View Full Version : How many of you will buy the M8 or Digital M
Mark Norton
08-13-2006, 03:13
Interesting point, I guess using an obsolete digital camera is not as cool as using an obsolete film camera.
A cropped sensor will be a tricky buy. it would loose alot of value when a full frame M9 comes out.
But people should know the megapixel war is over. so when leicas comes out with a full frame camera it will retain value, since few people will ever need more features. A full frame sensor with 20 MP will surpass film and full frame wil allow all legacy lenses to be used. I for one cant think of anymore i wish for in a RF digital.
Nachkebia
08-13-2006, 03:37
I guess using an obsolete digital camera is not as cool as using an obsolete film camera.
Of course it is not, film camera has a physical cool value, digital camera does not :)
Of course it is not, film camera has a physical cool value, digital camera does not :)
That's where your wrong. Have you ever handled and RD1? Believe me, the RD1 has as much fondle value as any film camera that is constructed of metal and has an analog interface. The N90 was a film camera and had about the same fondle value as a Digital Rebel. The fact that it is film or digital doesn't have anything to do with it. It's all materials and clean, intuitive, analog interfaces. And of course craftsmanship.
Rex
Nachkebia
08-13-2006, 04:33
well, can you change sensors? you can not, until you will be able to change sensors like you could change film or developing or printing chemical to suit your needs don`t talk about long lasting value :)
What if I don`t want to use kodak sensor, I want to use fuji sensor instead? what if I prefer, smaller megapixel count with better iso performance?
well, can you change sensors? you can not, until you will be able to change sensors like you could change film or developing or printing chemical to suit your needs don`t talk about long lasting value :)
What if I don`t want to use kodak sensor, I want to use fuji sensor instead? what if I prefer, smaller megapixel count with better iso performance?
Well the post processing stuff (developing the film, printing) we do in photoshop. As for the analogy between film and the sensor, the digital photographer can change "film" from shot to shot, at least with regards to the ISO.
In any case, if you could get only one film, say Tri-X, would that reduce the "lasting value" of your film camera?
Don't get me wrong, I love film. I love it for its tactile value, you can hold it and feel it. I also enjoy developing the film myself. Its so easy to get beautiful, scratch free negatives while watching television or typing this prattle on the internet. And, I still have a wet darkroom for making prints (aesthetics but mostly I hate scanning)
Anyway, I expect the M8 to have more fondle value than any camera I own with the exception of my mint 1926 Zeiss Ikon "Nixe" 9cm X 12cm folder. Of which I can get no film for . Talk about obsolete
Its your turn
Rex
Nachkebia
08-13-2006, 05:09
You said it :) nothing to add, just improvising you know :) anyhow, just hope there will be small companys who will sell film and chemicals :)
someday, there will be a digital rangefinder from leica (kodak sensor), fuji (fuji sensor), canon (canon sensor), nikon (sony sensor)...so on and so forth.
You said it :) nothing to add, just improvising you know :) anyhow, just hope there will be small companys who will sell film and chemicals :)
I'm kinda worried about color film, even negative. I expect B&W will be around forever as almost anyone could manufacture it. Developing it you could do with teabags and drainc cleaner.
I'm thinking about trying to develop color negative film again. It wasn't that hard but its been since I was in high school and if nobady makes the film, whats the point? I hate scanning anyway.... and there is NO chance color paprer and chemicals will survive.
Kind of depressing
Anyway, now you know the most important reason I am getting the Digital M!!
Rex
Dale Cook
08-13-2006, 05:35
It will completely depend of the specifications and price. I'm currently using an Epson R-D1 and am very pleased with it. However, I would be interested in the M8 if it comes in with more megapixels without an increase in noise, maintains Leica's legendary durability, and it's priced at a reasonable level. I will not however, convert to a Leica just for brand purposes.
.... and there is NO chance color paprer and chemicals will survive.Oddly enough, Rex, the processing labs I'm familiar with print directly from digital files to traditional "wet" color papers for all their prints.
Im still in shock because I cannot get Daguerrotype plates anywhere anymore!!
Oddly enough, Rex, the processing labs I'm familiar with print directly from digital files to traditional "wet" color papers for all their prints.
You are absolutely right. Paper technology(the final output) is completely independent of the method of capture of the image, whether film or digital.
Its color film that is in trouble. Not an easy product to make in your garage.
Rex
No interest at this time. Maybe some interest eventually if a full size sensor is designed.
A Leica M with a 18x24 cm sensor????:p
Mark Norton
08-22-2006, 08:08
It will be interesting to see how many of you film warriors change your tune when the M8 is announced and we can see what it can do. Rejecting a state of the art camera because it fails to adhere to some completely arbitrary standard established 80 or more years ago is plainly ridiculous.
Mark
It's interesting to see the gradual retreat of the "full frame" or nothing crowd. I think the 1.33X format is actually near the theoriretical sweet spot for a quality image consistant with the compact size required of the rangefinder format.
Rex
Mark Norton
08-22-2006, 22:05
Mark
It's interesting to see the gradual retreat of the "full frame" or nothing crowd. I think the 1.33X format is actually near the theoriretical sweet spot for a quality image consistant with the compact size required of the rangefinder format.
Rex
I agree and the undoubted attraction of a digital rangefinder camera - which is clear as soon as you pick up an R-D1 - will be all the more evident with the M8.
If Leica had gone for a FF camera, it would likely be too large, too heavy, too power hungry and too expensive. Most important though is that the image quality would not be good enough.
ian_watts
08-23-2006, 06:30
Personally, I would always take a full frame camera over a 1.33x crop camera. I'm not a wide angle shooter (28 is as wide as I would ever want to go, 35 is my usual 'wide' lens of choice), I just prefer to use lenses for the field of view that they were designed for (and what I am used to). The M8 1.33x crop is a compromise which I will learn to live with for those applications where the convenience of digital wins the day.
ian_watts
08-23-2006, 06:43
Rejecting a state of the art camera because it fails to adhere to some completely arbitrary standard established 80 or more years ago is plainly ridiculous.
It may be an arbitrary standard (involving an ugly elongated format - though that's another story) but it's the standard to which all the M lenses have been designed and built. These lenses have a field of view and a 'look' that we are used to.
We know that the M8 will have a 1.33x crop sensor and those of us who will be buying it will have to live with that compromise. I don't see what point there is in turning this (currently unavoidable) compromise solution into a positive attribute of the M8. Given the choice between full frame and cropped frame (assuming all else is equal) I don't think many would choose the cropped version.
I just prefer to use lenses for the field of view that they were designed for (and what I am used to).
This is a valid point, but more for SLR use. The way of seeing the world througf a RF viewfinder is essentially different, as the framelines crop the unchanging view. The focal length that is actually on my camera, well, when shooting I tend to forget the actual number. As for design, a 18 mm radius lens for the 35 mm format will show a substantially better quality in the 12 mm circle, which is exactly the coverage of a 1.33 sensor.
Mark Norton
08-23-2006, 06:46
I think you'll find image quality will also "win the day" more often that you are probably willing to admit. Discussions on the Leica forum suggests very few people go back to film once they have a DMR and I expect the M8 to be no different.
Mark Norton
08-23-2006, 06:52
Jaap, your Pythagoras is a bit awry, the image circle radius for 35mm is 21.63mm across the diagonal, for 1.33 crop factor, 16.27mm but you are certainly correct the digital sensor misses out the lower quality area into the corners. Just look at the MTF figures for any lens, especially the wide-angles to see how the contrast starts falling off around 15 - 16mm.
That is correct, Mark, but the values of 12 and 18 are used in lens design as "field", as being half of the format.
ian_watts
08-23-2006, 07:01
This is a valid point, but more for SLR use. The way of seeing the world througf a RF viewfinder is essentially different, as the framelines crop the unchanging view. The focal length that is actually on my camera, well, when shooting I tend to forget the actual number. As for design, a 18 mm radius lens for the 35 mm format will show a substantially better quality in the 12 mm circle, which is exactly the coverage of a 1.33 sensor.
The difference between RF and SLR viewing is a good point but it misses really what I mean by being used to the field of view of certain lenses. When I use a 50mm lens (which I use probably 75% of the time) I roughly know what I am trying to achieve with it long before I put the camera to my eye. My objections to the digital crop are that I need to think of the lens in 67mm focal length terms. Not an insurmountable difference but a different one nonetheless. There is also the issue that cropped fields of view mess around somewhat with our expectations regarding depth of field - an issue that is more pertinant to RF use where we don't have a WYSIWYG view.
ian_watts
08-23-2006, 07:13
I think you'll find image quality will also "win the day" more often that you are probably willing to admit. Discussions on the Leica forum suggests very few people go back to film once they have a DMR and I expect the M8 to be no different.
Image quality is not an entirely objective thing. I don't understand why I should be thought to be unwilling to admit to a view that I don't hold? I have used all manner of decent digital cameras for the last five years. There are a number of applications where digital is clearly the superior (and almost always usually the more convenient) option and on those occasions I happily shoot digital. However, for less commercial (and certainly personal) work I usually prefer the look I get from film. Why would I continue to shoot film (when I have the option of high quality 'full frame' digital) if I didn't like it?
(Why do those obsessed with digital capture find it so difficult to accept that some of us simply prefer the different look you get from film?)
(Why do those obsessed with digital capture find it so difficult to accept that some of us simply prefer the different look you get from film?)
I'm not quite sure in to which category you would try and force me to be. I shoot both film and digital in about 50-50 proportions...I'm sure there is nothing wrong with pointing out advantages or preferences of one system of recording light or the other. I see the difference as on the same level as discussing different types of film, less essential than colour versus black and white.
ian_watts
08-23-2006, 07:43
I'm not quite sure in to which category you would try and force me to be. I shoot both film and digital in about 50-50 proportions...I'm sure there is nothing wrong with pointing out advantages or preferences of one system of recording light or the other. I see the difference as on the same level as discussing different types of film, less essential than colour versus black and white.
I agree with you Jaap (though I personally see a difference in the 'look' between film and digital capture that goes slightly beyond the differences between various film types). Why would I want to force you into a category? My earlier response was to Mark.
