View Full Version : Classic VS Disposable
glasgowdave
09-05-2006, 14:43
I'm a little perturbed here by the enthusiasm for what is, to all intensive purposes (and in my opinion) one of the most outrageously cynical wastes of money ever produced by any camera company. If you spend 5 grand on a camera, it either better be right at the top of the heap in every sense of the digital meaning, or something durable, long lasting, and handbuilt. The Leica M8, when it arrives, will undoubtedly produce fine images, especially with the available lenses. However, it is, essentially, a 10mp digital compact that will be totally obsolete in less than a year. That's not much for your 5 grand, and to me it makes a mockery of what has gone before.
Give me an MP and a decent slide scanner any day!
Thank you for sharing, but I believe some of us would disagree with you on a number of points.
Firstly, the M8 will be at the top of its own digital heap as its only competition is the Epson RD-1 which it will clearly surpass in quality and unfortunately price. I suspect for many of us a digital SLR isn't even competition for the M8 as the working experience is so different--I presume it is for yourself as you are now using an MP.
Secondly, I believe that the M8 will be every bit as durable and long lasting as its film counterparts for normal usage--perhaps it won't function at -30° like a film M might but then again I probably won't be functioning then so why do I care if my camera is. How much of the M8 is handbuilt in the sense you're referring to: by European rather than Asian hands, remains to be seen, but ultimately I'm sure the quality will be up to Leica standards.
I disagree entirely with the notion that the M8 is essentially a 10MP digital compact. The working experience is entirely different, the lenses are clearly superior and mostly due to having a larger sensor and the increased ability to control depth of field the images will be in another league than the average digital compact.
If you truly believe the M8 will be "totally obsolete" in one year, I'm sorry but you're just wrong. Will there be a camera that has a greater MP count, sure (there is now). Will there be one with greater dynamic range, possibly (but if the DMR is any indication then the M8 will hold its own in this regard). Will there be better digital rangefinder, not likely. Will the M8 be unable to produce a good, nay, a great print a year from now, emphatically yes. Obsolete, please...
I don't mean to belittle your obvious preference for film--I currently use an M6TTL and slide scanner and the results are great--but for those of us who fancy an M8 the cost and potential disadvantages are outweighed by what we perceive as great advantages.
Ultimately, why does it disturb you if some us are excited about something you don't even want?
I'm a little perturbed here by the enthusiasm for what is, to all intensive purposes (and in my opinion) one of the most outrageously cynical wastes of money ever produced by any camera company. If you spend 5 grand on a camera, it either better be right at the top of the heap in every sense of the digital meaning, or something durable, long lasting, and handbuilt. The Leica M8, when it arrives, will undoubtedly produce fine images, especially with the available lenses. However, it is, essentially, a 10mp digital compact that will be totally obsolete in less than a year. That's not much for your 5 grand, and to me it makes a mockery of what has gone before.
Give me an MP and a decent slide scanner any day!
Is anybody compelling you to buy one??? I only ask because you got your knickers in such a twist that you confuse a RF with detachable lenses with a point and shoot and that you forget the megapixel race is in the past. There must be a reason.....Some of us are prepared to spend that money on a body as it is not that much compared to the cost of our lenses, which work fine on the film bodies we have as well, others will not, but that is fine and we don't get all upset about that.
matt fury
09-05-2006, 16:18
Totally obsolte in less than a year? Damn. Somebody should have told Leica.
I'll cancel my pre-order right now. Thank you for heads up and preventing me from making such a horrible mistake. I go get a pocketable Canon or Sony instead.:D :bang:
Ok, who took the keys to my DeLorian?
back alley
09-05-2006, 19:19
Ok, who took the keys to my DeLorian?
fell off my chair...lol
Gabriel M.A.
09-05-2006, 19:21
What is with the new accounts making all these trollish Leica-related threads lately?
frankly, I wonder if there is a Hotmail-like site that is being used a lot...
photogdave
09-05-2006, 19:39
Just don't feed hungry trolls!
Hmmm. The OP is being a bit extreme.
But......I bought into to Leica for a couple of reasons:
1. I wanted the finest optics to put in front of my Kodachrome project.
2. I want a timeless film camera system that I almost never need to upgrade, works without batteries and is all manual ( I do work at -30 ). I will not even buy an M7 for the reasons above.
The only reason I am interested in the M8 is to see it succeed enough to give Leitz an economic boost. Other than that, I have a brilliant Canon digital system.
Barring any issues, I am sure the M8 will be well received by many.
AndyPiper
09-05-2006, 20:45
"to all intensive purposes" - you would be meaning "to all intents and purposes", laddie?
"If you spend 5 grand on a camera, it either better be right at the top of the heap in every sense of the digital meaning" - well, the tops of the heap in digital are the MF backs which run $20,000 to $30,000. The M8 pretends to neither the top of the heap nor the top of the price scale.
"However, it....will be totally obsolete in less than a year." - define "obsolete"
"Give me an MP and a decent slide scanner any day!" - in terms of image quality, this combo became "obsolete" for me the moment I saw what 10 Mpixels can do.
However, one can always keep using "obsolete" technology for as long as it meets one's needs. Which is what you choose to do with film and what I'll choose to do with the M8. Enjoy!
c.poulton
09-05-2006, 22:53
The M8 won't be 'obsolete' within a year, but I do wonder if it will still be used in, say, 55 years time? (My IIIf's are that old and still going strong - to upgrade them I just put in a roll of film:D )
Not that my argument should stop anyone buying the M8 now, it's just that I feel that with digital, things do move fast and who knows what the next 'big thing' in sensor development will bring.
Also, what is the life span of a sensor - will it still even work after 50 years and over time will dead and noisy pixels surface? As with a shutter wearing out, you could just get a replacement, however, will the sensor be still available in the future?
I think that these are important questions, however we should buy the M8 to use now, use often and enjoy. In 50 years time lets hope that we can just upgrade to the new M14;)
In a world where product life cycles are measured in months rather than years, parts supply is the main problem..
