View Full Version : A Summing up- and a Decision
Ten weeks with the M8 now- time to take stock:
Ten weeks of a roller-coaster ride on the internet, but what were my personal experiences?
The magenta issue:
The first flash shot of Patricia in a black synthetic jumper with a black cat on her lap: horrible.
Twenty minutes internet and a twenty minute drive to the camera shop solved that one.
The use of filters: does it bother me ?
Yes- but the results are fine and flare very much limited. So most is in my mind, not reality.
The banding and the blobs:
I still have to see a blob, but about 5 % of my night shots have some banding, obtrusive in 1%.
The reliability of the camera:
I had a major reset once, but basically it was my own fault for not switching the camera off before putting it into its case where the shutter was half-pressed for hours on end, plus some other buttons.
The battery has some issues and I would dearly like to have a spare one, but I'll let Solms solve that next week.
The quality of the results.
Each shot leaves me stunned. This camera is so much more capable than I am.. Magnitudes better than the Digilux2, which in turn was better than the Canon 20D. The dynamic range and subtility far outperform film in my hands.
Night shots: incredible.
And it is a true Leica M RF.
So my decision has been made: The M6 goes, the Digilux2 goes, some other stuff goes and I will buy a second M8 body and live happily ever after.:angel:
Geoff Smith
12-27-2006, 13:47
This is great to hear. I've been on the rollercoaster too, having gotten on a list to receive an M8 the last week of October. I've come close to cancelling my order a couple of times, but hearing this (and similar posts here and on the LUF) has me more excited than ever. I'd almost take a chrome body at this point ;). Can't wait! (I'm told mid-January by my guy and that's borne out by talking to other dealer as well)
Magnitudes better than the Digilux2, which in turn was better than the Canon 20D.
I'm willing to grant that once agreed to look past the filter travesty the M8 no doubt has the possibility to surpass the imaging quality of a 20D ( even if for no other reason than it has more pixels on a larger sensor and uses Leica M lenses). But the 5mp Panny with fixed-range zoom and smaller sensor "better" than SLR interchangable lens 8mp 20D? I'm sure there must be a very subjective definition of "better" at work here :rolleyes:
No Mp-race ,Ben indeed totally subjective. I simply like the look of the prints better. The whole post is subjective and a personal asessment, in case you did not notice ;). And that zoom- I wish it were not fixed, but usable on other camera's, but, och, sensor size and such.:(
An honest assessment of the M8, I will buy one soon.
This is my worst banding shot (don't confuse the corner of the building with a band) and it has filter flare - and I like it nevertheless - and I could never have done it on film. ISO 1250, Summilux 75 @ 1.4
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/jaapv/trix2.jpg
Richard Marks
12-27-2006, 15:15
I have to say its a difficult decision. Forget the internet stuff though. I have an MP and am awaiting my M8 in the next week or so. My dilema is if i keep the MP or trade it for more lenses. I will not really be able to answer this until a few weeks have gone, but having taken the M8 for a walk from the camera shop in sheffield I can say that it is seriously impressive (4 images posted on this site). It is the colour rendition that has impressed me as much as the absolute resolution. It really does give the subtleties of tone and shade that are needed to fully complement m glass. If there is anything which makes me hang onto the MP it will be the black and white. Digi B&W verus film. Its simply the character of some film emulsions that I admire.
And the second body will be chrome as well....For those that think this a waste -I can understand that, but I tend to travel for weeks on end in the less accesible parts of this planet. If a camera breaks down (or if I break a camera- it happens, 4-WDrives on unsurfaced roads and clouds of dust are not really a friendly environment for camera's and I've been known to slip and fall flat on various parts of my anatomy when walking in rough terrain with a camera on my shoulder) the loss is irreplacable. I've had journeys that I started with three bodies and ended with one limping camera. Both Leica M and R and Canon Eos DSLR. As the experience is worth a multiple of the cost of a M8 to me, it pays for me to have redundancy. I was planning to take the M6 and a bunch of film, but the way the M8 insinuated itself into my photographic universe has changed all that.
MCTuomey
12-27-2006, 16:35
glad to read of your resolve and pleasure in the M8
beautiful color rendition in your posted pic, and obviously well-handled high ISO performance. i'd be pleased, too
My second M8 (black this time) should be in shortly. Redundancy in travel is key for me as well. I plan to carry a film M back, for B&W slides and film however.