I know what you mean by the "look" but I tend to feel that to be at leastly partly due to the Canon technology. I can photoshop a scan to look pretty digital and my Digilux2 produces pretty much film-like results. But then beauty is in the eye of the beholder ;)
Nachkebia
08-23-2006, 08:43
jaapv : proove :)
A full frame sensor M8 would surely beat the R-D1. But of course we can wait and see to judge the results. Any decision to buy will consider the quality of the M8 images versus its comprehensive costs...
ian_watts
08-23-2006, 09:24
I know what you mean by the "look" but I tend to feel that to be at leastly partly due to the Canon technology. I can photoshop a scan to look pretty digital and my Digilux2 produces pretty much film-like results. But then beauty is in the eye of the beholder ;)
I don't think it's a Canon thing per se. I think the differences are more generic and come down to factors involving film grain, bayer algorithms, etc. I guess I find digital capture a little too clinical for my personal work (though this is a very simplistic generalisation). I suppose I like a lot of films for the kind of 'organic' abstraction that I find difficult to replicate using digital. As an example, I still shoot a fair bit of Polaroid.
jaapv : proove :)
Film:
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/jaapv/corvara0170-after.jpg
Digilux:
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/jaapv/fastfood.jpg
Nachkebia
08-23-2006, 09:31
When sun goes down everything is looking good :) you could have taken same picture with mobile :) show me normal shot in normal lighitng :)
We know that the M8 will have a 1.33x crop sensor and those of us who will be buying it will have to live with that compromise. ....... Given the choice between full frame and cropped frame (assuming all else is equal) I don't think many would choose the cropped version.[/quote]
IAN
But I don't think its a compromise. I think the 1.33 format is the "sweet spot" or best size for a high quality rangefinder format. In other words, if one was starting with a blank slate, the 1.33 format would be the end results. The only downside I see to the format is that we have to re- adjust are perception of what a given focal length will yield in 35mm equivelents. I'll admit that I have a little trouble with that too, but in the long run, I think I'll get it.
I think the full frame format lends itself better with regards DSLR's. The camera body necessitates a larger physical size (mirror box issues) and can absorb the bigger sensor more readily. On the other hand, the rangefinder format, really excels when the camera is trim and compact.
Rex
Mark Norton
08-23-2006, 09:55
For reasons that we all know about, the M8 cannot be full frame so there's no point moaning about the fact it's not. If you don't like the crop factor with the implications on adapting to new angles of view and changed depth of field, don't buy the camera.
For us old dogs who are prepared to learn new tricks, shooting with a lens one step shorter and half a stop wider will produce images which are broadly similar to what we'd get with film, assuming we still used it of course.
As for how the thing draws images, I fully expect the M8 to stand any comparison and if you then factor in the size, quiet, weight, it's a sure-fire winner.
When sun goes down everything is looking good :) you could have taken same picture with mobile :) show me normal shot in normal lighitng :)
OK
Digilux2:
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/jaapv/corv05042-after.jpg
And please, what mobile phone would that be ?? I want it !!!!!
back alley
08-23-2006, 10:27
i would buy this without hesitation if i had the money.
i think film & digital are brothers with different mothers (old music album reference).
but at 4500 usd, i'd either have to win the lottery or get a real job;)
joe
It occurred to me that this Forum has three threads that underlay almost everything else. They are all seperate issues but seem to get intertwined all the time.
*Rangefinder vs SLR
*Film vs Digital
*Full frame vs Crop
Everybody on this forum is on the same page with regards the rangefinder vs SLR issue. However, since only about 1% of camera users have any appreciation or knowledge of the advantages of the rangefinder, we better hope a digital model takes off. At least in our nitch market.
Because film is dead. Thats right, if a digital rangefinder doesn't have at least a little commercial success, This forum will slowly shrink as film and film cameras become less available. I like film (I have a darkroom), but lets face it.
The full frame vs crop thing is fun to argue about, but in the long term doesn't really mean anything. Market forces will determine the winner. Anyway, on this forum, the issue gets mixed up with digital vs film.
Over the next few months, the sucess or lack of success of the M8 will pretty
much determine if this forum stays as an active, contemporary site or slowly emerges as a historical, collector type site. I will stay aboard as I like both, but I hope the contemporary, digital side has success too. I wish therewas a slew of digital rangefinders available instead of just two.
Rex
back alley
08-23-2006, 10:39
Because film is dead...Anyway, on this forum, the issue gets mixed up with digital vs film.
with comments like this, no wonder we have film v. digital debates and not more of a camraderie between the 2.
declaring film is dead is just short sighted as far as i'm concerned.
joe
Mark Norton
08-23-2006, 11:00
My dealer has just confirmed I am no 2 on their list for the M8. I just cannot wait.
So I guess the M8 may become a huge success in the second hand market if it doesn't fullfill the high expectations many photographers put upon it.
back alley
08-23-2006, 11:50
i may be able to afford an rd1 if they flood the market all at once.
joe
the RD1 is still too expensive...
greggebhardt
08-23-2006, 12:18
New glass is standing by waiting on the M8. I hope it will be soon, very soon!
Because film is dead...Anyway, on this forum, the issue gets mixed up with digital vs film.
with comments like this, no wonder we have film v. digital debates and not more of a camraderie between the 2.
declaring film is dead is just short sighted as far as i'm concerned.
joe
Joe
Sorry for being a little more blunt than I meant. It's not that I don't like film because I do. I have four rangefinders, three SLRs, and two folders. I develop my own film and print real fiber based prints in a real darkroom.
But, eventially there will be less and less of us. That may be a shame, but thats going to be the reality. I don't think I will ever stop using film, myself.
I was trying to make the point that the rangefinder issue is different than the film issue. I certainly didn't mean to say that film isn't a wonderful media. My concern is that by linking filn with rangefinders too much, it might hurt the acceptance of rangefinders in the digital community. The usefulness and utility of the rangefinder spans across the film-digital divide. And frankly, I don't think there really is a digital-film divide for most of us.
Right now the two digital rangefinders that are available are too expensive. But in order for that to change, it is important that the M8 is a success. If it isn't, what chance is there that any other manufacterer will come to the show with a more affordable model?
I apologise for saying "film is dead" because it isn't. But commercially we cannot expect to finder much if any R&D going into film or film cameras. But that does not mean that the rangefinder is in the same perdicament. Or at least I hope so.
A comrade in film & digital
Rex
Nachkebia
08-23-2006, 12:47
jaapv : exuise my ignorance but that does not look film to me :)
back alley
08-23-2006, 13:12
Joe
Sorry for being a little more blunt than I meant. It's not that I don't like film because I do. I have four rangefinders, three SLRs, and two folders. I develop my own film and print real fiber based prints in a real darkroom.
But, eventially there will be less and less of us. That may be a shame, but thats going to be the reality. I don't think I will ever stop using film, myself.
I was trying to make the point that the rangefinder issue is different than the film issue. I certainly didn't mean to say that film isn't a wonderful media. My concern is that by linking filn with rangefinders too much, it might hurt the acceptance of rangefinders in the digital community. The usefulness and utility of the rangefinder spans across the film-digital divide. And frankly, I don't think there really is a digital-film divide for most of us.
Right now the two digital rangefinders that are available are too expensive. But in order for that to change, it is important that the M8 is a success. If it isn't, what chance is there that any other manufacterer will come to the show with a more affordable model?
I apologise for saying "film is dead" because it isn't. But commercially we cannot expect to finder much if any R&D going into film or film cameras. But that does not mean that the rangefinder is in the same perdicament. Or at least I hope so.
A comrade in film & digital
Rex
agreed.
i will always prefer the feel of a rangefinder camera over a slr.
not knocking the slr but i like rf's.
i also know that if there were only digital rangefinders left to shoot with that i would be shooting one, somehow.
i have commented lately, a few times in various threads, that we are a dwindling community and that any forward movement in the rf arena should be celebrated and fostered as much as possible. this certainly includes digital rf as well.
joe
Well, I'll be up for an M8. But not till the R-D1 dies.
It's no coincidence that so many RF lovers are suspicious of digital. There has only ever been film for those of us who grew up with RFs. I switched to digital a few years ago because I moved to London, and couldn't afford a darkroom, and though now amateur, I still love the RFs, and love the R-D1.
My other camera is the EOS 1Dm2, also a 1.3 crop factor camera, so I'd get the M8 to have two cameras with the same physical sensor size.
I will definitely buy the M8 or Digital M, have my name in a pre-list now
Mark Norton
08-23-2006, 14:05
If you're like me, the R-D1 was a revelation. My Leica glass had stood unused for several years after I stopped using film, and the ability to see the results of using it again immediately simply confirmed to me that if this is what the R-D1 can do, how special is the M8 is going to be?
The R-D1 is very Leica-like in use, a few rough edges to be sure, and I'm really hoping the M8 moves the game on significantly.
Well, I'll be up for an M8. But not till the R-D1 dies.
It's no coincidence that so many RF lovers are suspicious of digital
I actually got into rangefinders thru film. Back a few years ago I decided to stay with film via the use of a scanner. In other words, at that time I thought I would never be able to get a "proper" print darkroom together and thought that film was superior to digital (and it was). I was perfectly capable of developing my own B&W and of course color slide emulsions where wtill easy to get.
I say the then new Voightlander range of film rangefinders and was excited about the concept. So for a few years I was content to scan my film and ink jet my prints. However, scanning gets old pretty fast.
So about a year ago I bought a Canon 20D to elimenate the scanning step. That worked pretty well but I knew I was missing something and it was more the rangefinder than it was the film. That's when I decided to go for the RD1
Ironically, my obsession with the RD1 caused me to get interested in film again. Thats because in following the trials and tribulations of an average RD1 owner, I was introduced to the RF forum, and discovered all the film guys.
But still I hated scanning so I bite the bullet and set up a print darkroom. I had the space and I used a small Durst 606 enlarger with capacity up to 11x14 to keep everything modest. I had a darkroom in the late 50's thru 1972 so I knew what I was doing and I knew not to go overboard. I can actually store my entire darkroom in a medium size box and it is totally functional.
That being said, digital is a lot easier. And the media is NOT inferior, it is just different. I love both, but frankly, if I had to depend on others for my film processing, and had too scan to get prints, I don't know if I'd do it.
Jon Perry
08-23-2006, 17:11
"What are your purchase plans for the Leca digital RF?"
Long term due to expense! :D
:rolleyes:
Took a quick look at the message, and did not see this mentioned.
I shot M2 and later M4.... why, because I got a Leicavit and later the motor drive.