Truth of the matter is, that in 10 years time a broken M8 will be beyond repair. The electronic parts will no longer be produced, and what you have is a doorstep.
True, fully mechanical cameras also depend on parts that are out of production, but these can be custom made by anyone with a little experience on a lathe/mill. Don't expect a digital sensor or a flexibele printed circuit to be kitbashed in the same way in someones' garage..
As fine as the M8 may turn out to be, its probability of becoming a 'classic' is pretty slim in my view..
Simon Larbalestier
09-06-2006, 00:13
:D I'll cancel my pre-order right now. Thank you for heads up and preventing me from making such a horrible mistake. I go get a pocketable Canon or Sony instead.:D :bang:
I'm on the phone right now to cancel my order with Robert White...........
I see now that I was far too friendly in my reply...:p :D
AndyPiper
09-06-2006, 01:10
Ah...so suddenly we've gone from 1 year to 10 years or 55 years as the life-cycle test for 'obsolescence.'
Since I've only been using film Ms for 5 years - that means I should get at least twice as much life out of my M8 as I have out of my (soon to be disposable) M4-P, right?
Yes, electronic parts are likely to disappear faster than mechanical parts (I understand some parts of the original M6 circuitry are already defunct). So my M8 will last as long as the parts supply PLUS the remaining years until it has a fatal failure. At that point - and at no point prior to that time - it will become obsolete. My guess is 15 years - which comes out to $300 per year. Maybe even better than that - in 35 years of slam-bang photojournalism I've sent in a total of 3 cameras for repair.
I happily shot film for 35 years. 10 megapixels plus Leica glass is already better than film (for that matter it's better than 16Mpixels with most (not all) Canon lenses), so I should be good for another 35 years (which gets me to age 87) - REGARDLESS of what new technical advances come along in sensor technology.
I can ignore them, especially if they are only available in SLRs. A full-frame digital M might get my attention (even if it's still only 10Mp). But that's about all.
Anyone who wants to putter around keeping a "classic" mechanical whatsis running, scrounging parts and machining gears and hoping someone still makes tires or film, would be better off with a 1928 Morris or Ford or some such. Bigger parts - and it's easier to climb under.
Cameras are for taking pictures. "A toothbrush" as Don McCullin called his. Use 'em till they drop, and then move on. Whether my camera(s) will ever become "classics" is the silliest (expletive) reason possible for making a buying decision.
In agreement with Andy...
I was in the Tate a few days ago for an opening, and the only press photog present was using a 4mp EOS 1D which must be at least 4 yrs old now. His comment - 'who needs more than 4mp?' - not my sentiment, admittedly, but he was a working pro, and clearly able to sell the shots.
I can't see any reason why the current generation of digital cams should go obsolete - small format digital seems to have topped out at between 6-10mp except for a few that challenge medium format.
The history of photography is littered with obsolete film systems, and there's a chance that film itself will become obsolete before digital cameras do. So let's move on from this old chestnut?
You know, Leitz and Barnack didn't just sit and thought "let's make a camera that'll become classic and will defeat obsolecence for decades" back in 1920s. They made a camera with form dictated by function, it turned out beautiful and it won hearts of great photographers of the time and helped them make some of the iconic images of the century. That's what made Leica classic! Not fine chrome finish. Not durability. Not precision! There were some Swiss made gems at the time which had all that and then some, hardly remembered by anyone but collectors.
Just let's hope that M8 would prove just as great to use as its predcessors.
glasgowdave
09-06-2006, 01:52
I see i've lit the touch paper! I'm just a little concerned at Leica marketing what (in my opinion) is really a very, very expensive compact. Yes, the user experience will no doubt be superlative, yes the lenses are outstanding, but there's just something about the idea of it that leaves me cold...a little bit like a diesel in a Porsche 911T, with added automatic transmission. Thanks for your replies, especially the patronising use of the word "laddie"...I've fought for my country in two services as a commissioned officer, but thanks for the sentiment.
Dave, M8 is not any more nor less of a digital compact that MP is of a film compact. Both are fairly expensive as that.
I see i've lit the touch paper! [...] Thanks for your replies, especially the patronising use of the word "laddie"...I've fought for my country in two services as a commissioned officer, but thanks for the sentiment.
No, you've just proven that some Leica users can be rather touchy in defending their gear. In some cases not even in their gear, but in the gear that the company that made some of their gear will eventually produce but which a large share of them will not even buy. Flat-out amazing.
This discussion has been around over and over, and we'll continue to see it for a long time. Some people will defend Leica as a company and as a product maker to no end. They will claim that Leica designs its lenses for bokeh, when there is no indication that Leica has ever done so, maybe until very recently. They will defend mechanical Leicas against electronic cameras with the battery supply argument, while all they would have to do is carry two or three spare batteries along with the thirty rolls of film they are carrying anyway on any expedition beyond the edge of civilization. They defend it with the reliability argument, while sending their M6s off to mandatory factory service every couple of years (as Dante Stella has put it). They argue in favour of it with the Leica style of photography argument, then sell of their brand-new M7 Titaniums and Summiluxes after one roll of film when they discover that "the M7 is not for them". And now with the M8, we see that in the digital age we need a new argument, so similarly they will now defend the M8 against the quite evident threat of obsolescence with the as of now quite optimistic claim that "excellence" (whatever that is) somehow trumps the shortened product cycles in the digital age. (I would like to see it do so, but OTOH I see hardly anyone still using the quite excellent Kodak digital SLRs or Canon D60's.)
I think what we can see illustrated here is that some Leica aficionados are emotionally invested in their gear to an amazing extent. I don't think that's a bad thing, it's only not always entirely rational in its expression and its results.