I find myself using the 28/50/75 combination more than the 35/90 combination on the film body, however. I have to sort that out.
Jaap, I appreciate your honest assessment of the M8. I unfortunately am waiting until February for a shipment of black bodies to arrive. I wish is was here now!
Cheers.
I posted this on another message board. I decided to express my opinion here as well. I appreciate the threads I read here and wanted to to forth my opinion.
For 5000 thousand dollars, I have seen the M8 and all the reviews, and personally I am shocked that people are still buying that camera until things get fixed. Think about it; this camera is 5000 dollars. I was right along with the rest of everyone until I did a reality check and said woah, "I am about to spend 5k for a camera with multiple bugs, no dust or weather sealing, and requires IR filters for most situations (even nature shots), and will likely be upgraded by Leica to an M9 in at least a year.
On a side note I really do understand why every loves the Leica M system. It really pains me to complain about Leica in general because their lenses are just so amazing. I have found similar results however with extreme pain by lugging around my one ton brick called the Canon 1Ds Mark2.
P.S. I have seen some awsome picture from Leica M8 users. Pictures that want to make me go out and get the camera. However, when I do a reality check I realize that for 5k the camera is to flawed to be used effectively in many situations that is was intended. I understand that this post will seriously piss off many Leica fans out there who want to justify that huge purchase.
Disclaimer: I do not own a Leica M8. I have done a ton of research and cancelled my order for the Leica M8. I just want to provide a moment of pause before people pay 5k for a camera in beta testing phase. This digital M8 is not like the M7 that will last forever, in about a year the price of that camera will likely plument as Leica fixes the IR sensor problem with a revise camera. That is a long term deal breaker for the longevity of this camera.
Regards,
Steve
http://www.leica-camera-user.com/images/statusicon/user_online.gif
Ken Tanaka
12-27-2006, 23:00
For 5000 thousand dollars, I have seen the M8 and all the reviews, and personally I am shocked that people are still buying that camera until things get fixed. Think about it; this camera is 5000 dollars. I was right along with the rest of everyone until I did a reality check and said woah, "I am about to spend 5k for a camera with multiple bugs, no dust or weather sealing, and requires IR filters for most situations (even nature shots), and will likely be upgraded by Leica to an M9 in at least a year.
On a side note I really do understand why every loves the Leica M system. It really pains me to complain about Leica in general because their lenses are just so amazing. I have found similar results however with extreme pain by lugging around my one ton brick called the Canon 1Ds Mark2.
P.S. I have seen some awsome picture from Leica M8 users. Pictures that want to make me go out and get the camera. However, when I do a reality check I realize that for 5k the camera is to flawed to be used effectively in many situations that is was intended. I understand that this post will seriously piss off many Leica fans out there who want to justify that huge purchase.
Disclaimer: I do not own a Leica M8. I have done a ton of research and cancelled my order for the Leica M8. I just want to provide a moment of pause before people pay 5k for a camera in beta testing phase. This digital M8 is not like the M7 that will last forever, in about a year the price of that camera will likely plument as Leica fixes the IR sensor problem with a revise camera. That is a long term deal breaker for the longevity of this camera.
Regards,
Steve
http://www.leica-camera-user.com/images/statusicon/user_online.gif
I could not agree more with you, Steve. As an M7 owner I very much wanted the M8 to be a complete winner out of the starting blocks, and I very much wanted to have one as soon as possible. But this early digital M is not a good or rational investment by any measure, regardless of how many Internet pundits try to make it seem so. It imposes far too many technical and operational compromises for a digital camera in this age. I'm sure that the early sight-unseen presales
for the M8 have given Leica a desperately needed infusion of cash. But I doubt that that sales pace will be sustainable as word spreads about the camera's quirks. Five thousand dollars is a lot of money, particularly for such a limited camera.
I do differ with you on one point. I, too, have looked at many M8 images both online and offline RAW files. But I've not yet seen any M8 image that really screams Leica lens quality the way that a good film Leica capture so often can. Certainly this is due in part to the extremely visually limited nature of the Internet. It's also due to the source of the images I've inspected offline, nearly all of which were captured by weekend shutterbugs (their kids, their driveways, their cars, their homes, sunsets, ordinary street snaps, that sort of fare). So it's unfair to judge the camera's capabilities (under operationally adequate conditions). Its Kodak sensor appears to produce a rather Nikon-like rendering, which is fine.