The R-D1s missed the boat.... why need to manually advance the shutter! This is retro. The rangefinder is ideal for the auto film advance/drive .... not so mcuh to catch an active moving subject.... but to keep an eye on the subject without the motion of the camera while "re-winding".
I still have a large collection of Leitz Summicron waiting to be used for journalism work, but unless the auto advanced feature is incorporated, this will remain the Volvo of the camera world.
I spoke to Epson about this, but they feel retro is the game in town, Leica people had no idea what was in the works. Comment?
Mark Norton
08-23-2006, 21:38
The R-D1 was not a clean-sheet design, it's based on the Voigtlander Bessa camera which is a conventional film rangefinder camera. As such, it inherits that camera's shutter and rangefinder with the electronics and battery shoe-horned in where the film and film transport used to go, and across the back.
My own experience of the R-D1 is that it is pleasantly familiar to use after a film M but of course the Bessa is not equipped for a motor drive or winder anyway so it was always going to have a wind on lever. Epson's take on the situation - retro is in - is just a marketing position established around the product they have to sell.
The M8, on the other hand, is a complete mechanical redesign incorporating the R9 metal shutter and is motor driven - you can use a much smaller, quieter motor to drive the shutter compared to one which needs to move film. Seems likely the viewfinder/rangerfinder is carried over from the M7, modified only for crop factor, and we're expecting a camera which is strikingly similar to the M7 to look at. The thumbs down response to the M5 still hurts 35 years on...
amateriat
08-23-2006, 22:03
The R-D1 was not a clean-sheet design, it's based on the Voigtlander Bessa camera which is a conventional film rangefinder camera. As such, it inherits that camera's shutter and rangefinder with the electronics and battery shoe-horned in where the film and film transport used to go, and across the back.
My own experience of the R-D1 is that it is pleasantly familiar to use after a film M but of course the Bessa is not equipped for a motor drive or winder anyway so it was always going to have a wind on lever. Epson's take on the situation - retro is in - is just a marketing position established around the product they have to sell.
The M8, on the other hand, is a complete mechanical redesign incorporating the R9 metal shutter and is motor driven - you can use a much smaller, quieter motor to drive the shutter compared to one which needs to move film. Seems likely the viewfinder/rangerfinder is carried over from the M7, modified only for crop factor, and we're expecting a camera which is strikingly similar to the M7 to look at. The thumbs down response to the M5 still hurts 35 years on... I have a funny feeling that the closest analog (pun intended) to the M8 might be Konica's Hexar RF: pretty much the same size as a Leica M7, but incorporating motorized film advance and rewind, along with a vertical-traveling shutter with relatively high (1/125) flash sync speed. (In other words: yes, It Can Be Done.) The only minor issue with the Hexar has been the noise of the film-wind motor; obviously, Leica doesn't have that issue with the M8, so doing away with manual advance is a non-issue: this is a contemporary, digital M camera, which needn't mimic its film siblings "just because". It's an M to (hopefully) be taken seriously on its own merits, although a certain surface familiarity doesn't hurt. :)
And how it pains me to know there was, indeed, a prototype digital HRF...
- Barrett
what does it take to get to see camera prototypes? i've got a pretty good fox mulder impression.
Rich Silfver
08-23-2006, 23:58
The R-D1s missed the boat.... why need to manually advance the shutter! This is retro. The rangefinder is ideal for the auto film advance/drive .... not so mcuh to catch an active moving subject.... but to keep an eye on the subject without the motion of the camera while "re-winding".
I still have a large collection of Leitz Summicron waiting to be used for journalism work, but unless the auto advanced feature is incorporated, this will remain the Volvo of the camera world.
I spoke to Epson about this, but they feel retro is the game in town, Leica people had no idea what was in the works. Comment?
I am still - even now - utterly confused and surprised over many of the design decisions in the R-D1. The faux advance lever and the gaudy gages ontop are - in MY opinion - some of the tackiest designs I've ever seen in a product aimed at an audience older than 12 years old. I could not take myself even semi-serious if I had to use a 'film advance lever' on a digital camera. I am however happy that there are people out there that seem to like it. Diversity is good.
IGMeanwell
08-24-2006, 00:03
what does it take to get to see camera prototypes? i've got a pretty good fox mulder impression.
Mulder: Scully Can't you see ... they don't want us to see the real M8.
The information you have of the M8 has been placed there to make you think its one thing... but its really something different
Scully: Its just a camera Mulder why would anyone want to hide any information about that?
Mulder: Thats exactly the question we need to answer...
Enter creepy music
and... commericial
usccharles
08-24-2006, 00:08
i'm a sucker for new gadgets. I'll probably jump on the M8 as soon as it comes out. I just hope the sensor is better than the RD-1. I find my RD-1 to be alittle soft on the sharpness factor, and i always end up going with my Canon 5D instead, if i'm looking for real sharp pictures. the RD-1 is a great 'social' camera as its small enough to be carried around in social environments without it being too obtrusive. but honestly, even the RD-1 feels too bulky for me if i compare it to my M6 ttl. If leica can make a digital rangfinder that feels as good as my M6 and can make as sharp an image as my 5D. I'll definately bite.
I am still - even now - utterly confused and surprised over many of the design decisions in the R-D1. The faux advance lever and the gaudy gages ontop are - in MY opinion - some of the tackiest designs I've ever seen in a product aimed at an audience older than 12 years old. I could not take myself even semi-serious if I had to use a 'film advance lever' on a digital camera. I am however happy that there are people out there that seem to like it. Diversity is good.
Rich
Your hurting my feelings ! :( I luuuv the cute dial and faux advance lever!
And about being no older than 12 years old, I dare you to cross this line!!
Rex
not semi-serious
in Berkeley, where we don't wear socks with our shoes
jaapv : exuise my ignorance but that does not look film to me :)
I agree, monitors don't really show up that kind of thing. If you are in the neighbourhood some time step by for a beer and a look at the prints.
Nachkebia
08-24-2006, 11:14
With love Jaap :)
Rich Silfver
08-24-2006, 12:19
Rich
Your hurting my feelings ! :( I luuuv the cute dial and faux advance lever!
And about being no older than 12 years old, I dare you to cross this line!!
Rex
not semi-serious
in Berkeley, where we don't wear socks with our shoes
Sorry Rex - but as I said it's a good thing taste is so diverse (and that 12 year olds have deep pockets these days) ;)
[...]That being said, digital is a lot easier. And the media is NOT inferior, it is just different. I love both, but frankly, if I had to depend on others for my film processing, and had too scan to get prints, I don't know if I'd do it.
After moving to a flat, I find it unpractical to set up a temporary darkroom (I have tried/done that in the past) and having invested a lot of money into a computer to do B&W printing, I am now working with digital post-processing.
It is a more expensive way of doing it compared to a darkroom, but the good side is that I can print a little at a time when I find some time. I do not need to set aside hours and I also have much better control with Photoshop compared to what I have managed to get my darkroom skills to. So I guess I would prefer to hang onto digital in the future.
On the other hand, as you say, neither is better, they are different.
But, I do not buy the commonly heard argument that if you do digital post processing, you have to use digital cameras. Yes, scanning is a pain, but paying for a DRF is a much more severe pain, and I prefer to have a physical film (not only computer files). I can even scan MF and get some 800MB of data from each picture.
It is also something relaxing of using a mechanical camera, or a camera that runs a year on a set of batteries, rather than hunting for a place to recharge the battery pack all the time (I have been there and I do not like it).
I guess the bottom line is that as long as the digital camera makers insists on thinking that (big) DSLRs, extremely expensive DRFs or digicams (with too much automation) is what I need, they can keep their stuff. (The only digital camera I have is a very tiny one that is way smaller than any normal film camera.)
Why not make a small digital RF with fixed lens suitable for available light that fits easily into the pocket? Top it with traditional controls and it would sell quite well I think. Then also make a B&W and IR model of it..:cool:
Having said all this, I do hope the M8 becomes a reaonable success. I say reasonable, because I would hate if it was a huge success as it would mean that camera makers can take whatever steep prices they want, as people have too much money and/or are too deperate...:o
/Håkan
Mark Norton
08-24-2006, 18:46
I'd say that Leica's long term health demands that the M8 is not reasonably successful but extremely so, not only in terms of high sales but also of increased lens sales and low support and warranty costs.
Sadly, Leica has been a loss-making business for a little while and but for new investors would have failed last year. With new far-sighted management and a streamlined business operation, Leica is in better shape but needs at some point to return to profit. The success of the M8 is key to its future.
HenningW
08-25-2006, 12:31
I'll likely be getting one after a little while. I'll probably let others work on the first bugs. Film will always be part of my rangefinder usage, but digital can only enhance it. My SLR useage is now 95% digital, and while that percentage is unlikely to apply to my rangefinder useage, it could hit 60% easily.
The price is high, but considering what other photo stuff I've bought over the years, it's not that big a fraction. I've certainly got a lot more invested in lenses that fit.
I don't shoot 35mm colour negative anymore; digital has completely supplanted that. I used to shoot lots of 35mm transparency on trips, but that is gone mostly due to airline procedures. So 35mm at this time means mostly B&W, and that's what I mostly shoot in rangefinders. Larger formats, panoramas, etc still get fed with colour negative material at times.
I used a pre-production RD-1 for a bit, and disliked enough things that I never bought one, but hoped for an evolutionary model. Kobayashi-san isn't really interested, and will wait until he sees how the M8 flies, so we never got a better RD-1.
I have enough lenses in M or LTM mount to let me shoot in pretty much the same style I can with the (uncropped) film bodies, except there is no 35/1.4 equivalent, and I do get to shoot with a 100mm/1.4 and 66mm/1 equivalents. I just hope the CV 12 will work properly, and better than on the RD-1.
I wouldn't hold out much hope that the shutter/wind is quieter than that of the Hexar RF; the shutter has a higher top speed and the motor wind noise on the Hexar is mostly from winding the shutter. It'll be a different sound than the Hexar, but it won't be like an M7 or earlier.
The determining features will center around the viewfinder (and rangefinder that stays in reasonable alignment), clean control layout, responsiveness, sufficient buffer size, and of course, image quality with the lenses that I want to use most. Which lenses those will be will have to be decided after I try the camera for a bit. If it feels enough larger than an M6TTL, a 35/1.4 ASPH might feel better on it than a pre-ASPH 35/2 for example. Maybe the 75/1.4 is unworkable, but a 90 T-E is just fine. Maybe the 12/5.6 CV is just great but the 15/4.5 sucks on the M8 just as it did on the RD-1.
