M8 Reality / Gut Check... [Archive]

Zen-shooter

08-31-2006, 23:08

Stephanie Brim

08-31-2006, 23:12

For the price of the M8 I could get my M2, 35mm 'lux, 50mm older 'lux, and a 90mm 'cron. And probably have some money left over for film. I'd rather have that.

mani

08-31-2006, 23:16

The provisional price quoted to me a couple months ago by a Leica dealer in Stockholm - around 50 to 55,000 swedish crowns (including our generous 25% tax) converts to approx $7600.

Now THAT'S a reality check! :eek:

Best //mani

IGMeanwell

08-31-2006, 23:23

This is a major issue ...

but there are many who have the ability to justify that cost

There are many professionals who justify the 15,000 or 20,000 dollars for those Hassleblad H2 or just a digital back for their medium format

me, hell I have a hard time justifying getting any new lens or camera... but sometimes you just do it

patrickjames

08-31-2006, 23:49

If you are a professional and are smart your clients pay for your gear in "rentals" or "capture fees" which allows you to use expensive things.

MarcoS

09-01-2006, 00:26

Get a smaller or used car... :)

Btw I saw the official list price at my dealer next month and it was 3800 € including vat.
As Mark Norton said it could be wrongly listed as vat included instead of ex-tax.
If the case, the final list price (not street) will be about 4400-4500 €.
In US it would be about 4800-4900 $.

But if mani is right... :eek: don't think I'm willing to spend 7600$ for the M8...

Mark Norton

09-01-2006, 01:03

Adding an after-market supercharger to any car is a waste of money - you'll see nothing back and you get to look and act like a prat as well.

Leica do not insult our intelligence by pricing their cameras and lenses as $xx95, they just round (probably up) to the nearest 100. Dealers might well think their customers stupid, that somehow $4995 is OK for the M8 where $5000 would not be.

I don't think you'll see much difference between list and street price for a while - demand is certain to exceed supply for months so the dealers will charge all they can get. The best you/I can hope for is that they may bundle in a lens at a favourable price. Or maybe not.

We don't know yet about the cost of the camera or the Tri-Elmar. My guess is $5000 + US sales tax, £3250 including UK VAT, €4500 including typical European VAT. As for the Tri-Elmar, people are talking about €3500 including the finder. Sounds low to me, given the 21mm f2.8 without finder is €3100 in Germany.

Compared to the price of the lenses, the body seems good value to me. Take most any two lenses and you're already paying more than the camera.

rxmd

09-01-2006, 01:20

Leica do not insult our intelligence by pricing their cameras and lenses as $xx95
No, they price them at x950 EUR (Summicron 35/2 ASPH) and x450 EUR (Elmarit 24/2.8 ASPH) instead.

Philipp

mani

09-01-2006, 03:45

Before all the US residents jump out of their skins - i simply meant that the Swedish price for this type of product really is a great deal higher than you guys are whining about (no offense meant).

Leica is an extremely niche sector in these parts, and the price reflects that.
In any case, when you're talking about items costing this much, it's often cheaper to actually fly over to Germany and buy the darn things there. :confused:

rxmd

09-01-2006, 04:16

The Scandinavian dilemma at work :( But wait till we Germans get 19% VAT at the end of this year, then you'll probably have to fly somewhere else :)

Philipp

Andrew Sowerby

09-01-2006, 04:20

I'm quite happy to let more established (read: older and wealthier) folks shell out $5,000 for the first run of digital Ms. Somewhere down the line when the bugs have been worked out and there are used ones to be had maybe I'll consider buying.

sgy1962

09-01-2006, 04:52

Just sell some of your film equipment and lenses.

And it may not be just an M8, but also at least one wider angle lens to make up for the crop factor.

kbg32

09-01-2006, 04:52

Mark Norton

09-01-2006, 04:58

Is it supposed to be pointed at my comment about buying a used or smaller/cheaper car ? :confused:
Anyway I don't understand what "an after-market supercharger" is...

No, I wasn't referring to your comment about his car, I was referring to one of the alternative uses Zen Shooter said he had for his money.

Flyfisher Tom

09-01-2006, 05:03

It maybe Leica's cosmic way of saying be a little patient :)

Let the M8 go through its beta testing with more intrepid souls. Film will be around until the M8 can be picked up for a lesser street price. Or, within a year or two, on the used market, if not sooner.