It's essential to Leica's survival that the digital M be a long-term success. That is to say that Leica's pace of development will have to accelerate far beyond its historically geological rate. Technicians and engineers harboring characteristically obstinate "can't be done" attitudes will have to be replaced with younger, sharper, and more ambitious minds...even in the stodgy German labor market. An "M9" or "M8i" that remedies the M8's birth defects must be developed quickly. When that happens, as it must, the M8 will become a collectors item, but lacking the antique value that older film M's have retained.
I look forward to using my Leica M lenses with a digital M one day in the future. But common sense dictates that the M8 as it exists today is simply not worth $5,000.
Jaapv,
I am with you here. I have the M8 and am more than satisfyed with it. I will keep my MP since it is a work of mechanical art. Nothing comes close to its function and feel. I wish the M8 lloked and felt like my MP. Having said that. The MP will be my last film camera. Although I mainly shoot the M8 now and still do some work with the MP, I may actually go for another M8 in black.
I hear you Jorge - there will always be a M3 in my case. However, I notice that in this thread, as in others, the negative feedback comes from non-owners. Surprisingly, I have yet to read a real negative report on the camera from anybody who has actually been using one for some time - only the rather impulsive "back into the box it goes" threads and "I read the internet and cancelled" type of thing. Maybe that tells us more about the posters than about the camera. Even the most vocal anti-M8 poster on this forum freely admits his problem is not with the camera but with Leica as a firm. Well- maybe - "I shoot for a living and it is not a type of camera I can use for my work" -fair enough.
However, I notice that in this thread, as in others, the negative feedback comes from non-owners.
So true.
Honestly, I have no intention of buying an M8, and I do have reservations about it due to the problems it has had, but the users of the camera are seeing something that they really like. Does this change my mind? No. But who knows more about the camera, me or an owner?
I appreciate the conversations about the M8 as a learning experience. I look forward to when they "cool down" and become discussions.
I hear you Jorge - there will always be a M3 in my case. However, I notice that in this thread, as in others, the negative feedback comes from non-owners. Surprisingly, I have yet to read a real negative report on the camera from anybody who has actually been using one for some time - only the rather impulsive "back into the box it goes" threads and "I read the internet and cancelled" type of thing. Maybe that tells us more about the posters than about the camera. Even the most vocal anti-M8 poster on this forum freely admits his problem is not with the camera but with Leica as a firm. Well- maybe - "I shoot for a living and it is not a type of camera I can use for my work" -fair enough.
I agree with you that 'some' negative feedback comes from non owners Jaapv ... but a lot of this is from people who have weighed up the pros and cons of shelling out $5000.00 for a camera that is 'almost' right. That's a lot of money for some and less for others ... depending on your income level I guess. Obviously the prospect of paying that much for a camera that will certainly be improved in subsequent models, with the corresponding depreciation in resale value of the original M8, is an intimidating prospect monitarily!
I'm not about to drop that much money on a product that will probabaly be worth half it's value when they replace it with the 'latest version' and I'm sure a lot of others feel the same way! :)
I fully respect anybody for an buying decision -or non-buying- he or she makes,surely that is a personal thing. The only thing I say is: the negatives come from non-buyers, the positives from owners. Quite irrespective of the price: who is in the best position to judge? And if you are happy in the fact you did decide not to buy, that was certainly the right decision - for you. But be prepared to have some actual users call some of your trepidations not relevant to the quality of the camera in question in actual use, or at worst, acceptable for the price. 5000$ for a top of the line digital camera, sadly, is nothing unusual any more, rather the bottom end of the range. I might remind you there are posters wavering between the M8 and MF digital backs, comparisons to the biggest Canons, etc. Not that all of that makes sense, but it does indicate the league the M8 is playing in. And as I said- my post is totally subjective and the camera works for me. And yes, it is a lot of money that would buy me a truckload of candy bars, but for the camera as is? Not unreasonably much really, imo.
The problem is that the same people who were chanting “it’s going to be great” and banging the leica drum before the launch are now chanting “its better than you think” and banging the same drum, it makes it difficult to know the true position.
Personally I can’t come to terms with the crop factor so I try not to comment, or on the rd1 for that matter, but of late it’s been difficult find threads that don’t involve the m8 or rd1
To the Leica M8 owners. I am not trying to impune your opinion that the Leica M8 is an awsome camera, and it fufills your greatest photographic desires and fantasies. I am sure it is a wonderful camera. However, I was just trying to provide some contructive perspective for new people come here to read about a new camera. They might get caught up in all the Leica "fan boi" fanfair.
