflex Super, in 1962 and used it until 1979. The Nikon FM I bought in 1979 kept me happy until 2004. Since 2004 I've owned a D70, D200, and now a D700.

 

The circa-1955 Rolleiflex 2.8 with no meter or gadgets (no batteries required) that I bought lightly-used in 1967 for $270 for special occasions is still a cherished possession. When I scan negatives and transparencies shot with it, I'm often surprised by the sharpness. I'd still be shooting Fuji Provia 100F and Fuji Reala 100 with it, if the local custom lab that I could count on for high-quality same-day or next-day color processing hadn't gone out of business, a victim of the widespread shift from film to digital photography.

 

 

I stopped shooting negatives and transparencies about five years ago, when I purchased my first digital camera with better than a 4MP sensor. I found that even with the image pixellation, the quality of the vast majority of my shots with the digital were much better than my (very good) 35mm point and shoot. I was buying the photo CD every time I had a roll processed. So I figured, why spend all that money. I have a box of Fujichrome still in the fridge with 18 rolls in it and no idea when I will ever get around to using it again.

 

I have a Nikon FE2 from 1984. Beautiful condition, nary a mark, even has the gold inspection sticker on it. I carried it on one bike tour in Vermont in 1987 in a handlebar bag. But it's SUCH a freakin' boat anchor. I can't bring myself to sell it and the expensive Nikkor zoom lens that goes with it. But I doubt I will ever use it. And I have a Yashica-Mat 124 from 1972, a birthday present -a Japanese Rolleiflex, basically.

 

To me it's kind of sad to have this "iron" and have no idea when I'd ever use any of it again.

 

The one tangible thing that digital has sacrificed is dynamic range. Silver based film can pick up most shadows in normal scenes, and it takes a lot to blow out highlights. Those areas turn to ink and whiteout with digital.

Think that's expensive, my companies Leica ADS40s are 1.5 million!

 

Of course they're for aerial surveying...

Ken Rockwell has some examples up on his site:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/m9/examples.htm

 

These photos are pretty plain but I think illustrate quite well the advantage of the Leica digital system over DSLR's. The big advantage of a rangefinder system's optics is that the lenses can actually be simpler and correction of curvature is much easier in the wide angles.  Also, the Leica lenses have high contrast and those are the two factors which contribute most to image quality, not "sharpness".

 

I love shooting with primes but have never shot with a Leica.  I didn't find that the price for their film cameras was going to give me an advantage in the film era.  But I think the M9 would be great for weddings, we'll just have to wait for the price to come down.  Right now you're looking at $20K for two bodies and three lenses which would take a lot of business to recover. 

 

Back when wedding photographers shot with Hasselblads, it cost them about that much to get in the game.  Unfortunately I think DSLR's and their big honky zooms encourage sloppy photographs.