Like any great movie premiere, you don't have to wait in line overnight to be the first in line. See it on Sunday or the week after, and you'll have a more pleasant and cheaper exprerience ;)

MarcoS

09-01-2006, 05:06

Yep, sorry Mark, I deleted the message a minute after have posted it because I realized my misunderstanding.
But you was too fast :)

mani

09-01-2006, 05:16

Andrew Sowerby

09-01-2006, 06:01

I don't belive being established means older and wealthier. Sure, I might be older, but I'm certainly not wealthy.

Everything is relative, I suppose. I certainly don't have $5,000 to spend on a camera and I'd reckon that I'm in the same boat as most people on this forum (let alone the rest of the world).

That said, having $5,000 of disposible income isn't anything to be ashamed of and I don't think that it's frivilous or immoral to spend that money on something that you'll enjoy using for years to come. Enjoy your M8. Perhaps some day I will enjoy my own.

Matthew

09-01-2006, 06:19

Not that $5000 for a camera is something that I consider inexpensive, but the way I see it that is the cost of owning the camera body plus film, processing and scanning time for the next three years at minimum and hopefully five years. When I calculate how much I could spend on film, etc. in that time, the M8 really isn't that much more expensive than buying a new film M.

Even though it will be a stretch to spend that sort of money on new camera right now, I will probably do it just for the convenience and time savings (not to mention the somewhat childish sense of immediate gratification) that using a digital M will provide me. I just see it as when you're spending your money--all at once or dribbled out over the months.

Now if I had to pay the Swedish price the balance might tip the other way...yikes.

Gabriel M.A.

09-01-2006, 06:22

It is a lot of money, but to those that will be sitting on the sidelines for the price to come down, consider this: the DMR had an initial retail price of about $4400 USD (and that's more or less what the people who were on the initial waiting list paid), that ballooned to almost $6000. Can hardly find them on the 'bay for much less than that. And the Leica DMR was very much ridiculed (and still is) by those who don't own it. If the demand weren't there the prices would have come down.

I think. Then again, I only took one business class ever in college; I don't remember much. ;)

But that does not change the fact that it is a lot of money. A lot of money.

Rationalize it this way: how much do you shoot film, and how much time do you spend developing, scanning, etc.? How much is that worth? It doesn't apply to most people, but it may apply to enough to say "yeah! I could stop snapshooting with film, do it with digital. I do the nice stuff with film, and do the nice, and not so nice and the rest with digital". An expensive "polaroid" solution, perhaps? Again, how much worth is your time to you? Would you rather spend more time with family, friends, outside?

It is, indeed, a dilemma.

kbg32

09-01-2006, 06:51

I like both film and digital. They both have their pluses and minuses. Digital certainly has saved me a great deal of money over the last two-three years. Enough that I can consider the M8.

sgy1962

09-01-2006, 06:56

Matthew

09-01-2006, 07:17

It's a lot of money for a camera which runs the risk of being outpaced technologically in the future. Everyone may say it's good enough for me, but we all know there are many who feel that they must have the latest and the best.

If you always want the absolute latest and best then you have to expect to pay a premium for that.

Not to mention the latest isn't always the best, it's just the latest--the technology in the film M has hardly been updated in my lifetime yet it does what it is intended to do just about perfectly.

Ben Z

09-01-2006, 07:37

I shoot "imported" Elitechrome-100 ($2.99 for 36-exp roll at B&H) and get it processed for $8.00. I shoot about 120 rolls/year. That works out to $1320/year. My M6 Classic cost me just under $900. A new M8 will be $5000. Divide $4100 by 1320 and if (and it's a ridiculous premise) the M8 has ZERO residual value in 3 years and I decide to drop it in the trash and buy a new model I will still have broken even. The more likely scenario is that the M8 will still be worth at least $1000 and if I am happy with the performance will continue to save me $1320 (and by then probably much more as prices for film and processing go up) every year thereafter. So for me the so-called economic reasons for not getting an M8 don't compute.

jshelly

09-01-2006, 08:03

A good friend just spent 18k on a motorcycle.

Gabriel M.A.

09-01-2006, 08:04

I'm sure he wanted it. Try rationalizing that ;)

greggebhardt

09-01-2006, 08:19

No doubt it is alot of money for the M8 but if you have alot of Leica glass, it makes it a little less painful. I am not getting any younger and want to use want I feel is right for me. Been waiting too long to change my mind. $5k is alot of money more than I just paid for the D2XS but, what am I waiting for, something better? Nope, the R8 is for me!