Of course I do not own the camera. I already stated I do not, I know that people who use the camera are really happy with it. That does still does not make it a buy at all costs type of camera.
Can someone tell me why I cannot have an opinion on the camera since I do not own it? I know what I like to photograph. I have read the limitations of the camera. What is the point of a forum that only gives one perspective on a topic without any pause or reservation to the contrary.
Jaap, I appreciate your honest assessment of the M8. I unfortunately am waiting until February for a shipment of black bodies to arrive. I wish is was here now!
Cheers.
I saw a black body M8 sitting on the shelf behind the Leica counter at Bergen County Camera yesterday. I don't know the camera's story, but if you want one sooner, you might give them a call. They're located just outside of Manhattan in Westwood, NJ.
Good luck Jaap, great to read that you are so enthusiastic. Yes a backup is a wise investment! :)
Thanks Nick. I'll give them a call and see what's up with it.
I agree with Ken Tanaka and Spersky 100%. The Titanic was as beautiful and capable a ship as the M8 is a beautiful and capable camera, but as it turned out the people who opted not to book passage on its maiden voyage were the ones whose opinion history has validated :D So it's unfair to say that someone has to buy into something for his opinion to be valid. In fact, the propensity on camera forums is for people to defend their camera purchases as if it were their core intelligence being called into question.
Ken Tanaka
12-28-2006, 08:17
I fully respect anybody for an buying decision -or non-buying- he or she makes,surely that is a personal thing. The only thing I say is: the negatives come from non-buyers, the positives from owners. Quite irrespective of the price: who is in the best position to judge? And if you are happy in the fact you did decide not to buy, that was certainly the right decision - for you. But be prepared to have some actual users call some of your trepidations not relevant to the quality of the camera in question in actual use, or at worst, acceptable for the price. 5000$ for a top of the line digital camera, sadly, is nothing unusual any more, rather the bottom end of the range. I might remind you there are posters wavering between the M8 and MF digital backs, comparisons to the biggest Canons, etc. Not that all of that makes sense, but it does indicate the league the M8 is playing in. And as I said- my post is totally subjective and the camera works for me. And yes, it is a lot of money that would buy me a truckload of candy bars, but for the camera as is? Not unreasonably much really, imo.
Your characterization of those who have observed the M8's properties from the sidelines, have chosen not to buy one, and then expressed their reasoning as stone-throwing, poor-boy ignoramuses is, at best, a deferment and a denial. The camera's engineering shortcomings are well-documented and not matters of speculation or even debate. That new owners come forward to offer the camera praise on Internet forums is also to be expected. There were people praising the camera on the Leica forums nearly a year before it existed.
If there are "...posters wavering between the M8 and MF digital backs..." they represent the general crowd of young men who spend far more of their time on photo forums debating and fantasizing about camera equipment than in the actual act of photography. Cost differences notwithstanding, even a perfect M8 would not present such a dilemma to any knowledgeable photographer.
If you are remorselessly enjoying your M8 good for you. That you and other new owners have granted the M8 a halo, at least for the time being, is to be expected. I've chosen to skip it; its limitations simply do not represent a reasonable value proposition for its cost and inconveniences. I would be eager to jump at a good digital rangefinder, by Leica or someone else, when/if it becomes available. Until then my 1DsII, 1DII, 5D, M7, (and even my little Canon G7!) are more than adequate to meet my needs and desires indefinitely.
- Ken Tanaka - (http://www.kentanaka.com)
Sailor Ted
12-28-2006, 08:25
Well it's too soon to tell but I'm not in love with mine yet. It took me aprox 20 compositions before I fell in love with the R-D1s so I've not really had the opportunity to put the M8 through it's paces (to be fair I was in Hong Kong when I got my R-D1s and Hong Kong resides among the best cities on earth for taking pictures IMO. Currently I'm stuck behind the Orange Curtain (Orange County California.) I tried to do a little photo essay in my freindly neighborhood supermarket last night to share here on RFf, and to test the camera, and was told I would have to leave if I continued!