We'll find out shortly.
Henning
I have been a sufferer of Leica Acquisition Syndrome for some time now, and I have too many Leica items that I simply don't use. So it is time to put them on eBay and raise the cash for my M8. I have already placed my order and secured it with a substantial deposit.
I am pleased with the M8 specification and also (surprisingly) happy about the price. It isn't a bargain - for that you need to conside the Epson R-D1(s) - but it is reasonable compared with the M7, of which I (used to) own two. My future outfit will be an M8, an M7 and a user M3 and five lenses from 15mm (CV) to 90mm.
I am, or is that was, considering getting an Ikon, M7 or MP + a fast 50 but could be easily tempted into getting the M8 + a fast 35 for the extra £££. If had the space for my own dark room I wouldn't consider the M8 at all but taking into account ongoing d&p costs (and pitfalls) and the price of a decent scanner the M8 looks good value.
:eek: What did I just say??
grduprey
08-26-2006, 13:14
I will be getting one. Seems the perfect solution to joing the digital age with my Leica lenses. Gene
Rich Silfver
08-26-2006, 13:20
I am, or is that was, considering getting an Ikon, M7 or MP + a fast 50 but could be easily tempted into getting the M8 + a fast 35 for the extra £££. If had the space for my own dark room I wouldn't consider the M8 at all but taking into account ongoing d&p costs (and pitfalls) and the price of a decent scanner the M8 looks good value.
:eek: What did I just say??
I feel your 'pain'..I'm sitting here thinking the same thing.
I have a few thousand dollars tied up in film cameras...maybe it's time to... No... I can't even say it....
There, there Rich. There, there...
Except for the point & shoot slr I somehow managed to acquire:confused: I think I'll keep the rest (GR1, XA2, manual everything Fujica slr etc) so that once I've gone over to the dark side I can pretend I'm still one of the good guys. CUCKOO... CUCKOO!
humanized_form
08-26-2006, 15:11
sell any digital cameras you might have, as they really will only go down in value. i ebay'd my panasonic lc-1 while the value was still high and i really don't miss that digicam at all. that was about 25% of my M8 funding right there! my M7? i would never give that up to acquire a digital camera. pointless.
i had a friend that was going to sell some of his hassleblad stuff, so he got some estimates and quickly realized that the money he would make from the sale wasn't worth giving up the camera/lenses for.
"I feel your 'pain'..I'm sitting here thinking the same thing.
I have a few thousand dollars tied up in film cameras...maybe it's time to... No... I can't even say it....
"
Spent this afternoon valuing and trying to work out an disposal/aquisition strategy that allows for an M8. There's $18,600 of kit in my collection includiing $6,200 of Leica gear.
I need to buy a digital outfit and am holding off placing an order to awaiting confirmation that the M8 will be a practical replacement for a Mamiya 7 and a Hasselblad for the wedding and commercial work I do, in addition to my personal photography. I am desparately trying to avoid the size and weight of a FF Canon outfit, but it maybe inevitable.
An M8 plus a 24mm lens wil cost a further circa $8,800. A Canon outfit will cost $12,500. Either will be funded by the sale of hard won equipment. Hence, the pain.
Nachkebia
08-26-2006, 23:40
What the heck happened with M8 pictures? :D "real" pictures? :D :D
The lack of information about this small sensor M8 or MD may lead one into thinking it won't be for sale any time soon.
Bob Ross
08-27-2006, 09:14
What the heck happened with M8 pictures? :D "real" pictures? :D :D
The men in black showed up on Jorge's doorstep:eek:
I find it a little odd that so far, throughout this thread, there hasn't been much discussion of the poll results. Here, in the world's leading Website of RF enthusiasts, with 6,211 "members" and an unknown number of other people who pop in from time to time, the poll reveals that a grand total of just 39 people have pre-ordered the M8 (which doesn't in fact obligate them to buy one) and another 172 people may at some point in the future buy one if they can scrape together enough cash or it meets their expectations or whatever. Am I the only person who thinks these are not very impressive numbers? Well, you may say, there are a lot more potential buyers waiting in the wings. Who, exactly? "Collectors"? I may be wrong, but I can't see collectors avidly snapping up this (or any other) digital camera. The proverbial doctors and lawyers with cash to burn? Maybe, but I have a feeling they'll impress their friends more with a Canon 5D or whatever other megapixel DSLR comes down the pike six months from now. And then there's the final poll result -- 159 respondents, 43% of the total, say they definitely have no interest in getting an M8. If such a high percentage of the M8's natural buyer pool is so unenthusiastic, how is Leica ever going to make a go of it? I hope the M8 is a giant leap forward and will generate a groundswell of enthusiasm that this poll hasn't captured. But if it isn't, I don't see a great future for it -- or for Leica itself.
Jon Perry
08-28-2006, 03:05
Statistical polls are only as good as the questions asked, and even then you tend to get the answer 'you' want from the questions asked.
For example:
57.03% want an M8 according to the above poll.
Leica has no choice but to release this camera (sooner rather than later) or disappear into the history books. Sales figures will tell the true story.
Jon
Jon--
I was concentrating on the actual numbers of potential M8 buyers that the poll revealed, not the percentages. Even if all the 211 people who have pre-ordered an M8 or said they MIGHT some day buy one actually did, that's $1,000,000 in sales. Hardly enough to keep Leica afloat. Plus a lot of those people may then sell their film Leicas on the second-hand market, eating into Leica's already dwindling film camera revenues. And does Leica really believe that people who don't already own Leica lenses will be willing to shell out $5,000 for the M8 and then thousands more for new lenses to go with it? But as you say, this is all speculation until the actual sales figures start to come in.
Nachkebia
08-28-2006, 03:22
Just can`t wait for this Plus a lot of those people may then sell their film Leicas on the second-hand market :D :D
Mark Norton
08-28-2006, 03:38
Their financial year runs to 31 March, so it will be interesting to see what impact 6 months of this thing has on their sales figures.
Jon Perry
08-28-2006, 03:56
Jon--
I was concentrating on the actual numbers of potential M8 buyers that the poll revealed, not the percentages. Even if all the 211 people who have pre-ordered an M8 or said they MIGHT some day buy one actually did, that's $1,000,000 in sales. Hardly enough to keep Leica afloat. Plus a lot of those people may then sell their film Leicas on the second-hand market, eating into Leica's already dwindling film camera revenues. And does Leica really believe that people who don't already own Leica lenses will be willing to shell out $5,000 for the M8 and then thousands more for new lenses to go with it? But as you say, this is all speculation until the actual sales figures start to come in.
Lets face it, if Leica were basing projected sales figures from those poll results they would probably just give up. I think it is safe to say that we are only a very small part of their potential market. Either that or they're doomed! :D
Jon
Jon,
I guess that's where you and I differ. I would argue that the members of this Website are, at least potentially, a very large part of the total market for the M8. Only 6% of them have cared enough to participate in a poll on the M8 that has been going on for nearly 3 months -- and just 3% have expressed an interest, at this stage, in actually getting one, at some point in time. Doesn't sound like it's a Burning Issue to the vast majority of people who look at this Website on a regular basis. Maybe that will change when the camera is finally revealed -- for Leica's sake, it better. As I said earlier, I just don't think the M8 will be able to pull in buyers from outside the rangefinder enthusiast community in the same way Leica's film cameras did, because those buyers were attracted by their prestige value. You want to see the potential market for the M8? You're looking at it!
Jon,
I guess that's where you and I differ. I would argue that the members of this Website are, at least potentially, a very large part of the total market for the M8. Only 6% of them have cared enough to participate in a poll on the M8 that has been going on for nearly 3 months -- and just 3% have expressed an interest, at this stage, in actually getting one, at some point in time. Doesn't sound like it's a Burning Issue to the vast majority of people who look at this Website on a regular basis. Maybe that will change when the camera is finally revealed -- for Leica's sake, it better. As I said earlier, I just don't think the M8 will be able to pull in buyers from outside the rangefinder enthusiast community in the same way Leica's film cameras did, because those buyers were attracted by their prestige value. You want to see the potential market for the M8? You're looking at it!
Somehow I doubt that RFF members as a whole are a large part of the potential market. This site covers a wide range of interests in RF camera's from FSU camera's and large format through to Leica M and RD1., including a large number of film only entusiasts. Considering the relatively small number of participants on the relevant forums, I would say the proportion is rather small.
Somehow I doubt that RFF members as a whole are a large part of the potential market.
There are about 6600 registered members on RRF. There are about 7 times that number of quests at any given time. The few elgible to vote where split about 50-50. Extending that, there may be 25,000 potential buyers on this forum alone!
And when you consider that probably only a few persent of current Leica owners have even heard of this site that means that there are 25,000,000 potential serious buyers! So if only 1 in 25 buys the camera, that would be net sales of of 50 billion dollars,,,, or is that 5 billion dollars? Ah, let me figure that again.....mmmm.
Rex
My dealer has 25 M8 on order.
Only one dealer, only the first batch.
From a small city in the North of Italy.
I don't think the numbers shown here is even remotely representative to the potential M8 buyers all over the world.
I'll pass thank you. I have a pair of 5D's for digital .
I just got my first Leica Friday: M6 Wetzlar w/ 35 2.0 ASPH. Now why would I want to put a silly little cropped chip behind that glass when there are tons of great films out there?
.....Including my 800 rolls of Kodachrome..:D
To be clear, I am a rank amateur. Before joining the RFF barely 9 months ago, I was a happy owner of a Zorki 4K/J8 outfit and some prosumer digital gear. Since then, I've acquired (and have been using) an M7, an R-D1, an R2, bunch of Leica, Konica, and CV lenses, and a Contax G2 outfit, all thanks to the friendly and much appreciated advice I found here on this forum.
I'd developed the lust for the “M” over time based on RFF posts that exulted it's virtues as a quiet, extremely well-built, and well-designed shooter that may last me for a long, long time. The cloth shutter, the ergonomics, Leica's rich history of producing amazing b&w photos, all that stuff made a purchase of an "M" simply irresistible. And rightly so - I simply love using the M7.
