Gordon,
In the link that I posted I mentioned the tendency for Leica owners to rabidly defend their brand at any cost...you just illustrated it well.
This wasn't a Leica bashing thread...not at all...but I can see that you took it that way.
If you read that link that I posted you'd have a nice laundry list of the deficiencies of the M240, you may not be bothered by them...more power to you...that doesn't affect me one bit if you use one. I found that, for an $8,000 camera, the deficiencies, when all added up, didn't warrant spending that kind of cash...that's all...you obviously see it differently.
PS: A little lesson on logical thinking for free; the fact that a LOT of people use or like something doesn't automatically mean that it is of a certain quality or has a certain value...the two don't necessarily go together.
LOTS of people think that Lady Gaga is great music...or that Pet Rocks were the best thing since sliced bread...but that doesn't mean that they are.
That's what's known as a logical fallacy.
Firstly, I am a Leica user and "fanboy". Fair enough. But I'm also very aware as an ACTUAL Leica user of what the camera can and can't do. I also use several other systems. Guess what sunshine, your beloved Sony is just as limited and flawed as any other camera.
Of course it was a bashing session. You hide behind the veil of the internet and make a nice big list of a cameras "deficiencies" based on other stuff you've read on the web. You could have said "I was considering a M240, but my Sony suits me perfectly". Or "Now I have the Sony, I can't imagine needing anything more". Or " FOR ME, the Leica doesn't provide what I need in a camera". No. You made a list of "facts". Bashing plain and simple. Presented as a doctrine on a camera you've never used. My opinion is you're trying very hard to justify the 2.5K you've just dropped on the Sony. A camera which has:
- No way of using a flash and a viewfinder at the same time.
- No way of shooting anything but a 35mm lens without cropping.
- No direct access to shutter speed, aperture and ISO at the same time.
- poor handling.
- no provided external charger. On a 2.5K camera?
- filters? hoods?
- very poor distortion control from the Lens.
But I'm sure you'll be a better photographer with the Sony than you would be for a Leica. After all it's a far superior camera right?
See no camera is without limitations. And some cameras have unique qualities that make them a joy to use regardless of their limitations. Photgraphy is not always about high ISO and megapickles. A personal opinion is one thing. A sermon is another. But if you feel better about your purchase, why not, huh?
Anyway, who are you to say that Lady GaGa doesn't make great music or that pet rocks aren't totally awesome? Yet another personal opinion stated as fact. Thanks for the lesson But I hardly think you are qualified to teach me anything. Certainly not about cameras.
Gordon