For reasons similar to those posted by AUS DLK and in my first ever post here on RFf, namely this cameras ergonomics, I can't quite warm up to the M8. In fact I find my self trying to sell myself on this camera, then catch myself in the process. Vegas will be the litmus test for my new Leica and if it does not pass muster it's up for sale or I may fall in love, learn to work around its ergonomic issues as I see them, and share my journey to long term M8 ownership here on RFf. At this point it's just too soon to tell.
@ Jaap, Jorge and all those others ordering their second M8 body;
Will you all please wait until I get delivery of my first one? :mad:
Thanks, that was quite a relief.:)
Just ordered a chrome one. My dealer told me 40% of the first delivery customers had come back for seconds. It must count for something. I never belittled anybody for choosung differently than I did. It might be a good idea to actually read my posts before accusing me of stone-throwing. I literally said: "If you are comfortable with your decision you made the right one" Please grant me the same courtesy.
Ken Tanaka
12-28-2006, 10:09
... I never belittled anybody for choosung differently than I did. It might be a good idea to actually read my posts before accusing me of stone-throwing. I literally said: "If you are comfortable with your decision you made the right one" Please grant me the same courtesy.
Earlier you wrote:
I hear you Jorge - there will always be a M3 in my case. However, I notice that in this thread, as in others, the negative feedback comes from non-owners. Surprisingly, I have yet to read a real negative report on the camera from anybody who has actually been using one for some time - only the rather impulsive "back into the box it goes" threads and "I read the internet and cancelled" type of thing. Maybe that tells us more about the posters than about the camera. Even the most vocal anti-M8 poster on this forum freely admits his problem is not with the camera but with Leica as a firm. Well- maybe - "I shoot for a living and it is not a type of camera I can use for my work" -fair enough.
Those were the remarks that precipitated my observation that you were suggesting that non-owners were throwing stones at owners. What other inference could be drawn from them?
- Ken Tanaka - (http://www.KenTanaka.com)
shadowfox
12-28-2006, 10:09
To summarize what I've read in this interesting thread:
- I don't see a single negative feedback, only cautions from prudent photogs who have chosen to wait until the M8 has "stabilized" (which is a phenomenon that happen when you marry *anything* with computers)
- I see equally prudent M8 owners who fell in love with the camera and are supplying us with good first hand information. Thank you all for that!
- Sadly, I see that M8 (once again, because it's married to a computer) will fall into the downward spiral of decreasing value along with other digital cameras. Why? because there is no point of buying a used M8 when the M9 has arrived with 14Mpixel and upgraded picture engine *unless* the price falls by half.
- This said, in the long run, I have the same fear as before for the future of cameras if we continue this path of digitalization, unless we come back to the great equalizers (film being one of them). Case to point: there is a healthy used-market for film camera, do you see one for digital cameras?
jaap: while your posted picture is *very* good, I want to know how you can conclude that the picture can never be taken using film? are you referring to the high ISO or the 3-D quality (which seems to have more to do with the lens than the media).
I could not, when looking at the print. I bow to superior skills....
- Sadly, I see that M8 (once again, because it's married to a computer) will fall into the downward spiral of decreasing value along with other digital cameras. Why? because there is no point of buying a used M8 when the M9 has arrived with 14Mpixel and upgraded picture engine *unless* the price falls by half.
Personally I don't have any issue with 10mp or the 1.3x crop, so though I'd be happy to see the M9 with more mp and less cropping (though not if it would mean more suprise "compromises";) ) I don't really expect that until the M10;) . What I do expect in the M9 is an IR filter in the camera so it doesn't need addon filters. I think Leica knows that's an embarassment of this camera now (as has been pointed out in the photo press and elsewhere aside from Leica forums where the zealous fans tend to weigh more heavily) and I'll bet a dollar they've already put in an order to their cohorts to get on it ASAP. So I expect the M8 in its current iteration to have an unusually short product life even for a digital camera in this day and age.
- Case to point: there is a healthy used-market for film camera, do you see one for digital cameras?
Well I wouldn't exactly call the market for used film cameras healthy, more like a bonanza for the small number of people, relative to digital, still interested in film. And that's considering basically a 10 yr old film camera is capable of the same image quality as a new one (are there any still?). But surprisingly the market for certain digitals seems to be holding quite steady and is in fact "healthy" by my definition. The 6mp Canon and Nikon DSLRs seem to be holding steady in the $400-500 range, which is a price-point ceiling for a lot of people who are priced out of DSLRs otherwise. I believe the 8mp Canons and the 5D once it is discontiued, will also be in-demand for quite some time.
jaap: while your posted picture is *very* good, I want to know how you can conclude that the picture can never be taken using film?