From recent posts, it looks like Leica M8 will have a fairly loud shutter, no shutter advance lever, and will be larger than the M7. With the exception of the Leica “look”, it will be, effectively, an R-D2 (more megapixels than R-D1). So I wonder, if the M8 is just a slightly improved R-D1, why wasn’t the entire limited stock of R-D1 sold out as soon as it became available? Is it the aforementioned “Leica look” and prestige of owning a Leica that’s making the M8 so much more appealing then the R-D1? How much of this pent-up demand for the M8 is based on reason and how much of it is simply a trained response to anything new from Leica? Not that I mind, not in the least, but - just wondering…
From recent posts, it looks like …...there have been a lot of assumptions assumed and a lot of illusions concluded... It may be fun though. :)
I'll pass too!!!
Love my new 5D, and I've still 500 uncropped Agfa APX and Vista to use with my Leica glass.
Maybe later I'll consider a M 9 or 10.
To be clear, I am a rank amateur. Before joining the RFF barely 9 months ago, I was a happy owner of a Zorki 4K/J8 outfit and some prosumer digital gear. Since then, I've acquired (and have been using) an M7, an R-D1, an R2, bunch of Leica, Konica, and CV lenses, and a Contax G2 outfit, all thanks to the friendly and much appreciated advice I found here on this forum.
I'd developed the lust for the “M” over time based on RFF posts that exulted it's virtues as a quiet, extremely well-built, and well-designed shooter that may last me for a long, long time. The cloth shutter, the ergonomics, Leica's rich history of producing amazing b&w photos, all that stuff made a purchase of an "M" simply irresistible. And rightly so - I simply love using the M7.
From recent posts, it looks like Leica M8 will have a fairly loud shutter, no shutter advance lever, and will be larger than the M7. With the exception of the Leica “look”, it will be, effectively, an R-D2 (more megapixels than R-D1). So I wonder, if the M8 is just a slightly improved R-D1, why wasn’t the entire limited stock of R-D1 sold out as soon as it became available? Is it the aforementioned “Leica look” and prestige of owning a Leica that’s making the M8 so much more appealing then the R-D1? How much of this pent-up demand for the M8 is based on reason and how much of it is simply a trained response to anything new from Leica? Not that I mind, not in the least, but - just wondering…
A fair question that deserves a fair answer. Or rather two questions. The first one, why M8 over RD2. Well, the first simple answer: because there probably never will be a RD2. Second simple answer: for RD2 and M8 simply substitute: M7 and Bessa. Or Mercedes and Hyundai. Or Seiko and Lange und Sohne and so on. Then the question provides its own answer.
The second question: Why was the RD1 not the succes it deserves to be?
A lot of reasons. Firstly the name on the camera: It should have been Voigtlander instead of Epson. It should have been marketed by a company that had a reputation in the camera field. By the time Epson had gained a reputation it was for shoddy QC and second-rate customer care. It should have been sold through camera channels and not by a company that had the printer-mentality: replace the thing until the customer stops complaining. It should have been reviewed by photographers and not by computer geeks or digital Point and Shoot "experts" that didn't understand the first thing about it. Having said that it has earned a place of honour in camera history because most of them ended up in the expert hands of enthusiasts like we see on this forum.
J. Borger
08-29-2006, 14:08
Why was the RD1 not the succes it deserves to be?
A lot of reasons. Firstly the name on the camera: It should have been Voigtlander instead of Epson. It should have been marketed by a company that had a reputation in the camera field. By the time Epson had gained a reputation it was for shoddy QC and second-rate customer care. It should have been sold through camera channels and not by a company that had the printer-mentality: replace the thing until the customer stops complaining. It should have been reviewed by photographers and not by computer geeks or digital Point and Shoot "experts" that didn't understand the first thing about it. Having said that it has earned a place of honour in camera history because most of them ended up in the expert hands of enthusiasts like we see on this forum.
I think you are spot on.
I have said it from day one the Epson brand name was the main reason of failure in salesfigures.
On the other hand there must have been some photographers involved in developing the product.
I can only hope the M8 has a B&W mode (in raw format) with complete B&W workflow as convincing as the R-D1. That's my main concern with respect to the M8.
Yes i know .. PS .. converting myself ... have tried all the conversions and plug-ins .. but nothing beats the R-D1's B&W files!
Jon Perry
08-29-2006, 14:36
Jon,
I guess that's where you and I differ.
Out of curiousity, in what way?
I'm not making assumptions about Leicas success or otherwise regarding the M8. I'm just going to wait and see how the sales go. We can try and guess as much as we like, but the sales figures will not lie. The M8 either succeeds and Leica continues as a camera manufacturer or it fails and they become a chapter (although a rather large one!) in the history books.
I hope it succeeds.
I think you are spot on.
I have said it from day one the Epson brand name was the main reason of failure in salesfigures.
On the other hand there must have been some photographers involved in developing the product.
I can only hope the M8 has a B&W mode (in raw format) with complete B&W workflow as convincing as the R-D1. That's my main concern with respect to the M8.
Yes i know .. PS .. converting myself ... have tried all the conversions and plug-ins .. but nothing beats the R-D1's B&W files!
try this:
Create a levels adjustment layer.
Set foregroundcolour to black.
Create a adjustment layer with gradient map.
Adjust the levels in the colour channels of the levels1 layer.
Flatten.
Remove colour (is invisble anyway)
Wow! I haven't read this entire thread, just skimmed some of the comments.
Seems like a lot conjecture and "apples and oranges" comparisons going on besides some quite cojent remarks.
I have just ordered my M8, 1/2 an hour ago. I am # 6 on the dealers list. It is expected maybe 30 of the ordered 200 for Australia will actually make it to these shores first time round. Hopefully I will be in that 30.
I have been using an RD-1 for the last maybe 9 months. Despite it's well known shortcomings it is still serving me well and is a delight to use wthin its particular limitations which are frustrating. I am definitely looking forward to the reliability I am accustomed to from Leica. I will keep the RD-1 as a backup, along with my collection of M film cameras.
Detractors of the M8, who have never seen, handled or used it need to sit back and think about what they really expect from a camera. If the M8 does not promise or offer it, you are looking at the wrong tool for your needs. Whose fault is that? Choose the tools for the job, remembering that no tool is successfully universal. That is why you have a tool bag to hold the range of tools required.
Cheers,
Erl
Which dealers are taking pre-orders for this camera? My understanding is that Leica is not even accepting orders yet. I suspect that this camera will just dribble onto the market and there will be a long waiting list for this one. That's not a problem for most as film is still plenty available.
I never considered this until my local lab lost my film recently.
Mark Norton
09-01-2006, 06:07
Erl, any indication on price? Interesting the initial sales is set at 200. Scale up by population for the major markets (US, Canada, Japan, Europe, Oz) and that suggests 6 - 8000 cameras in the first year, 30-40 a day, say, €20m turnover.
AndyPiper
09-01-2006, 12:29
Which dealers are taking pre-orders for this camera? My understanding is that Leica is not even accepting orders yet. I suspect that this camera will just dribble onto the market and there will be a long waiting list for this one.
My local region is a relatively unpopulated, and not especially wealthy/cosmopolitan, part of the U.S. (Rocky Mountain states). Within that region there were, as of June, 30 pre-orders for the M8, and the reps expected that the first shipment alone (by end of October) would fill all of those orders.
I know of 6 pre-orders in Denver (and that's just 2 camera stores out of a dozen or so) - in a metropolitan population of under 3 million. Extrapolate that to 300 million in the US, and that would make at least 600 M8s pre-ordered sight (and specs) unseen. Assuming that 1/4 of the world population is even vaguely a marketplace for Leica (1.5 billion) that would make 3000 pre-orders, as of June, world-wide. Likely higher by now.
And that's just the pre-orders, which is 25% of the demand (per Jorge's poll). Being very conservative.
And Leica seems to be planning to fill the pre-orders in the first month or so after PhotoKina.
In terms of production and planning - this is no longer the company that "dribbled out" the DMR.
petermcwerner
09-01-2006, 12:53
Assuming that 1/4 of the world population is even vaguely a marketplace for Leica (1.5 billion)
Very optimistic in my view. Think of the millions in Africa, Arab countries, Asia, Latin America who have to live on 1 US$ per day or less...
AndyPiper
09-01-2006, 22:18
Peter: I hear what you're saying.
I guess I meant to say "assuming that 1/4 of the world's population resides in cultures with enough wealth that digital cameras are not beyond the realm of imagination for a significant proportion of the population - and thus vaguely a marketplace for Leica" - i.e. US, Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia, and some 'new industrialists/entrepreneurs' regions of China, India, and Russia.
Which still leaves 4.5 billion in the $1 per day or less category.
Maybe that estimate is still "optimistic" - if 4.5 billion in unbelievable poverty can be called "optimistic".
Erl, any indication on price? Interesting the initial sales is set at 200. Scale up by population for the major markets (US, Canada, Japan, Europe, Oz) and that suggests 6 - 8000 cameras in the first year, 30-40 a day, say, €20m turnover.
Mark, The Oz importer has (reputedly) ordered 200, but clearly expects to get only 30 units. Price wise, I have been "quoted" AU$6990 - 7200 as an expected range! That equates to: US$5362 - 5523. Only time (Mid November) will tell. Interestingly, the dealer did not ask for a deposit until real facts are available.
Mark Norton
09-03-2006, 10:34
It would be interesting to know how many cameras Leica are gearing up to make on a continuous basis. They must have done a forecast using whatever statistics on M ownership and use they can lay their hands on including current M sales, DMR sales, the market for digital cameras, the prevailing economic climate and the rest. Put all that in the mix and, depending on the assumptions they make, they could be awash with product or back-ordered for months.
Experience with the DMR, D2, D-Lux 2 suggests they tend to be conservative with the DMR having had the additional problems of delayed introduction.
But, overall, it sounds to me like they will be making them in the 10's per day not the 100's...
it sounds to me like they will be making them in the 10's per day not the 100's...
I'm really not sure that the hand-made processes that some people seem to be expecting will hold true for the M8, quite frankly.
All in all, my impression is that a few hardcore Leica fans are anticipating a camera of impossibly high craftsmanship: the information we have so far of an initial release of 10,000 units would mean, given Mark's estimated production rate here, that the old guys at Solms started assembling the M8 around 3 years ago...
My personal hope is that the camera will be deserving of the relatively (but not outrageously) high price tag that we've been led to expect.
No more or less.