Philipp
Well, Dave, as a military man you will undoubtedly be familiar with the effect on the other side if one rushes in with guns blazing! Anyway, I'm sure we'll be in agreement on many other subjects in the future, so let's just start off the way most of us did: welcome to the forum! :)
Hi Jaap,
and that you forget the megapixel race is in the past.Well, you may be right about the megapixel part (and even that is debatable), but the race in sensor technology is certainly not over. There are many other fields of development here, addressing factors such as dynamic range, sensitivity, noise, light fall-off, corner sharpness with wideangles, colour reproduction and last not least size and cost, that will make today's sensors obsolete in comparison with tomorrow's. Leica will be affected by this just as any other camera maker will. If they want to remain competitive, they will have to continue putting new sensors in their cameras. The race isn't over, just the track might be different. In sports terminology, it's like triathlon; just because you're done swimming doesn't mean you've finished it.
It would be sense to have a modular design here, but then they apparently don't make this part of the camera themselves. Building modular cameras doesn't have much of a tradition at Leica; they have been becoming better at this with products such as the the DMR and the use of the R shutter in the M8, let's hope for them that they can keep this up.
Philipp
I don't doubt that technical advances are taking place,you are 100% right about that, but what about practical significance? If we take Canon's D60 to 30D series as an example we have a timespan of about ten years. The major updates have been in the photographical part of the camera: ergonomics, size, handling,viewfinder, most imporantly autofocus. Yes, the megapixels have grown from 6 to 8, but that is rather insignificant, yes, colour balance has improved, but I use RAW anyway, yes, noise at high ISO is better, but it was not bad on the D60 and how often do we use 3200 ? In the end it boils down to: the camera has improved, especially if one puts the first beside the last, but not so dramatically that there is a significant difference in the printed results. I would hope the M8 will do better than that so I think a technical life span of 15 years is not unrealistic, unless current evolution is replaced by some shattering revolution in sensor or electronic design. Who knows? But then, most RF affectionados are not the type that fall for a newest and bestest hype. And in the end, what is very good today will not suddenly turn into worthless junk in the future.
To remain with your Triathlon example: swimming is a lot slower than cycling!I think we have just started the swimming part now.:p
If we take Canon's D60 to 30D series as an example we have a timespan of about ten years.
Kinda short years you have in the Netherlands - the D60 was presented in 2002, which I think relativises the rest of your argument somewhat!
If you talk ten years, you can compare today's Canon 30D to the six-megapixel, $12.000 Kodak DCS460 (link at www.mir.com.my (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/index1.htm#460)) instead. Or the Kodak/Canon EOS DCS-1 at $30.000. I'm not saying that was a bad camera. Actually for its time it was outright amazing, with a price to match. It's not as obsolete as the eleven years since then would suggest, especially since they probably sell for about $300 now, and in the $300 league it's quite competitive. But it's obsolete anyway - eight seconds between two-image picture bursts, size, sensitivity, available storage size, ergonomics (where is that display?); it's obvious digital photography has come a long way since then, the "race" has been quite heated and intense, and no digital camera manufacturer could have afforded to rest on his laurels the way Leica did for a long time.
Philipp
You're right, I'm a bit in the fast track, your example is better. The most striking thing is the way prices have come down, which certainly won't happen with Leica..... Time will tell, and I will probablyenjoy my M8 for many years. :)
I'm not a Leica person, but I've been happily taking lots of photographs with a 50-year-old obsolete all-but-abandoned photo system (and have published hundreds of photos with these orphaned Nikon RFs).
I think digital is mature enough now that a 10 MP Leica will be useful for a long time to come. Yes, new models might come out with improved sensors, but the M8 will remain useful.
The Barnack Leicas went through several cycles of rapid development. From the Ur-Leica to the I and II and III, then up the alphabet from "a" to "g," and the quality of lenses improved considerably over the years. Still, I could go out with a Leica Ia (if there is such a thing ... I'm not a Leica junky) with a late-'20s-early-1930s lens and take perfectly fine photos. A IIIg will do the job more effectively with more features and with a much better mid-1950s lens. A brand-new M-7 will operate much more smoothly, with more accurate framing, using a lens immune from flare and optimized from 80 years of optical research. So it will generally do a better job. But the 1930 Leica will do just fine ... Just as the M8 a few decades from now will probably still do okay alongside an M12 or whatever.
Also, it's not that difficult for cottage industries to reverse engineer some electronic components. Think of the micro-circuit technology inside a typical $10 kids' toy. In many ways, it's less complex than the watchmaker skills needed to custom-make camera parts. I think, if digital Leicas develop some kind of long-term problem, there will be financial incentive to come up with a reasonably affordable solution (in the range of several hundred dollars)... neither the original owners nor the secondary market would consider these a throwaway product after a couple of years. Unlike the digital SLRs of the past decade, which pioneered the switch to digital, a Leica M digital will be mature enough that people will be wililng to pay some money to fix them rather than replace tham with a very pricey newer model.
a Leica M digital will be mature enough that people will be wililng to pay some money to fix them rather than replace tham with a very pricey newer model
IMHO that's a question of availability rather than maturity. This whole maturity argument is based on the assumption that with digital cameras, progress must end somewhere and that that is where Leica can hop on the bandwagon, saving themselves as a camera company. But people will now replace their four-year-old D60 by a 30D, as opposed to having it repaired, because the 30D is available. People will do that with Leica too and replace their M8's by M10's, if the M10 is available. If there is no M10, people will stick to their M8's instead, regardless of how mature the M8 is in comparison with other digital cameras.
Paradoxically enough, Leica can thus create the impression of repairability and longevity as design features of the M8, simply by not innovating beyond it.
Then again, maybe this has been Leica's business model all the time since the M5 tanked.
Philipp
At least in software industry, upgrade sales to existing users are a viable source of income. It is yet unknown if M8 can be factory-upgdaded, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out so. I would imagine a lot of M8 users will be reluctant to shell out another 5k for M9 in two years, while an upgrade (even for $1000-1500, cost of mid-level DLSR body) would be seen feasible to many.