PeterL

09-01-2006, 10:38

I shoot "imported" Elitechrome-100 ($2.99 for 36-exp roll at B&H) and get it processed for $8.00. [SKIP] the M8 has ZERO residual value in 3 years and I decide to drop it in the trash and buy a new model I will still have broken even.

I was doing the exact same calculation as you did, just before I found your post :) For me, film+development+scanning cost is probably around €500 per year. I don't currently have an M body, but I'm considering one. Say, €750 for an M2 or an M3 on the 'Bay (either one in good condition or a crappy one with CLA). I don't have M lenses either. If/when I get an M body (M2/3 or M8), I'll probably want some in addition to my LTM lenses. But this cost is there if I go the digital route or not, so it doesn't count.

I believe the EU price for the M8 was about €4500. Minus the acquisition cost of the M2/3 is €3750. So for me, it's 7.5 years until I'm break-even. Quite a long time. I've done this calculation before with a DSLR. Back then, I also added a portable backup system ("PSD") and 2 memory cards. I didn't add that here yet, that's probably an extra half a year, at least.

In any case, for my personal situation, my conclusion now is as it was back then: it's still too expensive. I've seen a couple of interesting digital cameras come out that don't fit into the pixels-and-features race only. Instead, they are better than other cameras because of other criteria, like actual usability (shutter/diaphragm dials) or because they work like a camera, not like a computer. I'm hopeful that these criteria will become more and more important, and that will mean that my number of available choices will go up, and prices will go down. I can still wait until that moment :)

Peter.

AndyPiper

09-01-2006, 11:59

"When you realize you want to spend the rest of your life with somebody, you want the rest of your life to start as soon as possible." - Harry Burns (Billy Crystal) in "When Harry met Sally"

That's me and the M8. Without getting into "film vs. digital" - I personally have no interest whatever in ever shooting another roll of film. Doubt I will use up the 10 remaining rolls of Velvia that have languished in my freezer for a year - at least before they expire.

Admittedly, one can save money with film by shooting fewer pictures. Presumably, if one never shot any pictures at all, one could even make a profit. But what's the point in buying a camera to NOT take pictures with? (Yeah, I know - why am I asking that on a LEICA forum?!)

For me the M8 is a Canon 1DMkII with: less weight; better manual focusing; much smaller size; better (sometimes) lenses; smaller lenses; less weight; analog controls; more pixels, no AA filter; CCD instead of CMOS - oh, and did I mention MUCH less weight?

All that for about $1000 (20%) more seems like a wonderful bargain.

I'm a GREAT beta-tester. The perfect fool to find all the bugs in any "fool-proof" design. Bring it ON!

LCT

09-01-2006, 12:51

...I personally have no interest whatever in ever shooting another roll of film...
Whatever became of the grain lover?:D

Stephanie Brim

09-01-2006, 13:02

I'll take your Velvia, Andy, if you don't want it and it's Velvia 50. I need more of that for the Colorado trip. :D

SolaresLarrave

09-01-2006, 13:22

I thought you wanted to shoot B&W in CO?

About the cost of the M8... I'll pass. No comment from this guy, who spent around $4000 in 2003 to start his current toy collection.

humanized_form

09-01-2006, 14:14

i want it. i will buy it. i ebay'd a bunch of stuff i wasn't using and i got my pile of money. who knew my indie rock record collection would pay such dividends? haha....

anyway, there really isn't much choice out there if you're not feeling the dslr bloat computer box cameras. i use a pentax ist ds sometimes with the old manual focus lenses and that is tolerable, but when i use my M7 it's just so much more fun. it doesn't get in the way. it's nearly perfect.

no question for me the M8 is worth the $5k price of admission.

Stephanie Brim

09-01-2006, 14:16

I thought you wanted to shoot B&W in CO?

I have a feeling that I'm going to want to shoot both. I have 9 rolls of Velvia 50 for the occasion, but a few more wouldn't hurt things any. I'll also have one roll of medium format Velvia 100F. I'm looking forward to seeing what that produces.

matt fury

09-01-2006, 15:07

I'd take the M8 over the Panerai any day. :)

Harry Lime

09-03-2006, 16:25

At $5000 for the body, plus the cost of a 2/28 Summicron ASPH (unless you already have one) you are looking at roughly $7500-8000 dollars. Add 8-10% for sales tax to that if you buy it in a store, here in the USA.