Mark Norton
09-03-2006, 12:11
Mani, I said 10's, not 100's. By that I meant "certainly more than 10, most likely less than 100". But I'm guessing. 10000 cameras waiting to be shipped in October seems unlikely IMHO.
Not buying. Outrageous, ridiculous, and absurd estimated price.
My comments are based on the fact it would be obsolete before I got my Visa bill paid off. ;)
"Obsolete?" At the present rate technology is moving (plus technology yet unknown) the camera could easily be a dinosaur in 2 or 3 years, not 5 as elsewhere suggested. "Obsolete" does not mean worthless but it calls into question the amount of an original recent investment.
Technology? What about the "Flutter Shutter" that may be available to consumers in a few years?
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Mitsubishi-Electric-Develops-Deblurring-Flutter-Shutter-Camera-Partners-with-MITU-of-Toronto.htm
(link "borrowed" from a message at Nikonians.org)
Jerry
amateriat
09-03-2006, 12:30
I think the "10,000" number is the (admittely speculative) estimate for the total initial production run. I know that Leica's M prodution process might remind some of the joke about a visitor to Rolls-Royce's factory asking the shop steward how fast their assembly line moves (punchline, from steward: "I think it moved a bit last week"), but it's not just a cottage industry on steroids: nevertheless, it would be almost as bad for Solms to vastly undersestimate demand as it would be for them to overshoot in terms of production. Barring some undiscovered engineering glitch in the camera, quite a few people are going to want to get their hands on one. How many? We'll see, but many eyes are on Leica right now, possibly the most in years.
- Barrett
John Camp
09-03-2006, 12:41
I would expect the numbers to be a bit higher than that. I think the people in Solms would be doing more in the way of inspection and verification, rather than actual machining and assembly. That work, I think, will be jobbed out, although to very high levels of specification. That should allow Leica to produce large numbers at the beginning, then tailing off to a sustained lower level as time goes by, without actually having to fire/rehire at Solms itself. (I understand that the hiring/firing process in Germany is fairly intricate.)
One thing that would impact production numbers would be an estimated delivery date for an M9. If we assume an M8 will hold its own through the introduction of the next Nikon/Canon evolution, I don't think that we can assume that it would hold on beyond that. (I expect that the next Nikon/Canon evolution would push 35mm-size sensors to ~22mp; the next step beyond that, whether it focuses on megapixels or on dynamic range or something unguessable, will require a response from Leica. I would expect that to be about five years away.)
I would not be surprised to see new cameras from Canon and even possibly Nikon (perhaps a prototype, or an announcement designed to hold market away from Canon) at Photokina.
Anyway, given that, I think the "tail" of the M8 production will be fairly short, unlike the case with the mechanical Ms. I wouldn't be surprised if they sold 10,000 before Christmas, 10,000 next year, a few thousand more in the year after that, then tailing off fairly severely as rumors of the M9 start to float about.
On the other hand, I may be speaking from the place where the sun don't shine. :D
JC
amateriat
09-03-2006, 12:49
Not buying. Outrageous, ridiculous, and absurd estimated price.
My comments are based on the fact it would be obsolete before I got my Visa bill paid off. ;)
"Obsolete?" At the present rate technology is moving (plus technology yet unknown) the camera could easily be a dinosaur in 2 or 3 years, not 5 as elsewhere suggested. "Obsolete" does not mean worthless but it calls into question the amount of an original recent investment. Why pick on the M8 and not a D2X, 1Ds or the like? Yes, Leicas are supposed to represent long-term value, but most working pros would expect more than a year or two's serious use out of those other high-priced anvils as well, especially those PJs who went into hock for a pair of 'em. Besides, speaking of PJs, more than a few are still running around with old D1s, since the things are brick scheisshauses in use, which in this instance is usually more important than maximum pixel-count. Based on all this, and the likelihood that a fair number of M8s will be used alongside these digital behamoths for serious work, I think the "value quotient" of this M will remain high for a while.
Technology? What about the "Flutter Shutter" that may be available to consumers in a few years?
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Mitsubishi-Electric-Develops-Deblurring-Flutter-Shutter-Camera-Partners-with-MITU-of-Toronto.htm
(link "borrowed" from a message at Nikonians.org)
Well, yes, pretty cool. Won't be sitting on my hands waiting for one. Will you? :p
- Barrett
Why pick on the M8 and not a D2X, 1Ds or the like?
- Barrett
I'm not a pro. I do know that Nikon is having trouble keeping up with demand for the D2X and has recently introduced the D2Xs upgrade. Can't say about Canon as I don't follow their cameras. Theorizing about whether I'd buy a D2Xs would be a waste of time. I already own (and don't use) an F5 and a handful of Nikon F's. I like taking photos not lifting weights which is why I have D70's instead of the D200 and why I shoot most film in a Leica.
Besides, speaking of PJs, more than a few are still running around with old D1s, since the things are brick scheisshauses in use, which in this instance is usually more important than maximum pixel-count. Based on all this, and the likelihood that a fair number of M8s will be used alongside these digital behamoths for serious work, I think the "value quotient" of this M will remain high for a while. - Barrett
I concur about "value quotient" but think it applies to the film camera and advanced amateur use, not a digital. Most of those D1s have been replaced by D2Hs or D2X (or a Canon). The build quality appears to be good.
Well, yes, pretty cool. Won't be sitting on my hands waiting for one. Will you? :p - Barrett
Glad you found it interesting. I know I did. It's vaporware until it ships. ;)
Jerry
Hello,
This is my first post in this very informative and lively Forum. Congratulations Jorge and all those who make it so interesting. I was told by a Leica dealer that there would be a delay in shipping the M8 because of the filmware. Has anyone heard this ?
Roger
It is in the Leica customer forum. End of November most likely...:( Oh- and welcome:)
newyorkone
09-13-2006, 06:57
I have owned Niikon and Canon and I would NEVER buy the "beta" cameras that they release when they are first shipped, but I am glad that Leica is taking the time to tweak things BEFORE the camera goes out. I'm fairly certain that the camera when released will be nearly 100% and I'm firmly in line for one out of the the first production run. I hope the numbers released can fill my order.
lovelyleica
09-13-2006, 07:05
Body list price in Switzerland will be : 6700 CHF with taxes = 6227 CHF without taxes = 3933 euros = 4994 $
Alex Krasotkin
09-13-2006, 07:33
Absolutely have no any interest in digital. I am shooting mostly b&w and some slide (only with my Contax 645). I have Konica Hexar AF, but planning to buy M7 with a couple of lenses.
regards,
Alex
lovelyleica
09-13-2006, 07:46
Problem : b&w + slide photos become more and more expensive, especially in medium and large format photography, especially if you shoot a lot. Films get more and more expensive, chemical products and papers the same. Digital is no shooting cost, and much more efficient in processing speed, with now more than wonderful results in terms of image quality.
I've been watching the poll graph above, and have noticed the % of those "not interested" is gradually decreasing. It had been nearly 45% earlier, now down to 41.7%. And as we get closer to release date, the numbers of those announcing their pre-order is growing fastest, now at 13.4%!
I've been watching the poll graph above, and have noticed the % of those "not interested" is gradually decreasing. It had been nearly 45% earlier, now down to 41.7%. And as we get closer to release date, the numbers of those announcing their pre-order is growing fastest, now at 13.4%!
A problem with the poll is you can't change your mind. I already voted that I was interested but since then have pre-ordered. But I am still in the wrong bar graph
Rex
I cast my vote a while back for "Not Interested" but since then I have asked some questions of Tony Rose about the camera. Hopefully he will have some information for me that I will like. If that is the case then I will buy one. If not then the MP3 kit looks like it needs some love.
Jamie Roberts
09-15-2006, 08:45
Well, first post here, and I haven't read all the thread (not that much time!) but since it's a poll...
I'm on the waiting list for an M8 and have put some money down already. I don't think I've ever been as excited by a camera as this one.
The biggest thing for me will be to see high ISO files. If they're as good as Leica is claiming, they will have a winner on their hands.
Why? Well, I own a Canon 1ds2 and a Leica R9 / DMR. The Canon is rock solid, for sure and a truly wonderful camera, but it's being sold. I will miss full-frame, yes, but for now that's not as important to me as the output.
The DMR and the 16bit sensor just makes prints I like better, without nearly as much PS work. It's that simple. Yes, I know how to tweak the 1 series output, but trust me, the DMR files end up being better prints. (And no, you *can't* make a 50 1.4 Canon lens look like a 50 1.4 Summilux in Photoshop. Sorry. Just shoot somebody's face who's strongly backlit, and you'll see exactly what I mean.)
So the DMR wins, and I expect the M8 to be even betteer. Well, except for noise... You need to nail the exposure with the DMR; it's not as forgiving as the Canon in terms of exposure--not at all. And noise plays a big role in that. The Canon is wonderfully noiseless when the DMR gives out entirely.
So if the M8--optimised for C1, ISO 2500, M glass--delivers on the image quality at high speed, I think it will be a relatively big hit for Leica. I like SLRs, but as a pro I also need a rangefinder: something small and really unobtrusive and uncompromising in terms of quality.
BTW--I just read here that someone thinks the DOF scale on Leica lenses is all wrong for digital? Well, it is, but on the newer lenses, anyway, the smaller sensor actually increases the effective DOF, so when you're street shooting, this is mostly a plus, not a minus.
Of course, now I only need to see what Canon announces at Photokina.
This is not an issue. Depth of field depends only on focal length and aperture. For the same focal length lens (for example, a 35 cron) the depth of field will be identical regardless of whether it is shooting light on to a full frame piece of film or a small digital sensor. So the scale on the lens will be correct for both an M8 and an M3.
BTW--I just read here that someone thinks the DOF scale on Leica lenses is all wrong for digital? Well, it is, but on the newer lenses, anyway, the smaller sensor actually increases the effective DOF, so when you're street shooting, this is mostly a plus, not a minus.
Of course, now I only need to see what Canon announces at Photokina.
With the smaller sensor you would need to step back farther from the subject to get the same amount into your frame as you would with 24x36 sensor. Greater distance from the subject will give you greater depth of field which will be accurately reflected in the lens scale.
With the smaller sensor you would need to step back farther from the subject to get the same amount into your frame as you would with 24x36 sensor. Greater distance from the subject will give you greater depth of field which will be accurately reflected in the lens scale.