KoNickon
09-06-2006, 04:46
Phillipp's comments in his two posts make a lot of sense. Indeed it does seem like a lot of people rushed to squelch the original poster's opinion, for the simple reason that he was commenting negatively on the M8. There may have been some inaccuracies or overstatements in his note, but the basic premise was valid: What makes the M8 "better" than a lot of other digital cameras already on the market? We'll have to see -- I don't think we can assume that, just because it's a Leica, it will be better.
The world of digital cameras is (obviously) an electronic one, and new players -- computer and electronics manufacturers -- are in the field. Leica's forte over the decades has been top-notch mechanical construction and superb optics. I'm not sure that either is that important anymore -- digital cameras have become much more limited lifespan items, much as cellphones are, and software goes a long way toward eliminating optical flaws. If, as Philipp mentions, Leica comes up with a way to make the M8's electronics easily upgradable or replaceable, then maybe having an M8 that lasts decades makes sense.
>>People will do that with Leica too and replace their M8's by M10's, if the M10 is available.<<
Then there will be plenty of secondary-market buyers for that traded-in camera. That's no different than Leicas today.
>>the basic premise was valid: What makes the M8 "better" than a lot of other digital cameras already on the market?<<
What made the Leica M4 or M6 "better" than their SLR competition at the time? Since the 1960s, Leicas have been a pricey specialty item and, since the 1970s, the only manufacturer of professional-grade full-featured rangefinder cameras.
glasgowdave
09-06-2006, 05:13
JAAPV, indeed I am - it serves well to keep their heads down while you establish a stronger position!
Thanks for the welcome. For the record I'm actually a DSLR shooter with a gigantic desire to go all film in the near future...I'm a design snob I suppose and value quality, workmanship, and detail are what matters most to me. DM's description of the camera as a "toothbrush" is apt, I just wish my D200 was as easy to conceal! I've applied for a small business grant to get my freelance work off the ground and am sorely tempted to steer away from the use of digital at any weddings I do...even though I'm aware of the workflow hit this imposes. Anyone here use M series for weddings?
>>People will do that with Leica too and replace their M8's by M10's, if the M10 is available.<<
Then there will be plenty of secondary-market buyers for that traded-in camera. That's no different than Leicas today.
You're right, of course. Actually used Leica bodies are probably Leica's biggest competition. For example, since they managed to convince everybody with the M4-2 that light meters aren't really necessary, I guess a number of users will have bought M6's only quite late.
However, this kind of development that you are alluding to used to take place very slowly. The pace of evolution and obsolescence with rangefinders was very slow, roughly one Leica M model every ten years on average and sometimes extremely little innovation between them. Incidentally, these very slow product cycles are an easy thing to achieve when you're the only company in the market, especially when the buyers are largely traditionalists. Development happened in the 1950s to early 60s, when Canon and Nikon where there; then in the 70s, when there was the threat of SLRs with internal metering and of compact cameras; and then, after that, only very gradually. The big innovation in the entire 1980s was, lo and behold, an internal light meter, and in the 1990s aperture priority AE when the Hexar RF demonstrated that it could be done and actually presented a formidable competitor. Snail's pace since 1965 or so. In this kind of market, of course, as a user you can swap the M(n) for the M(n+1) every ten or fifteen years and be happy. This kind of customer behaviour in a slowly-evolving market can be quite deadly for a camera company, because you make a living out of only those users that buy your newest product, while a lot of people will buy older, obsoleted products from the early adopters. In such a situation companies are likely to start making money off services, such as CLAs, repairs and so on, which is what Leica did, and the whole image (however justified) of the Leica M as the camera that can be repaired even after a hundred years has to be seen in this context: because it allows Leica to make money from these repairs.
Digital cameras have a completely different kind product cycle; effectively they're a completely different product. Developing digital cameras is much more costly, takes skills that evolve more rapidly and has to take place faster. All Leica can hope to do is to slide into a position where they can do development at a slower pace. In order to achieve this, Leica is taking a big bet on a number of factors here that, as they hope, somehow discern their buyers from other digital camera buyers:
Leica is hoping that Leica M body buyers are enough traditionalist in their mindset that Leica won't have to innovate at the pace Canon does. The best buyers for the M8, apart from professionals with existing large amounts of M lenses, are users that are suspicious of the pace of innovation elsewhere, yet want to have a good digital camera, too. For these users, it's OK if the camera is good now; if it becomes better too quickly, it is somehow disturbing and discourages from buying anyway. After all, nobody buys today's $5000 product if tomorrow's can be expected to be better.
Leica is hoping that Leica M body buyers regard the difference between a digital rangefinder and the world of DSLRs as big enough that they create their own separate market, the way they did with Leica M bodies. Since the 70s Leica hasn't competed with anyone in their own niche in the camera arena until recently, because the rangefinder as a photographic tool was a market in itself, sufficiently different from SLRs. There are good indications that this is the case in the digital world, too, but it is still an assumption.
Leica is probably hoping that development in the digital camera world will slow down at some point, so even if they develop at a slower pace the divergence won't become too great eventually - this is the argument about jumping late on a slowing bandwagon.
That's just my own set of assumptions about Leica's rationale behind development and product placement of the M8, but I think it has some merit. I wish them success.
Philipp
I am one of those troublesome buggers that shoots back ;) I can emphasise with your photographic moves. I went from Leica SLR to Canon DSLR and got very weary with it. Luckily I hung on to my M camera all the time and now the Canon gathers dust. But I like digital, so for me the M8 is a godsend. I even use a Digilux2 as a stopgap camera. Now THAT is a point-and shoot, albeit a rather nice one. Film-digital is 50/50 with me.
JAAPV, indeed I am - it serves well to keep their heads down while you establish a stronger position!