Honestly, on the web nothing I've seen really lets me conclude anything meaningful comparing one digital to another, or to film. It's the combination of too many variables and the effects of compression sufficient for up/downloading. What I can say from Jaap's shots is that if he says the prints show this or that, I'm inclined to take his word (most of the time anyway, I'm still not convinced the Digilux 2 can lay down a superior file to the 20D if both are postprocessed to the best ability).
The 20D has better resolution and is smoother, in technical terms better. Vladimer would prefer the Digilux2 print. And so would I.
Earlier you wrote:
Originally Posted by jaapv
I hear you Jorge - there will always be a M3 in my case. However, I notice that in this thread, as in others, the negative feedback comes from non-owners. Surprisingly, I have yet to read a real negative report on the camera from anybody who has actually been using one for some time.
Those were the remarks that precipitated my observation that you were suggesting that non-owners were throwing stones at owners. What other inference could be drawn from them?
- Ken Tanaka - (http://www.KenTanaka.com)
That tells me that they are more prone to listen to the opinion of others (on the Internet) than make their own observations. I don't see that as a negativism. If you take it that way -sorry. Not intended.
That the positive feedback comes from owners and the negative from not-owners is an observation, and not a stone thrown. The inference that owners know more about the capabilities -and drawbacks- of the camera seems to me to be a logical and irrefutable one.
.
Jaap, you have to admit, that posting news, user-opinions and success reports in a forum with more than 6000 members, less than 30 of which have purchased an M8 invites criticism and opinions from non-owners. Simply put: you M8 users are a very vocal group; don't tell anybody else to shut up.
Jorge should do something about this: there are M8 owners posting on the M8 forum!
Come on, where are the posts of M8 owners hammering the RD1 on the RD1 forum or ridiculing film on the rest of RFF (or even in the digital section, the worst remark I've seen is that some of us prefer digital but still like film as well :eek: )? At the very least we have put our money where our mouth is and yes, I think we do know what we are talking about.
Jaap, here I sit, I can't even get the one I ordered way back when, and you have one, and ordered your second!
Sailor Ted
12-28-2006, 13:25
Jaap, here I sit, I can't even get the one I ordered way back when, and you have one, and ordered your second!
Perhaps you need a different dealer? Of perhaps you can purchase mine if I decide to sell later this month :)
stevenrk
12-28-2006, 16:17
>Originally Posted by Ken Tanaka
>Earlier you wrote:
>>Quote:
>>Originally Posted by jaapv
>>I hear you Jorge - there will always be a M3 in my case. However, I notice that in this thread, as in others, the negative feedback comes from non-owners. Surprisingly, I have yet to read a real negative report on the camera from anybody who has actually been using one for some time.
>Those were the remarks that precipitated my observation that you were suggesting that non-owners were throwing stones at owners. What other inference could be drawn from them?
>- Ken Tanaka -
That tells me that they are more prone to listen to the opinion of others (on the Internet) than make their own observations. I don't see that as a negativism. If you take it that way -sorry. Not intended.
That the positive feedback comes from owners and the negative from not-owners is an observation, and not a stone thrown. The inference that owners know more about the capabilities -and drawbacks- of the camera seems to me to be a logical and irrefutable one.
How funny that you would selectively edit your own words quoted by Ken, rather than just saying sorry about that. Your words that Ken quoted that led to his comment, and that you chose not to include, were:
"...using one for some time - only the rather impulsive "back into the box it goes" threads and "I read the internet and cancelled" type of thing. Maybe that tells us more about the posters than about the camera. Even the most vocal anti-M8 poster on this forum freely admits his problem is not with the camera but with Leica as a firm. Well- maybe - "I shoot for a living and it is not a type of camera I can use for my work" -fair enough"
I agree with Ken's view of your un-self-edited words. Just as your words -- both those you stand by and those you don't -- likely "tells us more about the posters than about the camera."
Steven
How funny that you would selectively edit your own words quoted by Ken, rather than just saying sorry about that. Your words that Ken quoted that led to his comment, and that you chose not to include, were:
"...using one for some time - only the rather impulsive "back into the box it goes" threads and "I read the internet and cancelled" type of thing. Maybe that tells us more about the posters than about the camera. Even the most vocal anti-M8 poster on this forum freely admits his problem is not with the camera but with Leica as a firm. Well- maybe - "I shoot for a living and it is not a type of camera I can use for my work" -fair enough"
I agree with Ken's view of your un-self-edited words. Just as your words -- both those you stand by and those you don't -- likely "tells us more about the posters than about the camera."