Stepping back is only one of your choices especially if your back is against the wall. Most people would use a shorter focal length lens to get the same equivelent field of view. So the DOF actually increases.
Rex
You are absolutely right about the fact that using a shorter focal length lens to give the same angle of view will result in increased depth of field. I was only addressing my remark to the depth of field markings on the lens barrel of a given focal length. A given focal length lens at the same aperture will give the same depth of field regardless of sensor size (or film size, as the case may be)
Stepping back is only one of your choices especially if your back is against the wall. Most people would use a shorter focal length lens to get the same equivelent field of view. So the DOF actually increases.
Rex
Stepping back is only one of your choices especially if your back is against the wall. Most people would use a shorter focal length lens to get the same equivelent field of view. So the DOF actually increases.
Rex
But with a 1.33 sensor not too much, in fact just over 1/3 of a stop.
You are absolutely right about the fact that using a shorter focal length lens to give the same angle of view will result in increased depth of field. I was only addressing my remark to the depth of field markings on the lens barrel of a given focal length. A given focal length lens at the same aperture will give the same depth of field regardless of sensor size (or film size, as the case may be)
Not quite. The final enlargement must be larger, hence a smaller COC hence a smaller DOF.
someone here said "2max years the specs will be obselete". Can someone explain this, does the paper the specs are written on fade or is printing on 8" x 10 '' paper no longer the same size and therefore cannot be done anymore? My Epson P700 still works and I can still print a 6x4 from it and that digital is about 10 years old now.
Well, first post here, and I haven't read all the thread (not that much time!) but since it's a poll...
I'm on the waiting list for an M8 and have put some money down already. I don't think I've ever been as excited by a camera as this one.
The biggest thing for me will be to see high ISO files. If they're as good as Leica is claiming, they will have a winner on their hands.
Why? Well, I own a Canon 1ds2 and a Leica R9 / DMR. The Canon is rock solid, for sure and a truly wonderful camera, but it's being sold. I will miss full-frame, yes, but for now that's not as important to me as the output.
The DMR and the 16bit sensor just makes prints I like better, without nearly as much PS work. It's that simple. Yes, I know how to tweak the 1 series output, but trust me, the DMR files end up being better prints. (And no, you *can't* make a 50 1.4 Canon lens look like a 50 1.4 Summilux in Photoshop. Sorry. Just shoot somebody's face who's strongly backlit, and you'll see exactly what I mean.)
So the DMR wins, and I expect the M8 to be even betteer. Well, except for noise... You need to nail the exposure with the DMR; it's not as forgiving as the Canon in terms of exposure--not at all. And noise plays a big role in that. The Canon is wonderfully noiseless when the DMR gives out entirely.
So if the M8--optimised for C1, ISO 2500, M glass--delivers on the image quality at high speed, I think it will be a relatively big hit for Leica. I like SLRs, but as a pro I also need a rangefinder: something small and really unobtrusive and uncompromising in terms of quality.
BTW--I just read here that someone thinks the DOF scale on Leica lenses is all wrong for digital? Well, it is, but on the newer lenses, anyway, the smaller sensor actually increases the effective DOF, so when you're street shooting, this is mostly a plus, not a minus.
Of course, now I only need to see what Canon announces at Photokina.
I've just looked at your website, Jamie. Very,very impressive. Just the kind of pro I'd expect to see reappearing now - with a Leica in his hands. welcome.
someone here said "2max years the specs will be obselete". Can someone explain this, does the paper the specs are written on fade or is printing on 8" x 10 '' paper no longer the same size and therefore cannot be done anymore? My Epson P700 still works and I can still print a 6x4 from it and that digital is about 10 years old now.Hi Robert -- Welcome to RFF! As to the question, it all depends on what "obsolete" means. :) AFAIK, obsolete does not mean or imply "unusable," just outdated. Some say that every technological product is obsolete upon introduction to the market, because more advanced products are already being prepared to replace or enhance them. In that sense, I think, obsolete becomes a relatively meaningless term. Certainly specs become obsolete quickly as new specs are dreamed up. I'd prefer to consider that it means that the more advanced product is now on the market. So the "2 years max" could be a guess that within 2 years a more advanced/improved product will appear. How long has the Epson R-D1 been available; will it be "obsolete" upon the availability of the M8?
thanks for the welcome Doug. I own and use 2 rangefinders and even so they are 20 and 30 years old and have specs that are obsolete, they still let me create photos I enjoy looking at, that is to say, they are still within my specs for creating photos and probably always will be.
I'm waiting for Ken Rockwell's review. When he says it's a better camera than the Mamiya 6, I'll start saving...
EllitoGuy
09-19-2006, 14:39
Sometimes bigger is better. I can't imagine anyone arguing in favor of a camera that used APS-sized film. I would much rather spend 3K on a Canon 5D than 5K on a Leica digital.
I really think that the issue boils down to choices and preferences. There are lots of choices around for digital SLRs, but few for digital RFs. Leica might be the best choice at the time for a digital RF. Also, because I have no M-mount lenses, I have no vested interest in the M system, so this is not a factor for me. Your results may vary.
i can... aps-c is superior for super long telephoto because of the crop factor... were u to crop a 16.7mp 1ds mk II image to the same as taken wiht a 20d, using the same lens on both cameras, the 20d frame will have more mp...
Originally Posted by dexdog
Sometimes bigger is better. I can't imagine anyone arguing in favor of a camera that used APS-sized film. I would much rather spend 3K on a Canon 5D than 5K on a Leica digital.
That would depend on the quality of the film rather than the size, wouldn't you say? Arguing between formats is rather improductive anyway. Would you prefer a Mamiya over a Leica R9? I think not.
Roger S.
09-20-2006, 16:16
I'm waiting for the Canonet alternative to the M8 to show up for under $600.
canonetc
09-22-2006, 00:49
Maybe I'll wait and save my cash for the M9 full-frame 12MP version......like all things digital, a "consumer upgrade" is inevitable.
Chris
canonetc
I'm really gutted about the new M8. I shot with leica for years and converted to digital when I won a 5D last year. Having used this camera I'm afraid for me I will not be using film for anything but jobs where digital is not possible - and I can't think of any. I was on an assignment in Malawi this year using a small lightweight solar charger and had no worries at all. The 5D has coped with tropical rain, desert and siberian winter - so it's up to the job. It's full frame, shoots in B&W, over 10 mp and cheaper than the M8. I don't understand what leica are thinking about. They have produced a camera which is essentially for the wealthy collector and not for working photojournalists with budget constraints. The lens choices with canon are also much better 24mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.4 and now a 50mm f1.2. I had been holding onto my leica gear in the hope that the digital M would be affordable and it's not so it's all going for sale.
2 M6's, rapid winders, 28mm f2, 35mm f2 and 50mm f1.4 if anyone is interested.
I'm waiting for Ken Rockwell's review. When he says it's a better camera than the Mamiya 6, I'll start saving...
As far as I know, he has never done a Leica review.
Actually the only time he mentions Leica on his site is to prove
that expensive camera's don't make good photographers.
Can't see him starting now...
Half the stuff Ken reviews, he doesn't actually even handle.
Maybe I'll wait and save my cash for the M9 full-frame 12MP version......like all things digital, a "consumer upgrade" is inevitable.
Chris
canonetc
That's what I'll be doing too. Problem is no one knows whether there'll ever be a M9 if the current M8 doesn't prove a huge trade success.
J. Borger
09-23-2006, 01:52
Just hope enough people waite for the M9 ..... so i will not be too long on the M8 waiting list....:)
[QUOTE=dg_2101] I was on an assignment in Malawi this year using a small lightweight solar charger and had no worries at all. The 5D has coped with tropical rain, desert and siberian winter - so it's up to the job. QUOTE]
Really? I have visons of Bungalo Bill sipping a Corona with a lime twist swinging in hammock waiting on his Trusty Pocket Solar Charger to breath fire into his water, ice and sand proof Plastic Canon Super Reporter. It looks like you will be selling your back up gear too. I would wash myself clean from any association I have with any bourgosie collectors of photography toys too. Their snobbery never made for better pictures.
Now that the 5D is all the rage I had best be selling my view cameras and all the lenses I've collected for them over the years (and my Leica gear too). I'll put it all into Canon fodder. I'm sure mass market 5D gear will appreciate better than my 35 year old M4 has.
I was on an assignment in Malawi this year using a small lightweight solar charger and had no worries at all.
Actually there are very few places in Malawi where one does not find 240 V mains electricity or at a pinch generators. I've visited there for long stretches for 15 years, the last four with digital camera's, and I've never run out of batteries....
bobkonos
10-03-2006, 16:51
I voted that I would not purchase one, and if there was a category that said "Never Ever Ever" I'd check that. But I hope it takes off big time, the price drops, more people fall in love with it, and a flood of Leica, and other, rangefinder cameras hit the market. That, to me, is the true beauty of digital.
From a finacial standpoint, i worry that if i buy the m8 i will kick myself in the but later on when an upgrade comes along having spent 5 grand and now its a paper wieght that you can use as a camera. I would not compair it to any canon camera though not because of body size but rather lens sizes. i have an m6 with 3 lenses. i pack it in a tiny easy to carry shoulder bag. I also have a 10d with 24-70, adn 70-200. which i hate taking for long periods of time. I am not a pro, but i do enjoy using great gear which canon and leica are. But the next time i go to nyc for fun, or on vacation, or friend or family gatherings. i don't have to lug 3-4 primes or a huge zoom. (L Lenses i mean.) i will just put the m8, 3 lenses, 2 sd cards , and 2 batteries into my tiny bag a not complain about carrying them all over europe or somewhere else. to some that alone is worth the money. Also, to address the obsolete issues, i thing that that is a dumb thing to worry about. anyone who buys the m8 or 5d will eventually come to see a new add for a m9 or 5d mk2 and will be jealous. it wrong what most people are doing picking on the leica. but 10 years from now it will still be a 10 megapixel camera which is usable. for godsake there is already a 300 somthing mp camera. it's not great for travel but they have it.
thanks for listening.
PS: if anyone is really worried about the next gen leica coming out and want to wait assuming it will take 5 years atleast to release one. people could put away something like $84.00 per month towards the new camera. i will start doing that right away if i buy m8 or not.
From a finacial standpoint, i worry that if i buy the m8 i will kick myself in the but later on when an upgrade comes along having spent 5 grand and now its a paper wieght that you can use as a camera.
