>>4400834 (OP)
And the TTArtisan one its like, what 100 bucks? And will be literally the same thing

>>4400834 (OP)
Even sigma lenses blow leica away, even in the bokeh department. It's all gearfag schizophrenia akin to the people who buy gibson electric guitars and think the QC failures and shitty paint add to the tone. None of them are rich, but they all really want to be.

Remember this when you see gearfags: Anything under $10k fits on the credit card of a low wage fast food worker

so leica won?

>>4400873
Yes, if by winning you mean being unusable wide open which is arguably the main point of an F1 and costing $6k.

>>4400836
In a sense it is good that the Chinese are making these things and destroying the illusion that fast aperture and unicorn lenses exhibit magical qualities. Some of the chinesium lenses I'm sure surpass the optical performance of the originals as well and in other cases they are what? 90-95% there?

>>4400842
>Even sigma lenses blow leica away, even in the bokeh department. It's all gearfag schizophrenia akin to the people who buy gibson electric guitars and think the QC failures and shitty paint add to the tone. None of them are rich, but they all really want to be.
I see a lot of the same tendencies in the audiophile department where people are paying tens of thousands of dollars for some piece of gear that adds nothing, not to mention that we all hear differently and have different preferences when it comes to sound. In the same way it could be argued that we see differently and that bokeh for instance is a matter of taste. A good, interesting photo that is appealing to the masses wont be judged based on its bokeh, yet somehow there is a demographic that thinks this adds a whole lot and is something that is worth thousands. From my understanding this never carried much weight in the pre-internet era.
Quite frankly I've come to learn to like "busy" aka cheap bokeh because of how different it looks compared to what is expected today.

>>4400834 (OP)
Not super surprising. Most third party M mount lenses are 99% of the way, or better than the Leica equivalents, which stand mostly on brand name alone in my opinion.
>>4400842
There's definitely an element of superstition when it comes to Leica lenses, as if they're some kind of magic.
I remember one time I was with friends during some celebrations in Amsterdam and I spoke with a guy who had a Leica M and Leica lens and the way he spoke about the lens would give you the impression that he as the photographer was secondary to the lens.
>>4400885
Busy bokeh is nice, I think it can really add texture to an image when used properly.

>>4400885
So called busy bokeh is actually fine. What sucks balls is nervous bokeh where it looks like in focus aberrations instead of defocus, like decentered lenses get. A lot of micro four thirds lenses are guilty of this and its one of those "revealed" aberrations (along with surprise CA/Coma) that only shows up on 61mp snoys due to the pixel pitch being smaller than the lens flaws.

Most optics are only good enough for 24-36mp ff. Maybe if you’re up to date on mirrorless lenses, 50mp FF and 20mp APSC (which is already demanding enough for the sharp midframe to become blurry and CA ridden on average glass)

>>4400834 (OP)
>the Noctilux $6000
What in the fuck lmfao
I got curious cause I don't know shit about this lens so imagine my surprise when this is the first link I see on it and holy shit my sides:
https://mrleica.com/leica-noctilux-50mm-f1/

I genuinely don't understand leica enjoyers, hell a rf 50mm 1.2f blows this out of the water in IQ and bokeh smoothness for a third of the fucking price.
Genuinely what is the appeal here? Is it just because leica? Why is this lens so damn expensive.

>>4401026
He is clearly biased if you check out his review of the noctilux and compare it to the nokton. The noctilux is somehow "sharp" in the center when it is clear from the photos that it is soft as cotton, the noctilux has more vignetting etc. This is just brand snobbery in my opinion as he gives the noctilux a pass for the same flaws exhibited by the nokton. There is no way anyone is getting any measurable benefit from the additional $5400.

>>4400834 (OP)
the voightlander lenses don't hold their value. not that I'd pay for leica shit, but I bought a 17.5 voightlander for $1,000 in 2017 and keh is only offering like $300 for it

>>4401031
Same story with the Nokton. It was $1100 retail, can be had for around $400 on ebay. In general photography gear is a money drain.