Steven
Self-edited? I think I quoted Ken's post- and he is more than capable of speaking for himself.And excuse me, but what does this post add to a sensible discussion?
That the positive feedback comes from owners and the negative from not-owners is an observation, and not a stone thrown. The inference that owners know more about the capabilities -and drawbacks- of the camera seems to me to be a logical and irrefutable one.
That is called BIAS, and is why (not to take anything away from your well-intentioned post, Jaap) reviews should be left to independent third parties.
I am confused by this entire thread.
It seems that everyone posting who has purchased a M8 now plans on purchasing a second one?
The actual number of such persons are few - but such a strategy will have the effect of doubling sales of the M8! At least for this "select group". This is a curious development - to say the least.
Since the reports I've heard are that this camera has many problems - isn't this strategy a bit like the gambler down on his luck deciding to "double or nothing"? I mean, why wouldn't a "first adopter" now wait for the problems to be resolved before buying a second camera?
Clearly, from a risk management standpoint - any wise current owner would wait for a resolution of the "issues" rather than do as the OP proposes.
Then again, perhaps the OP has a "not revealed agenda" for making such a grand pronouncement?
Hera always told me, burn me once,, shame on you; burn me twice, shame on me!!
It could be cognitive dissonance: affirming that one's original bad decision was actually correct by doing it again. Or it could be that after all the griping, the problems are really minor and it really is a great camera after all.
/Ira
Ken Tanaka
12-28-2006, 19:28
I am confused by this entire thread.
It seems that everyone posting who has purchased a M8 now plans on purchasing a second one?
The actual number of such persons are few - but such a strategy will have the effect of doubling sales of the M8! At least for this "select group". This is a curious development - to say the least.
Since the reports I've heard are that this camera has many problems - isn't this strategy a bit like the gambler down on his luck deciding to "double or nothing"? I mean, why wouldn't a "first adopter" now wait for the problems to be resolved before buying a second camera?
Clearly, from a risk management standpoint - any wise current owner would wait for a resolution of the "issues" rather than do as the OP proposes.
Then again, perhaps the OP has a "not revealed agenda" for making such a grand pronouncement?
Hera always told me, burn me once,, shame on you; burn me twice, shame on me!!
This is a bit curious to me, too. Of course it's common for professional photographers to have at least one back-up camera body as insurance against equipment failure. I also imagine that two M bodies would be particularly handy for someone who routinely used only these cameras, given their intrinsic limitation of only being able to use prime (or, at best, multi-focal) lenses.
This all would make perfect sense for film M camera shooters. These cameras have been brought to near perfection, within their inherent limitations, over 50 years. It makes little sense with the newborn M8. Perhaps this is just the easiest way to get a second battery, since these are also apparently scarcer than honest politicians and the M8's battery life is reportedly quite short in cool/cold weather?
Sailor Ted
12-28-2006, 19:31
Perhaps this is just the easiest way to get a second battery, since these are also apparently scarcer than honest politicians and the M8's battery life is reportedly quite short in cool/cold weather?
ROFL :D
A bit like picking up a house and spining it in a circle to screw in a light bulb?
shadowfox
12-28-2006, 21:13
Well I wouldn't exactly call the market for used film cameras healthy, more like a bonanza for the small number of people, relative to digital, still interested in film.
Okay, let's have a look:
- Case A: My $700 Olympus E-300 is now sold at $400 after only 2 years.
- Case B: A new OM-4 retails at $600 (street price is about $400, but for the sake of the argument, let's use $600) in '85, now it's traded on eBoy for around 200-400 depending on condition
So we see the same decrease in price after ... let's see... 2 years for digital and 20 years for film!! THAT's what I mean by "healthy". And this cases are only for Olympus, I'm sure we can easily come up with the same cases Canons Nikons and Pentaxes and soon... thanks to M8, for Leicas also.
As for the size of the market, it's irrelevant, I said healthy, not humongous :) but I maintain that used digital cameras won't even have that small market 20 years from now.