If the M8 is a good camera (and I suspect it is), it will still be a good camera even when the next, improved, digital M comes out. Provided the basic ergonomics are right, the files are good, and Leica can continue to service the camera, I can't see any reason why someone couldn't use an M8 for many years without ever considering "upgrading".
Leicabug
10-04-2006, 07:32
I heve moved from 'Will buy it for sure sooner or later' to 'I have my unit pre-ordered already.'
climbing_vine
10-04-2006, 12:40
I think vinyl is different than CD, not always better or worse, just different. I think too much is made of declaring something as the winner. I don't believe vinyl playback or film is going to disappear from the planet tomorrow.
Exactly right. Regardless of what silly alleged audiophiles will tell you, no vinyl record that has ever been pressed is "better" than the CD made from the same source. Not even the first time you play the record, when its virginal and hasn't begun to lose fidelity due to wear, is it "better" than the CD. It loses on every single count, in a physics and acoustics sense. But, it does have a different sound, and some people (including me) sometimes prefer it. They just shouldn't fall into the trap of claiming it's better.
With cameras it's opposite but the same: digital camera sensors lose (though not by much anymore, on the high end), if you compare apples-to-apples (ie, high MP with good glass to a film/glass combo that gives you a rough equivalent in lpm). They simply aren't capable of capturing the same range, yet, particularly on the high end (the dreaded blown highlights). A good sensor will do better than crap film behind a plastic lens, but that's not apples-to-apples.
But, just like some people enjoy vinyl because it sounds "organic" (ie, it crackles and pops, or maybe one is hypersensitive to the vibrations caused by the mechanism itself), and some people prefer CD because it is more accurate; various people have different opinions about the different qualities of film and digital.
It makes for a good discussion but a bad argument, same as vinyl vs CD, because once it becomes an argument people want to "prove" their subjective response to a stimuli by inventing spurious facts.
[QUOTE=climbing_vine]Exactly right. Regardless of what silly alleged audiophiles will tell you, no vinyl record that has ever been pressed is "better" than the CD made from the same source.]
Well, I have been called silly and an audiophile (I still groom my tube gear) but the issues are really two.
1.) The analog version of light or sound, whatever captures the overtones, the harmonics, if you will, differs from digital sampling. Analog's very nature of being is created and destroyed by harmonic order. Digital is created by interpolations of small time samples. Interpolation means 'to lie'. In analog the overtones can be recreated in such a way that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. Digital music and camera shortfalls are found in the Analog to Digital conversion. Each has platform has it's advantages.
2.) The sad thing is that with the passing of every year fewer and fewer folks will be exposed to analog, and therefore digital will have nothing to compare with.
I sincerely wish that Mr. climbing_vine could hear Phil Spector's 45 RPM production of Ike and Tina Turner's River Deep Mountain High played through Klipsch corner horns and driven by a MacIntosh tube amp. Who know's? He may be reborn as a silly audiophile.
I voted "will buy it sooner or later", but have to change to "ordered already"
Is this possible?
"Better" for me is what I prefer, and I can guarantee you those reasons are not all subjective silliness. I would never insist, however, that what is better for me must be better for anyone else, as a silly climbing vine apparently does.
Pretty impressive that "I have my unit pre-ordered already" is gaining on the rest of the field, but not surprising as we near the release date! Seventy members put their money (an impressive committment) where their GAS is; almost 15% of respondents.
Pretty impressive that "I have my unit pre-ordered already" is gaining on the rest of the field, but not surprising as we near the release date! Seventy members put their money (an impressive committment) where their GAS is; almost 15% of respondents.
Probably a few more then that Doug. I know that I have changed my view on getting the M8 after seeing what it was capable of. Not that we have all the facts yet but it does look promising.
Yes,
Another poll. With the digital world becoming the mainstream, I am curious how many woll but this new digital rangefinder camera.
I just came from a Digital Photography Show and looked the M8. I must say I am impressed. It is what one would expect of a Leica camera. The body is heavy and has a different, yet familiar, feel compared to the other M's. Once I started using the camera I felt right at home and was very comfortable using the camera. Anyone who is committed to rangefinder and digital photography will not be disappointed. This is a beautifully made camera and appears robust like the M's we have come to know and trust.
Regarding the lens coding issue it's my understanding that it's not really a big consideration for focal lengths 50mm and above. It is more important for wide angle lenses...the wider the more important the coding. Apparently the code sends a signal to the camera and it adjusts the sensor for the optimal angle for the lens. I may have that wrong so do your own research....
While I would enjoy having an M8 in my gear bag the price of $4,725 is way too steep for me. I am committed to analog photography, mostly b&w, and digital is not important to me. It's a personal thing. The M8 is a real beauty and will not disapoint anyone who buys one.
Bob
Yes I'll get one. Waving a 1Dmk2 with 17-40 + hood draws unwanted attention in delicate situations. Pulling out an M series doesn't scream professional photographer to most third world people. The certainty of seeing results on travels means my M6 hasn't seen much use since going Digital SLR.
Supposedly I'm first on the list at my dealer. We'll see, of course, next month.
charlesfoto
10-16-2006, 13:23
Since I'm more than happy with my M6TTL and Contax G2, plus having a D200 with top Nikon glass to use when I need to(clients=$$), I'll be interested in reading about the M8's successes, but will leave the joy of ownership to others. I won't be getting one.
climbing_vine
10-19-2006, 12:08
"Better" for me is what I prefer, and I can guarantee you those reasons are not all subjective silliness. I would never insist, however, that what is better for me must be better for anyone else, as a silly climbing vine apparently does.
If you read carefully, you'll see that's exactly the opposite of what I said. I'm in agreement with you. The subjective better is in no way (necessarily) silly, and is entirely personal. And it should not be confused with objective better, which is what many people try to claim analog is (with the usual argument coming down to "its not sampled", which does not mean what they think it means).
climbing_vine
10-19-2006, 12:19
1.) The analog version of light or sound, whatever captures the overtones, the harmonics, if you will, differs from digital sampling. Analog's very nature of being is created and destroyed by harmonic order. Digital is created by interpolations of small time samples. Interpolation means 'to lie'. In analog the overtones can be recreated in such a way that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. Digital music and camera shortfalls are found in the Analog to Digital conversion. Each has platform has it's advantages.
The problem with this argument is that when a vinyl record is pressed the sound is also effectively sampled, and at a lower rate than a CD. Unless there is a pressing machine and a turntable that work within nanometer tolerances... Same holds true for film: it has grain. You are effectively getting "pixels", ie, a sampled version of what you saw.
Also not sure what you're getting at with the overtones thing.
2.) The sad thing is that with the passing of every year fewer and fewer folks will be exposed to analog, and therefore digital will have nothing to compare with.
I sincerely wish that Mr. climbing_vine could hear Phil Spector's 45 RPM production of Ike and Tina Turner's River Deep Mountain High played through Klipsch corner horns and driven by a MacIntosh tube amp. Who know's? He may be reborn as a silly audiophile.
I've done those experiements for myself, I've seen the double-blinds, and I know it sounds no better than a well-transferred CD played through the same chain. :)
I think you can make a case based on image quality alone. While ne detailed review is available for a production model M8 yet, I believe it's senso is very similar to the one on the Leica DMR. The following from Larry Greenhill's review in PhotographyReview.com - he does point out some disadvantages in his conclusion some of which (including battery life) are not applicable to the M8, while others still are.:
>>
Conclusion
The Leica Digital-Module R produces RAW images that are sharp, colorful, have good dynamic range, and require little post processing. The back is robustly made and well engineered. Attaching a DMR to the Leica R film camera yields a new camera that appears to have been engineered as a single DSLR from the start. It is easy to learn to use, and the resolution at low ISO settings was better than my Canon EOS 1D Mark II. The Leica Digital-Module-R handles landscape and nature photography well.
While the DMR's images are outstanding, several limitations must be kept in mind. The Leica R8/DMR design falls short of my Canon EOS 1D Mark II because of its higher price, slower burst rate (2 frames-per-second), smaller buffer size (10 images), lack of built-in flash, no auto focus or image stabilized lenses, no TTL flash metering, and shorter battery life.
<<
amateriat
10-20-2006, 21:12
While the DMR's images are outstanding, several limitations must be kept in mind. The Leica R8/DMR design falls short of my Canon EOS 1D Mark II because of its higher price, slower burst rate (2 frames-per-second), smaller buffer size (10 images), lack of built-in flash, no auto focus or image stabilized lenses, no TTL flash metering, and shorter battery life.<< Whoa...what "built-in flash" on the 1D Mk II? Perhaps I'm picking nits here, but I didn't see that feature the last time I used one. If we're going to talk comparison points, we need to get things like this straight.
Like the Ms (including the M8), I didn't see Leica going mano a mano with the other guys in SLR land with the R8/9 or the DMR; in the case of the latter, Leica felt it smart to offer a digital option for those heavily invested in the system ("You want the shoot 'done digital?' "Yeah, okay, I can do that"). I couldn't give a rat's derriére about SLRs anymore, but Leica's approach in this realm is, to me, commendable.
- Barrett
If anybody still needs to be convinced of what the DMR can do in expert hands, the last issue of LFI is a good starting point. The series of middle-aged women's portraits by Billy&Hells is impressive, to put it mildly.
BTW the main thing that stands out in Mr. Greenhills review is that he doesn't understand the concept of the DMR.(Although he has some kind words as well admittedly)
If I could be convinced that the Leica will produce an image noticably superior to a D80, which costs a fraction of the price. I'm not knocking Leica .... I'm just a realist!
I already have the 'rangefinder experience' in my M7 and developing a role of film costs about the same as a McDonald's breakfast ... with coffee of course!
:rolleyes:
Ah- well- does your M7 produce images that are " noticably superior" to a Canon EOS 3000V ?
:bang: I'm already saving for the full-frame M9. In the meantime my glass will have to eat film.
Ah- well- does your M7 produce images that are " noticably superior" to a Canon EOS 3000V ?
Probably not ... DAMN!
:D
I've done those experiements for myself, I've seen the double-blinds, and I know it sounds no better than a well-transferred CD played through the same chain. :)
To you. Others may have a different judgment on "better". Care to define "better"?
Gabriel M.A.
10-25-2006, 17:28
:bang: I'm already saving for the full-frame M9. In the meantime my glass will have to eat film.
I'm also