Thanks for the welcome. For the record I'm actually a DSLR shooter with a gigantic desire to go all film in the near future...I'm a design snob I suppose and value quality, workmanship, and detail are what matters most to me. DM's description of the camera as a "toothbrush" is apt, I just wish my D200 was as easy to conceal! I've applied for a small business grant to get my freelance work off the ground and am sorely tempted to steer away from the use of digital at any weddings I do...even though I'm aware of the workflow hit this imposes. Anyone here use M series for weddings?
>>That's just my own set of assumptions about Leica's rationale ... I wish them success.<<
I think they have no choice but to create top-quality digital camera and convince the world that digital technology is mature enough to handle Leica's image of longlasting European craftsmanship.
One thing to keep in mind. Even if the company fails or pulls out of the camera business altogether in a couple of years, there are going to be many thousands of digital M cameras floating around the marketplace for the forseeable future, which I would argue is the rest of our lives.
In reference to a post above, here's a link to some Delorians currently for sale in the United States ... some remanufactured, some low-miles originals.
http://www.delorean.com/preowned.asp
I love their motto: "Always in Style."
humanized_form
09-06-2006, 05:56
i think a lot of the recent "upgrades" to digital cameras are simply laughable, as the majority of these upgrades seem to have very little to do with image quality improvements and much more to do with the packaging and repackaging of "features".
the newest in new model may give you a better viewfinder (wow.. i can actually use manual focus now!) but maybe lowers the flash sync or removes the spot meter or whatever, it's just playing games with features, setting up the sell for the next model. i guess that's one of the few ways manufacturers can differentiate between models when the majority are still basically using the same aps sensors (albeit crammed with more megapixels and "improved image processing").
i'm not concerned with how many frames per second can be sprayed with the press of a button or how many auto focus points i can choose from, etc... i just really don't care about that stuff. it just gets in the way.
i see no need to upgrade from the M8 until it simply stops working.
And here are some pictures of my brother's obsolete 40-year-old car (a Chevy Corvair) taken last year with my 48-year-old camera and 50-year-old lens.
...What makes the M8 "better" than a lot of other digital cameras already on the market?
For me, there are three things that make the Leica M8 better for my needs than other quite capable digital cameras. 1) It is a rangefinder. Since the first time picking one up I have preferred rangefinder focusing to SLR for most uses. I would have bought the Epson RD-1 except for the fact that I could only use the equivalent of a 42mm lens without an accessory viewfinder. The M8 will be my only option. 2) The size and quality of Leica lenses. It's not that there aren't other capable lenses on the market, but I prefer the feel, the quality and the small size of Leica's offerings. 3) The size of the camera. I may be able to get a smaller P&S, but to get the level of control over all the parameters that go into taking a photo that I want I would need to use a DSLR. Which brings me back to the first reason above.
hm....the camera will be obsolete aparently because someone will want more and more.....my 8 mp canon 20D produces 30 inch prints that are very nice looking, the 1dsmark2 does it better but I dont really care, mine is good enough, in a film vs. digital thing I think film still is better looking at that size but its too close to call for the most part....how will the dm be obsolete in a year? After a year it shoots 2 megapixle shots instead of 10?
AndyPiper
09-06-2006, 11:19
GlasgowDave: I apologize for the "laddie" - although I think if you re-read your original post there was a certain - curmudgeonliness - in your own phrasing. "outrageously cynical wastes of money...totally obsolete ... makes a mockery" are rather combative and over-the-top word choices (IMHO, of course).
We've probably thrashed "obsolete" to death - or at least into obsolescence.
As to what the competition has to offer - what competition? Which Canon or Nikon digital RANGEFINDER are we talking about? The P&S thingies, with telephoto apertures of f/5.6, and 'viewfinders' that drive most users to view with the LCD instead?
Any Canon or Nikon digital SLR has more in common with an MF camera + digital back - they are all big, heavy, and have a mirror flopping around inside - than it does with a Leica M.
If all I needed was 10 Mpixels - I could have gotten that (and more) 4 years ago with a Canon 1Ds. But - it - was - not - a - rangefinder!
IF Nikon or Canon or Hassy or ANYBODY introduces a digital rangefinder camera - on the physical scale of a Leica M with nice f/1.4- f/2- f/2.8 lenses covering close to the range of the M lenses - at any price, at any number of pixels - THEN we can get into price vs. performance questions.
Until then, there is the M8, there is the R-D1(s), and there are various film rangefinders. And that's the only universe in which reasonable comparisons can be made.
matt fury
09-06-2006, 12:52
This whole obsolesence arguement is bs IMO. If the camera takes good pictures in 2006, the pictures it takes in 2010 will be just as good.
KoNickon
09-06-2006, 12:56
Assuming the electronics don't fail before then.
This whole obsolesence arguement is bs IMO. If the camera takes good pictures in 2006, the pictures it takes in 2010 will be just as good.
That's because you define obsolescence as "things becoming worse", when really it is about "things becoming worse in comparison because of other things raising standards and expectations". If you were talking film cameras, would "If the camera takes good pictures in 1925 the pictures it takes in 2005 will be just as good" really be an argument against obsolescence? Looking around I see a lot more EOSes and compacts than Voigtländer Bessa II folders, even though you can take fine pictures with the latter.
Philipp
I happily shot film for 35 years. 10 megapixels plus Leica glass is already better than film
As a guy who shoots both for a full time living, I find that to be entirely subjective.
I take off tonight for a magazine assignment that will become part of my long term tribute to Kodachrome. The images I have gotten already from my Leica on it simply breathe a different life than any digital ever will.
Absolutely no contest whatsoever.
As a guy who shoots both for a full time living, I find that to be entirely subjective.
I take off tonight for a magazine assignment that will become part of my long term tribute to Kodachrome. The images I have gotten already from my Leica on it simply breathe a different life than any digital ever will.
Absolutely no contest whatsoever.
Which is simply saying that film and digital are different and one not worse than the other and Kodachrome is something else again. Which magazine? I would be interested to see it :)
Your website is pretty impressive as well....