That's a lot of cash and unless you are simply rich or make a living with the M8, it's pretty difficult to justify.

Even if you can live with a VC 1.9/28mm you are still looking at $5500.
A cheaper combination, but still beyond the reach of the vast majority of people who would like to buy the M8.

I think that Leica is going to have to make some drastic changes to how and perhaps where they manufacture their cameras. $2999 would be a lot more reasonable price point. Still not cheap, but not completely crazy.

I wish Leica the best of luck with the M8, but I hope they realize that they are really pushing the boundaries with the current pricing and come up with a plan to reduce it somehow.

HL

John Camp

09-03-2006, 17:03

Leica M cameras are sold like Rolex watches; most people can't justify them on the basis of function, although a few can. That's why Leica nearly got wiped out by SLRs; most pros looked at function and cost, and went to Nikon and Canon, or Hasselblad and Mamiya. Leica Ms are now like Ebony LF cameras -- a niche camera. And, as with an Ebony, you're going to pay more for the privilege of using one.

Notice that I say *a few can* and *most photographers.* I know there are exceptions to the SLR rule. But anyone who thinks that large numbers of pros are going to the M8, or that Leica hopes or expects them to, has been eating those weird brownies again.

JC

Trius

09-03-2006, 19:13

Someone is passing around weird brownies and I didn't get any ... again? Damn.

James Brannan

09-03-2006, 19:27

I don't belive being established means older and wealthier. Sure, I might be older, but I'm certainly not wealthy. I look forward to getting the M8 after I read some initial reviews and can handle it for myself. As a photograhic tool, it is something that I greatly desire, not lust after. I've been a Leica shooter for over half my life and I have many, many productive years ahead of me. Before I even knew what Leicas were, I've wanted one. For their mechanical simplicity, their mechanical superiority, their optics, their low profile, their ergonomics, and to me, they are so damn beautiful. I've had to put aside shooting with them for a few years because the photographic world, my clientel, and my workflow to make a living and produce personal work has changed. Sure, there is the RD-1, but to me, it's clunky and at only 6 megapixels, it is not enough for what I need. If it was at least 8, I would have happily purchased it. I for one am looking forward to seeing and handling the M8 for myself. Hopefully it is the tool that I am looking for.
What can you do with 8 that can't do with 6? I'm wondering because I once went from a 8mp camera (Sony 828) to a 6mp camera (D70) and was actually able to start consitently make much larger prints with much better detail because my files were so much cleaner (even at lower ISO's). With an even older body (D100) I can even outdo what I did with the D70 because I spent so much time refining my workflow with it. Honestly it proved to be such a tough tool that I felt it was worth the time and effort. Going to a 10mp body (D200) with much newer technology I've got a slightly cleaner file at lower ISO settings and a little more dynamic range but other than that haven't gained much in actual image quality.

James Brannan

09-03-2006, 19:31

Don't quote me on this later... but i actually (perhaps naively) believe that the M8 is destined to be relatively bug-free. I doubt whether many digital cameras have had such exhaustive development and field-testing as this Leica, and i'm betting that the release quality is going to reflect that.
I'd bet money that Nikon or Canon have 10 times the resources of a company like Leica. They still never get it completely right (initially) even with their pro bodies. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Leica is getting ready to release a piece of untested junk. I also have bought many of the first run of a DSLR knowing I was the beta tester for a company and would suffer for it. I just think it's hightly unreasonable to think their won't be any bugs at all.

James Brannan

09-03-2006, 19:48

I'm torn by the fact that I want the M8 but just can't justify the initial estimated retail price of US$5,000.

Because for 5 Grand, I can get the following...

A new Noctilux AND a 90mm 'Cron A-A
or
Lot's of nice variety of Voigtlander AND Zeiss lenses
or
A new Panerai Submersible wristwatch
or
A nicely spec'd notebook computer AND flat panel TV
or
A Fender Telecaster AND Gretsch Setzer guitars with Amp
or
A supercharger, cold-air-induction plus free-flow exhaust system for my car

And on and on and on... Well you get the gist.

I'm sure M8 is going to be a wonderful shooting tool and collector's dream. But now that I've thought about the options more rationally, I think I'll have to pass and wait a couple of years... (with my luck, Leica will probably bump the price higher and again be beyond my reach...)
What kind of car? A supercharger then why cold air? Every kit I've ever done came with a complete induction setup?