>>4401035
..and that is amplified with anything Leica.

>>4401037
leica is a money drain and costs way more than it is worth, but retards will pay you closer to full price for used leica shit

>>4401044
Gotta wonder if Leica has some sort of shill bidding on auction sites as it was confirmed that Rolex had a habit of doing, thus inflating the used market pricing.

>>4401026
>lying on the internet
He already bought it didn't he

File: despair.jpg (640 KB, 821x1550)

640 KB JPG

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2025:01:14 15:55:45
Image Width	821
Image Height	1550

leica lenses seem completely retarded especially for film but I am really tempted to buy a leica film body

>>4403565
Their original justification was film. Film can’t have automatic digital corrections and is very reliant on the lens for its color rendition and contrast. Digital lets you do anything with a sharp, neutral lens.

>>4400834 (OP)
erm sweaty if you had a career you'd know 26000 euros isn't even a blip on an average red blooded american's finances. i'm very smart and successful because i spend lots of money and enjoy telling people about it on anonymous image boards

File: rich_20people_20group.png (2.96 MB, 1778x1334)

2.96 MB PNG

>>4403593
>poorfag out of nowhere: rich people make me angry
lol if my housekeeper weren't deported yesterday he'd bring me my leica so i could tell him to take a picture of how stupid you look. work harder, loser!

>>4403565
>tempted to buy a leica film body
what even is the point of a film leica body?
>made revolutionary camera in the 30s
>used by all reporters in the world
>built a brand recognition and prestigious perceptions until the 50s
>tech started stalling ever since and the camera is basically the same
why the fuck would you torture yourself with an uncomfortable camera to hold and operate that doesn't even have the size advantage it had in the 1930s?

Barnak Leicas started out as serious professional tools that packed the latest and greatest technology to allow compactness, ruggedness, and fast shooting. Once their competitors started coming out with SLRs, zoom lenses, good integrated light meters, autofocus, etc., they shifted from being a professional brand to a luxury one.
People forget that Leicas and Hasselblads were expensive because they actually were the best of the best. Now they are expensive only because of their stupid brand name and a veneer of luxury. Since Leica became a company of loser faggots, instead of competing technology-wise, like they did in the beginning, they made up this cope about "keeping true" to photography, which faggots ate up wonderfully.

>>4403619
>"keeping true" to photography
It is kinda like how Rolex is "true horology" when in reality you are getting antiquated technology which runs either too fast or too slow meaning you have to reset the time every now and then while cheap quartz watches mog it every time and even if you want an automatic there are better options such as Grand Seiko spring drive watches that are more accurate, need less servicing etc. If I am not mistaken Rolex shillbids on their own watches on auction sites to maintain a price floor and I would not be surprised in the slightest if Leica did the same because it doesn't make sense that mass produced things that give no added benefit retain their value after so long.

>>4400881
the chinks always cheap out o ncoatings

>>4403593
Are you coming into unrelated threads to seethe? That's not a healthy way to deal with losing.

>>4403629
ive heard this rumor but what exactly is this accusation here, that leica monitors ebay, kEH, etc to keep the prices artificially high then what, accidently buys back some of their own cameras? not denying it but that's pretty insane

>>4403787
They cancel if they win and try to bid to a price floor, not a new high.

>>4403629
I've seen stats showing Rolexes are accurate enough to be on par with cheap $20 quartz bullshit watches in terms of accurate time keeping
Rolexes can actually do the job of a professional time keeping device, its just that there are much, much cheaper alternatives that do the same thing

>>4403619
>what even is the point of a film leica body?
M-mount lens adapters to any mirrorless system are very slim. So if you want to shoot digital and film with the same set of (manual) lenses, you are better off with M-mount than any SLR mount simply due to the shorter flange distance difference. And Leica happens to have nicer build than many other M-mount cameras (e.g Bessa).