AndyPiper
09-06-2006, 22:32
KM25: You caught me out making the same mistake I always warn others against - in this day and age one must, of course, specify WHICH film and WHICH digital!
So to be more specific - I find 10+ Mpixel images capture more detail with better color accuracy than any 35mm film of equivalent ISO from which I can acquire a finished image within 3-4 hours of shooting. "More detail" meaning not just resolution but also retrievable shadow and highlight detail.
I've spent the past 30 months searching hard for any film(s) that can change that. No luck so far.
glasgowdave
09-07-2006, 03:45
Andy, thanks for your gracious comments. I'm presently waiting for my business gateway grant to appear and when it does I am giving serious consideration to an M6TTL or used MP/M7 rather than increasing my D200 lens collection. I enjoy wide angle work more and I think I see more along these lines; I wonder if you might point me toward the best lens as an initial Leica purchase? I'm thinking 35mm or possibly shorter. Also, in terms of the finder variations, I think 0.72 is probably the most versatile...although I've read that 0.58 might in some cases be better for wide angle.
Rgds
Dave
Glasgowdave,
Before you draw too many conclusions about what Leica's digital rangefinder will and will not be, how long it will last, etc. I'd suggest you work with one later this year. It's tough to draw conclusions about a camera that one has never seen, held, worked with, etc.
BTW, I do indeed use digital rangefinder cameras for weddings: two RF bodies and a 5D.
Cheers,
Sean
That is a kind of a blanket question, Dave, as the possibilities are well, not endless, but numerous. Are you thinking of a new lens or a second hand one? Must it be Leica or would you consider another brand? What quality range? Do you like the slam-bam exactness of modern ASPH lenses or the more dreamy-flary type of older designs?And not unimportantly: what price-range?
As for the magnification, it depends on what you like, My old eyes find 0.72 fine, but for some .58 is better.
Andy, thanks for your gracious comments. I'm presently waiting for my business gateway grant to appear and when it does I am giving serious consideration to an M6TTL or used MP/M7 rather than increasing my D200 lens collection. I enjoy wide angle work more and I think I see more along these lines; I wonder if you might point me toward the best lens as an initial Leica purchase? I'm thinking 35mm or possibly shorter. Also, in terms of the finder variations, I think 0.72 is probably the most versatile...although I've read that 0.58 might in some cases be better for wide angle.
If a camera being "obsolete" is defined as it not being able to produce image quality on the same level as other cameras, then every 35mm camera on earth is and was obsolete in the face of medium format. And likewise medium format is obsolete due to large format. Certainly then all of the sub-24x36 DSLRs including those Canon haven't yet produced but will, are obsolete compared to the 5D. Which itself was obsolete the day it came out, compared to the 1DS-II.
For me, as long as the M8 (or any other 35mm-body-based digital) can produce image quality equal to what I can get from the same type of body using 35mm film, then I won't classify it as obsolete.
And given a $5000 camera that saves me roughly $1200/yr on film and processing, any time after about 4 years should it become un-repairable, I stand to lose nothing. True, someone who keeps it in a closet and shoots it rarely has an economic worry in that regard.
glasgowdave
09-07-2006, 06:28
I think the new, sharper route is probably best for me - I'm not too fussed about new or used as long as it's from a reputable supplier. Does this help firm up my recommendation base? I'd probably go as far as £550-600.
If a camera being "obsolete" is defined as it not being able to produce image quality on the same level as other cameras, then every 35mm camera on earth is and was obsolete in the face of medium format.
Is anyone defining obsolescence this way?
Philipp
glasgowdave
09-07-2006, 06:42
I meant obsolete in comparison to other digital compacts at a twentieth of the price...albeit with significantly lower image quality even at 10mp...not in comparison to other formats.
That would put the VoigtländerUltron 1.7 35 asph with M adapter firmly on your list. Have a look on the Cameraquest (http://cameraquest.com/rangefinder_forum_welcome.htm) website, button on this site.
I think the new, sharper route is probably best for me - I'm not too fussed about new or used as long as it's from a reputable supplier. Does this help firm up my recommendation base? I'd probably go as far as £550-600.
One more thought: the .72 models are more common than the .58 ones, therefore it is easier to find a good and reasonably priced example. Have a look at the ffordes (http://www.ffordes.com) website as well. Not cheap, but highly reliable and value for money.
Is anyone defining obsolescence this way?
Philipp
Reading his original question/rant, If you spend 5 grand on a camera, it either better be right at the top of the heap in every sense of the digital meaning, I thought he was . But now he says I meant obsolete in comparison to other digital compacts at a twentieth of the price...albeit with significantly lower image quality even at 10mp. so now I'm totally confused. How will the M8 be obsolete if that which purports to obsolete it has significantly lower image quality?
Still, what I said stands: unless someone buys the M8 for a shelf piece and only shoots it occasionally, the savings in film and processing will pay for the camera by the time the next version comes out, given Leica's pace.
One could always have compared a Leica rangefinder to the Japanese SLR-de-jour and made a good case for the Leica being an overpriced obsolete antique, that's nothing new with the M8. If a DSLR or a pocket digital suits your photographic needs better than a digital M-series rangefinder then the answer is simple: buy what suits you. Ranting against the M8 and putting down the people who want or will buy one is totally unnecessary.
glasgowdave
09-07-2006, 08:40
I meant that the M8 is likely to have superior image quality in comparison to other 10mp compacts. I think overall there's something about the matching of TFT monitor and the other requirements of full digital that just clashes with my idea of handbuilt, meticulously skilled optical engineering. Like I said, to me it's a bit like a Rolls Royce with a cheap, tinny tape player in it.
I meant that the M8 is likely to have superior image quality in comparison to other 10mp compacts. I think overall there's something about the matching of TFT monitor and the other requirements of full digital that just clashes with my idea of handbuilt, meticulously skilled optical engineering. Like I said, to me it's a bit like a Rolls Royce with a cheap, tinny tape player in it.