A supercharger and exhaust are only the start unless you're running really low boost and then what's the point? I spent a close to a year once just reprogramming my daily driver to get it exactly the way I wanted. I can change a rearend in a rwd sports car in my driveway in under an hour. I know how to weld so I can repair the bent torque arms, reinforce control arms, and do all the other things that make a car hobby a little more affordable. I've destroyed everything and anything on a car just to see what would happen and where things needed to be reinforced.

Really think about it. It's a worse addiction/habit than women even! :bang:

Atleast a Leica won't leave get you in a ticket for doing burnouts in front of a police station for fun in the middle of the night.:angel:

kbg32

09-03-2006, 20:41

What can you do with 8 that can't do with 6? I'm wondering because I once went from a 8mp camera (Sony 828) to a 6mp camera (D70) and was actually able to start consitently make much larger prints with much better detail because my files were so much cleaner (even at lower ISO's). With an even older body (D100) I can even outdo what I did with the D70 because I spent so much time refining my workflow with it. Honestly it proved to be such a tough tool that I felt it was worth the time and effort. Going to a 10mp body (D200) with much newer technology I've got a slightly cleaner file at lower ISO settings and a little more dynamic range but other than that haven't gained much in actual image quality.

James,

The D70 has a much larger chip then the Sony. That's one reason why your files are cleaner, even though it's 2 mgpxls less. I shoot with a 5D. Its files are superior to the 20D which I had before, and loved. Not much, but enough. My agencies wouldn't take most files from the 20D and up-resing did not always make the cleanest files. I have no problems with my agencies accepting files from the 5D, with its larger chip.

Harry Lime

09-03-2006, 21:23

James,

The D70 has a much larger chip then the Sony. That's one reason why your files are cleaner, even though it's 2 mgpxls less. I shoot with a 5D. Its files are superior to the 20D which I had before, and loved. Not much, but enough. My agencies wouldn't take most files from the 20D and up-resing did not always make the cleanest files. I have no problems with my agencies accepting files from the 5D, with its larger chip.

The image quality of the 5D is stellar. I was very impressed, with the one I had.
The images it produced had a very nice film like quality to them. Having the same DOF as a regular film camera probably contributed a lot to that.

Mark Norton

09-03-2006, 21:54

I'd bet money that Nikon or Canon have 10 times the resources of a company like Leica.

Oh no, Leica are a lot smaller than that. Nikon have 50 times the turnover of Leica and cameras are their biggest division. System cameras at Leica account for something like 25% of sales, behind sport optics. Canon are much bigger than Nikon.

For Leica then to be producing a digital camera which will likely rank alongside the world's best is remarkable.

sgy1962

09-04-2006, 02:51

It maybe Leica's cosmic way of saying be a little patient :)

Let the M8 go through its beta testing with more intrepid souls. Film will be around until the M8 can be picked up for a lesser street price. Or, within a year or two, on the used market, if not sooner.

Bingo! We have an answer here. Film's going to be around for a long time. Why rush to M8, unless you always wanted to go digital and were just waiting for the Leica rangefinder to come out. Or unless you just want a new toy.

I'm not sure these M8s will depreciate like other digital cameras given the slowing of digital advancements; the loyalty Leica products possess; and the camera's build construction. I think they'll retain their value fairly well unless there is a major advancement in technology. But film is plenty available, so folks have time to start saving their pennies or slowly liquidating some film equipment to put money in the hand for this item.

I suspect that unless you pre-order you won''t see an M8 on a store sshelf to the latter part of 2007.

mani

09-04-2006, 04:57

I suspect that unless you pre-order you won''t see an M8 on a store sshelf to the latter part of 2007.

Does anyone actually have any factual basis whatsoever for this contention?(which i've seen repeated countless times both on this forum and over on leica-camera-user).

This is an extremely serious dilemma for those of us who either don't immediately have the resources or possibly would like to see if the camera actually fits our long-term requirements before we commit ourselves in advance, so i'd truly appreciate it if someone who actually knows something about the matter would respond.

So far, the only backing i've read anywhere was on this forum writing that some London 'dealer' had said that there would be a shortage of M8s - but such stories circulate about every new consumer product, usually without any basis in truth at all (before xmas last year and before the World Cup this summer, several Swedish papers reported that electronics dealers were forecasting a shortage of flat-screen TVs, for instance - naturally, the shortage never occurred).

Seriously - anyone have any (even ballpark) idea how many Leica dealers there are worldwide? How many have taken pre-orders? Roughly how many cameras will actually be produced?

Often i wonder if Leica fans live in a rather claustrophobic world - surrounded only by other Leica fans, and possibly don't realize that the M8 may actually make less impression on the wider camera-world than they imagine?

(Might i quickly add, that my opinion would be that if only the elite few who pre-order their M8s get them over the next year or so, we won't actually be seeing Leica around as a company for much longer than that...)

johnastovall

09-04-2006, 05:51

At $5000 for the body, plus the cost of a 2/28 Summicron ASPH (unless you already have one) you are looking at roughly $7500-8000 dollars. Add 8-10% for sales tax to that if you buy it in a store, here in the USA.

snipped

HL

Who pays sales tax here in the US? I buy from B&H or Hong Kong and don't pay sales tax to the great state of Texas.

That 2/28 'Cron is 2,350.00 out of Hong Kong and no tax.

Avotius

09-04-2006, 07:16

Mark Norton

09-04-2006, 07:41

It's interesting that you can avoid sales tax in the US just by buying mail order from out of state. Puts an even bigger premium on going to a dealer. Sales Tax in Texas is low anyway isn't it?

As for buying from HK, I've had no problems and recommend it as a way to buy providing you accept the more limited warranty of a grey import. Fine for lenses, less so for brand new digital rangefinder bodies IMHO.

Mark Norton

09-04-2006, 07:51

while im sure the M8 will be a neat camera, for tha tprice I would never buy one. The simple mater is that sony has a 10 mp camera out there for less then a grand which really is pretty nice to use and with the zeiss lens on it will probably do pretty well next to the leica offerings. Sure its two completely different camera types, but for most of us 5k is a hell of a lot of money, I can put a downpayment on a very nice house here for that much!!!!

Sadly, the same economic forces which make products made in China extremely attractive to us in the West make western products appear extremely expensive in China. So yes, I can understand that the Sony - which may well be made in China anway - appears good value against the Leica. I think though you'd find a significant difference in performance - Mp are not the only yardstick of performance - and the Sony Alpha has not been as well received as I expected.

For all their success with compacts, the new entrants to the market - Sony, Panasonic, Samsung - are having a tough time producing products which measure up to Nikon and Canon's SLR offerings. Doesn't mean they will not in the future and if I was Nikon, I'd be just a little bit worried. Sony and Panasonic have a lot to learn from Nikon's photographic heritage, but Sony and Panasonic are masters at producing high volume electronics which works first time, every time. Nikon have often had problems meeting demand in the past and the last thing they want now is to have someone go to buy Nikon, only to choose Sony instead because their first choice was on back-order.

x-ray

09-04-2006, 08:17

I'm in no rust to get the M8 for a couple of reasons:

1 - Digital is primarily a work tool for me. I use digital for my clients work and have gone back to film for 99% of my personal work. I personally like the look of B&W film over B&W digital. It's a personal thing not one is better than another. They both have their place but in my world B&W film is my choice.

2 - There is only so much usable information in both a piece of film and in a digital file. Upsampling a digital file creates strange looking prints if over enlarged. Film scanned or printed to mega sizes increases grain but to my eye does not look objectionable like the strange look of an over enlarged over sampled digital print. One example is leaves on a tree. In a color digital file from a digicam the appearance of the leaves starts to look like sea sponges soaked in green paint when over enlarged. Film just appears to get grainy.

3 - I'm critical as to how my prints look and feel even the best digital files can only be upsampled by 150-200% the file size before they get looking plastic.

4 - I'm in no rush because I have canon 1DsII equipment and again only use them on jobs. The M8 will be limited in use because of lack of file size and long lenses. I most often shoot primes and have the fast L series. I shoot my 200 f1.8 at 1.8-2.2 for minimal DOF and frequently shoot very low light with 24 f1.4 at 1.4-2. I regularly use my 24 and 90 TSE lenses for architecture and products. Leica has a good selection of glass but very limited in relation to canon or nikon.

5 - Canon will be introducing the 22mp version of the 1DsII this fall. I don't plan to rush out and buy one of these at the moment but $8K for the 22mp full frame sensor makes a lot more sense than $5K for a limited usage M8.

6 - I've owned 7 expensive professional nikon and canon DSLR's now and none have been bug free. I do not expect the M8 to be any different. Leica has no professional support and both canon and nikon do. This is a big factor in my book.

Don't tell me Leica is better. I've used Leica for almost all of my professional career and love them but they are no better than many other cameras today.