Unfortunately, Dave, there is but one "compact" as you call it that one can compare it to. That is the Epson RD1. Based on a camera that is on a level below the Leica M, with an older generation APS sensor of 6Mp, with vignetting , with manual framelines and a limited range of framelines at that, quality-control and service issues, it still costs 3000 Euro. And that one is a very good camera and has an enthusiatic group of users. It seems to make the Leica M8 positively good value for money. No other camera's compare. The only genuine compact that seems to approach the M8 is the Digilux2, but that is a real compact with a fixed lens and a far smaller sensor, also at least one generation back, at a proud 1500 Euro in its time. Add to that that it will be by no means the most expensive camera in its quality class, even if we have to compare it unjustly to DSLR's, it will be a rarity: A Leica that is not overpriced! ;)
Believe me, if there was a competetive alternative by Zeiss or CV I would certainly consider those, but it seems those are, if they ever appear at all, not even close to the stage of rumours. No it is not a case of being partisan, it is a case of no alternatives.
Btw my Jaguar sports a number of LCD screens in its interior, in full colour as well, and I cannot say that is a bad thing :p
AndyPiper
09-07-2006, 09:36
Like I said, to me it's a bit like a Rolls Royce with a cheap, tinny tape player in it.
Understood.
For me, compared to 10 Mpixel digital (based on using the Leica SLR back and my Sony R1), shooting film with my M4-P is like driving a Rolls Royce with 2 quarts of sand in the lubricating oil.
And I still don't get the comparison to "compact" digital cameras. The M8 has a larger sensor than 95% (maybe 99%?) of digital cameras sold - exceeded only by the Canon 1D cameras and the MF backs. Nine times the surface area of the sensor in the Digilux 2 (and the D2 has a large sensor - "2/3rds" - compared to most non-SLR digicams).
Which means it will be able to shoot at ISOs above 1000 with less grain/noise than most compacts get at ISO 200 (sensitivity and noise being related to surface area and the amount of enlargement required, rather like film).
It will mount f/1.4 and f/2.0 lenses (and even the f/1.0 Noctilux!) whereas compact digicams usually max out at f/3.5-5.6 at the long end of their fixed zoom lenses.
If one MUST make comparisons outside the rangefinder realm - the M8 is not a Nikon Coolpix with better build quality.
It is a Canon 1D with 1/3rd the weight and bulk, with 'analog' shutter and aperture controls rather than thumb-wheel thingies, and with much more definite, binary "snap the two images together" manual focusing.
...and, of course, that Leica/Rolls build quality.
Just out of curiosity - which compact digital cameras do you have in mind that you are comparing to the M8?
If one MUST make comparisons outside the rangefinder realm - the M8 is not a Nikon Coolpix with better build quality.
It is a Canon 1D with 1/3rd the weight and bulk, with 'analog' shutter and aperture controls rather than thumb-wheel thingies, and with much more definite, binary "snap the two images together" manual focusing.
Or it's a Nikon D200 with 20% grams less weight and maybe a third less bulk (depending on metric), with the ability to use an extensive range of lenses that span a roughly comparable number of years, excluding, of course, zoom lenses, specialty lenses such as macro or perspective control lenses and of course everything above 90mm (as Leica sees it), without autofocus, with much less sophisticated metering and flash options, with controls where we don't know yet at all how well they're suited to the different technical requirements of a digital camera (if it indeed looks like Jorge's pictures, there will be a lot of menu fiddling) and at close to three times the price.
This kind of comparison usually doesn't work, and if it does, it works both ways. Leica doesn't want to build a camera that holds its own in comparison (because then they have to keep track with all the developments in the DSLR world). They want to build a camera that can't be compared to DSLRs at all, that represents a class in itself.
Philipp
AndyPiper
09-07-2006, 11:26
Well, as we both said - rangefinders are their own realm,
BUT:
Canon 1D - 1.3x crop; Leica M8 - 1.33x crop;......D200 - 1.52x crop
Canon 1D - split-image focus available (optional Canon screen); Leica M8 - split-image focus built-in;....D200 - no split-image focusing from Nikon (3rd party screens available?)
Canon 1D - meters fully with EOS lenses, won't mount pre-EOS Canon lenses; Leica M8 - meters fully with Leica lenses back to 1932;...D200 - meters fully with AF lenses, meters with MF AI lenses back to 1976 _IF_ one stops to enter the focal length and max. aperture manually every time one changes lenses.
Canon 1D - SD cards optional; Leica M8 - SD cards only; ....Nikon D200; CF (cr*p-flash) cards only (talk about 'obsolete' technology!)
If the D200 were the only digital option available - I'd stick with film. If the M8 were not available, I'd have to go with a 1D eventually (and spend the extra $1000 on chiropractor treatments).
But to be fair - if a hypothetical D300 takes SD cards (a la the D80) - THEN we'd be talking. In fact I'm gonna look real hard at the D80 as my long-glass camera (once the M8 is paid for) - with a 180 f/2.8 and a 300 f/4 it would be a GREAT space-holder for a more compact Leica R10 (and perhaps even beyond).
Hi Andy,
in general, I pretty much agree with you. Basically, you're saying that the 1D and M8 on one hand and the D200 on the other are in different classes. Then again, this is kind of obvious, since one only has to look at the price sheet. At the danger of turning this into the digital equivalent of the usual Bessa R2 vs. Leica M6 discussion, however, I'd still like to comment on some of the technical details that you highlighted:
Canon 1D - 1.3x crop; Leica M8 - 1.33x crop;......D200 - 1.52x crop
Granted, but there's not exactly an astronomical difference between 28 or 31mm FOV (from a 21mm lens), or between 67 or 75 (from 50).
Canon 1D - meters fully with EOS lenses, won't mount pre-EOS Canon lenses; Leica M8 - meters fully with Leica lenses back to 1932;...D200 - meters fully with AF lenses, meters with MF AI lenses back to 1976 _IF_ one stops to enter the focal length and max. aperture manually every time one changes lenses.