In my book digital cameras are disposable in the sense they will be improved greatly over the next ten or so years. In the professional world you can not afford to fall behind in technology. Film cameras haven't greatly changed in technology since AF and AE about twenty years ago. Digital hasn't settled yet. It has a way to go before the technology settles like film cameras have.

If I used digital for personal shooting I still would not jump all over the M8. My reasoning, I don't think it's the best value out there given the frequent changes in digital technology. Certainly it has all the great build of a traditional M but to what value given it will be outdated in two or three years. Leica may not change models that quickly but the rest of the digital world does. Why build a digital camera to last fifty years?

Just my personal 2 cents.

johnastovall

09-04-2006, 08:31

Mark Norton

09-04-2006, 08:58

I think the two are related, if your sales are low because you're under cut by mail order out of state, you're not going to carry much stock.

Captain

09-04-2006, 09:22

I just think it's hightly unreasonable to think their won't be any bugs at all.

I have learnt over the years not to buy into Leica's first release of anything electronic

Sony, Panasonic, Samsung - are having a tough time producing products which measure up to Nikon and Canon's SLR offerings.

Thats why Sony bought the whole Konica Minolta company, their main intend was to gain Minoltas SLR and image stabilzation technology. Thats one way to give you a head start!

PeterL

09-04-2006, 11:45

Thats why Sony bought the whole Konica Minolta company, their main intend was to gain Minoltas SLR and image stabilzation technology. Thats one way to give you a head start!

Have you ever been through a take-over ? While nice in theory, it's exceedingly difficult to integrate a purchased product range in practice.

Peter.

jlw

09-04-2006, 12:50

5 - Canon will be introducing the 22mp version of the 1DsII this fall. I don't plan to rush out and buy one of these at the moment but $8K for the 22mp full frame sensor makes a lot more sense than $5K for a limited usage M8.

I can't help thinking that a lot of you pro shooters who are throwing $8,000 at Canon every year for their latest cash-flow upgrade would have been better off starting with a medium-format SLR and a digital back. Then when an improved back comes out, that's the only thing you have to update. And if manufacturer 2 comes out with a back that's better than your manufacturer 1 back, you just switch backs.

There's a quality difference as well. One of the things I do in my job is prep digital files we receive from photo studios. The company uses one photographer who shoots a 1DsII and another who shoots on a Leaf Aptus back. The files they send us are similar in pixel count, but in quality there's just no comparison, especially in highlight separation and tonal range -- the Leaf shots are just dramatically better.

So, I'm not sure it makes sense to say "Don't buy Leica because Canon is better" -- someone could come along and say "Don't buy Canon because Leaf is better." Where I'm going with this argument is that beyond a certain point, ANY time in the digital photography arena that you say, "Y is better than X," there's also probably a Z that's better than Y... and six months from now there will be a Z^2 that's better than Z... and next year there'll be a Z^3 that's better than Z^2... and so forth.

Meanwhile, the guy who went ahead and bought X and stuck with it may not be producing pixels as nice as yours, but he might well be producing better images. It depends on how well X suits his particular needs, which may not necessarily be measurable in pixel count.

x-ray

09-04-2006, 14:01

I can't help thinking that a lot of you pro shooters who are throwing $8,000 at Canon every year for their latest cash-flow upgrade would have been better off starting with a medium-format SLR and a digital back. Then when an improved back comes out, that's the only thing you have to update. And if manufacturer 2 comes out with a back that's better than your manufacturer 1 back, you just switch backs.

There's a quality difference as well. One of the things I do in my job is prep digital files we receive from photo studios. The company uses one photographer who shoots a 1DsII and another who shoots on a Leaf Aptus back. The files they send us are similar in pixel count, but in quality there's just no comparison, especially in highlight separation and tonal range -- the Leaf shots are just dramatically better.

I'm not saying one is better than the other I'm saying the system differences and support differences are much different. As far as digital back vs canon or nikon bodies the digital back has evolved just like the dslr evolution. Digital backs didn't start with the quality that they have now. The backs are a bigger expendature each time technolofy changes. I can upgrade 3 generations of canon for less than the proice of a 22 mp aptus last year.

There are different styles of photography as you know. Some of our work lends itself better for one system over another. My style of shooting is better using the dslr because of availability of lenses. Simply put the MF cameras are very limited in lens selection and particularly in lens speed. MF backs are much slower to use and do not lend themselves to faster paced shooting.