Note that you need to enter data on the Nikon only if you want matrix metering (as opposed to "plain" metering) and automatic flash reflector selection based on focal length. Again, apples and oranges; you'll have to do the same on the M8 if you want to automatically select flash reflectors or have the focal length in your EXIF data with an uncoded lens; something like matrix metering is unlikely to be available and/or necessary in the M8; and it's not clear yet whether the M8 will support manual entry at all, even though we'll know that in two weeks or so. Note also that you can have matrix metering chips installed in older pre-AI Nikon lenses (admittedly not in all) for less money than Leica charges for "coding" lenses.
Canon 1D - SD cards optional; Leica M8 - SD cards only; ....Nikon D200; CF (cr*p-flash) cards only (talk about 'obsolete' technology!)
Now one's favourite flavour of memory card form factor is really quite on par with one's favourite flavour of ice cream...
But to be fair - if a hypothetical D300 takes SD cards (a la the D80) - THEN we'd be talking.
...but if that is what deters you from a camera, a compact SD-CF adapter costs about $30 and converts a CF into a SD slot (http://www.compactflash-adapter.com/index.php?lang=en; there's at least another one marketed by Jobo as well).
Philipp
AndyPiper
09-07-2006, 17:51
Philipp: Fair enough - we're probably comparing apple ice cream to orange sherbet.
My concern with CF cards is that they are the one media that can actually cause substantial and costly damage to the camera itself (by bending or breaking one of the 50 pins that must feed into the card when it's inserted)**.
If that adapter can be "permanently" left in a camera with only the SD card being removed and inserted, that solves my problem (and opens up a whole range of camera possibilities). However, it looks as though one would have to remove the CF adapter from the camera to grip the SD card and pull it out - and in that case I'd still have the problem of constant insertion and removal of the CF adapter's 50 pins.
I'll study it further. Thanks again.
**I'm sure someone will pop up and testify that they have used CF cards for years and never damaged a camera. Quite possible. But there are dozens of posts around on the web to the effect of - "Aaack! My CF card bent a pin in my camera and Nikon (Canon, Olympus) wants $200 and a month for the repair" - or - "Step-by-step instructions for straightening bent CF contacts with a loupe and a jeweler's screwdriver". Since I've used 3 CF cards to test various cameras and two of them have had catastrophic failures of one kind or another in a very short time - CF is a road down which I will not go.
AndyPiper
09-07-2006, 17:57
And thanks for the clarification of D200 metering - matrix isn't critical for me...
Anyway - back to the obsolete M8....this is supposed to be the RANGEFINDER forum!
Mark Norton
09-07-2006, 19:21
If freeloader "glasgowdave" can buy a Leica using his business development grant, I want one as well! Dave, you seem to me to be just one of those ex-service types with a huge chip on your shoulder who thinks the world owes them a living.
Stop spongeing off society and get a proper job!
Oh, you can moan all you like about how Leica M8s aren't worth it and how they will be obsolete, blah, blah, blah, blah but I'm not interested. I'm buying two, out of taxed income, and I don't need a Government handout to do it. I hope your grant application fails.
Bob Ross
09-07-2006, 20:06
**I'm sure someone will pop up and testify that they have used CF cards for years and never damaged a camera. Quite possible. But there are dozens of posts around on the web to the effect of - "Aaack! My CF card bent a pin in my camera and Nikon (Canon, Olympus) wants $200 and a month for the repair" - or - "Step-by-step instructions for straightening bent CF contacts with a loupe and a jeweler's screwdriver". Since I've used 3 CF cards to test various cameras and two of them have had catastrophic failures of one kind or another in a very short time - CF is a road down which I will not go.
And, up pops Me:D :D .....never a problem in 4.5 yrs and I use a card reader, too.:D
I do have to agree that the SD contact design is more robust. There may be dozens of bent pin reports, but out of the millions of CF equiped cameras, that ain't too shaby. I do tend to buy the best "pro" class cards figuring that the QC might be better, since the mfrs wouldn't want the pros all over them like a flock of banded cults....:eek:
Bob
glasgowdave
09-08-2006, 02:55
Mark, having paid above the average rate of national insurance throughout my service career due to the expected early retirement age of 40 or so, and taking some rather severe risks for the privilege, I resent your whining remarks about "another ex serviceman". I'd love to hear you explain your unfounded remarks in person, although something tells me you'd decline the chance to do so.
If you want to consider every person in the UK who founds a new business with the help of the business gateway service a "freeloader", you do thousands of people a real disservice. In addition, I presently earn a very nice salary (taxed at 40% I might add) in a consultancy role which utilises the experience I gained while defending your right to post purile, weak and frankly resentful posts on camera websites in the armed forces. I have chosed to take the plunge into some freelance work on the side, and a Leica would be quite useful for some of the candid work I enjoy. I've also recently undertaken a commission for an advertising agency based in the west of Scotland. While in New York for a mate's wedding in November I'll be adding to my stock collection.
Have a great day being miserable, you certainly sound a well balanced individual...with large chips on both shoulders!
:angel: Peace guys:angel: . Dave, Mark is a nice guy, you probably caught him on the wrong foot, dropped a brick where it shouldn't go or whatever. Happens to us all.
If freeloader "glasgowdave" can buy a Leica using his business development grant, I want one as well! Dave, you seem to me to be just one of those ex-service types with a huge chip on your shoulder who thinks the world owes them a living.
Stop spongeing off society and get a proper job!
Oh, you can moan all you like about how Leica M8s aren't worth it and how they will be obsolete, blah, blah, blah, blah but I'm not interested. I'm buying two, out of taxed income, and I don't need a Government handout to do it. I hope your grant application fails.
Even if true not really good form, luckily Dave seems able to defend himself
glasgowdave
09-08-2006, 13:05
Sparrow, certainly not true, certainly very poor form, and I certainly can defend myself....and by the way my grant was approved.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.