No question that the aptus produces a better file than the canon but as you know most of the commercial work many of us do goes to cmyk and is printed on less than ideal paper by press operators that don't care. My argument is that there is no difference when the ink hits the paper. Any product and particularly phoography is only as good as the weakest part of the system. In 99% of my work it is the cmyk printing process.

I was thinking of purchasing a digital back about a year ago but rather than do that I purchased a top quality Fuji Finescan 5000 scanner. I still have my MF and LF up to 8x10 and if the need arrises, which it has, I can shoot film and scan to whatever file I need. As good as the MF backs are they still fall a little short of 4x5 and a great deal short of 8x10. The cost of a digital back is so high and my need for one is so seldom I deceided I could shoot film and give the film and processing to the client and save money over a MF digital back.

rvaubel

09-04-2006, 14:13

The M8 can in no way substutute for a SLR in a proffesionals arsenal. It compliments an SLR whether digital or film. That is to say, it compliments the SLR in some pro's arsenal. Actually most pros have little or no experience with a rangefinder and probably never will. However, the M8 can potentially expose the pros to the concept of a rangefinder better than a film camera can. The reason for this is simple in that most pros will never consider a film camera for any reason.

Rex

AndyPiper

09-05-2006, 20:58

Stephanie: Just checked the stock - 8 rolls Velvia 100F, 2 rolls Velvia 50, 7 rolls Sensia 400 (same as Provia 400F). In case you're still interested. Can't vouch for the date on the RVP 50; it's been out of the box too long.

LCT: What happened was: 10+ Mpixels and 3:2 image format (Sony R1 + a borrowed R9/DMR), 750 Gbytes of storage, PSCS2 + Camera RAW, end of Velvia 50, preliminary announcement of the M8. Plus 25 hours cleaning dust and other stuff off the Pan F scans of my niece's wedding party for her Xmas book last year.

All I'm missing now is the Leica viewfinder, 16 bits, and getting to use my Leica lenses again.

LCT

09-05-2006, 23:18

...What happened was... 25 hours cleaning dust and other stuff off the Pan F scans of my niece's wedding party...
Cleaning dust off the M8 sensor will be easier hopefully.
Welcome to the club. ;)

rvaubel

09-05-2006, 23:30

Cleaning dust off the M8 sensor will be easier hopefully.
Welcome to the club. ;)

*cleaning dust for scanning
*cleaning dust for printing
*cleaning dust off a sensor
*cleaning dust off a lens

The more things change, the more they stay the same

Rex

LCT

09-05-2006, 23:42

Agree!
http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Jobs_and_People/Maids_and_Cleaners/Broom.gif

MarcoS

09-06-2006, 02:23

I'm in no rust to get the M8 for a couple of reasons:

Don't tell me Leica is better. I've used Leica for almost all of my professional career and love them but they are no better than many other cameras today.

Cameras maybe, but lenses... they simply draw images better to me than all other lenses. No test could show the subtle misurable differences, which are indeed all but subtle to my eyes.
And while I use most of the great japanese lenses (35L, 85L, 300/2.8L IS, 90 TS-E, etc.) I love Leica lenses to the point that, up to print sizes that don't show the 6 Mp limit, I prefer images from my R-D1 to those taken with my 11 Mp 1Ds.
Can't think of how great these lenses would be on a Leica 10 Mp DMR's like sensor.

x-ray

09-07-2006, 11:03

This winter when my work slows down I will produce an original set of prints on 11x14 FB warmtone ilford and selenium tone them just as I do for museum exhibitions. These images will be 8x12 inches and printed from a variety of cameras from 60's vintage Leitz lenses to current production and mix in nikon, canon, some medium format Zeiss and Fuji and possibley some large format images. There willl be a mix of film types too. I will send this master set to one person who has that extra special eye and can tell which is Leitz glass and see if it is true. That person must ship to another with the gift and see if that person can tell which is which. Each person must do the same so a fair sample of people can judge them. I want to see if I am blind or of there are really gifted individuals and there is really a difference. I will number the prints on the back and you will have to post what you think. I will post the images on this forum and in a few weeks will list what is what. The images must then be returned to me. I will only ship in the US but you can ship where you want.

Not only do I not believe you can tell which is Leitz glass I don't believe you will be able to tell me which is vintage or new. I think some of you might not even be able to tell me what was MF vs 35mm.

Think about this and let me know if you would like to do this.