It could be that many are purchasing a second M8 because the "problems" have been unduly blown wildly out of proportion by a bunch of mentally disturbed internet soap boxers who mix up their internal neurotic dramas with the their perceptions of a camera brand, and that the reality is that the M8 is very pleasing and takes fantastic images.
I ended up with three R-D1's. The problems never erased the reality that the camera was an exceptional device.
M8 discussions over the last months have not only focused on the M8 forum.
Also, AFAIK, the M8 forum is open for contribution to ALL interested RFF members not only to owners.
And the worst remarks, IMO, are personal insults, like:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=443931#post443931
Nobody debates that you, Jaap, know what you are talking about. Also, where you put your money is your business. Good for you and good for Leitz if you like the M8.
But it is a big step from there to critizing other people voicing their opinion simply because they do not own an M8. It's just a camera, Jaap !!!
Roland.
Indeed a risky post, but an interesting example: not taken as an insult and the answer was a very nice one (now removed, unfortunately), explaining Ausdlk's motives, which turned out to have nothing to do with the M8, and it stopped the trolling.let's get back to the camera's....I certainly don't want to curtail your right to speak, Roland:)
I don't own an M8, and its in-principle problems mean I am unlikely ever to, they are a compromise too far for me (others clearly think differently). Why not owning something should vitiate someone's opinions about it is beyond me.
I'm glad many M8 owners are happy with their cameras, but I find some of the hyperbole about its unmatched imaging qualities unlikely at best, based on posted examples. This isn't trouble-making, trolling, or an example of jealousy or neurosis, it's just an opinion about the gap between a claim and the evidence for that claim, there's no deep psychological issue revealed by expressing it, and I get - justifiably - irritated by comments suggesting otherwise.
Ian
I've been following all this with close interest. I had intended to get an M8 just as soon as they became readily available. I don;t really care for paying a whole lot of cash to "reserve" one.
After all the brouhaha, I decided to wait until the dust settles and then decide. I am pretty certain that I will still get one, probably towards then second half of next year, provided a consensus emerges that the "issues" have been resolved. These include:
1 the magenta cast issue (which seems to have been resolved with IR cut filters - I don't really care for filters in general, but I could live with this),
2 the streaking and green blob issues (which seem to have been resolved with a hardware fix),
3 the new streaking issue (which seems to be something of a non-issue, and which only appears when high ISO shots are pushed even further in PP - way beyond the design capability of the camera),
4 the rainbow stripes issue (after switching on - I don't know much about this one)
5 the wild AWB issue (discussions of this one seem to have died down, and I suspect it was a side-effect of the IR issue - I could be wrong)
6 the 8-bit DNG question: this is not so much an issue but a pending question mark. It just seems weird to me, but if the (print) results are as good as people say, then I won't be getting worked up about this one - I'd just like to have an authoritative explanation.
Happy New Year to y'all !!!
the 8-bit DNG question: this is not so much an issue but a pending question mark. It just seems weird to me, but if the (print) results are as good as people say, then I won't be getting worked up about this one - I'd just like to have an authoritative explanation.
Happy New Year to y'all !!!
There's a pretty authoritative explanation in this month's LFI; quite interesting reading on the other M8 'issues' too...
Ken Tanaka
12-29-2006, 08:42
Judging by your photographs, Ian, you're not suffering for lack of an M8 (or two). You're managing to do some very good work without it.
Thanks Ken, very nice of you to say so. I don't feel like I'm suffering without an M8, and my bank manager would agree :-)
Ian
I don't own an M8, and its in-principle problems mean I am unlikely ever to, they are a compromise too far for me (others clearly think differently). Why not owning something should vitiate someone's opinions about it is beyond me.
I'm glad many M8 owners are happy with their cameras, but I find some of the hyperbole about its unmatched imaging qualities unlikely at best, based on posted examples. This isn't trouble-making, trolling, or an example of jealousy or neurosis, it's just an opinion about the gap between a claim and the evidence for that claim, there's no deep psychological issue revealed by expressing it, and I get - justifiably - irritated by comments suggesting otherwise.
Ian
I have the evidence for that claim here in my hands right now - I have some 60x40 cm professional prints made of my files. I cannot see how it could be better - even using 645 film....I wish there were a way to show them on the Internet:rolleyes:
And to those (I said it before.) wondering about my two-body decision (I'm picking it up on Saturday) I travel to rural Africal regularly. Even with the Leica R system I found I needed more than one camera -I'm sure I'm not one of my insurance's favorite customers. I ended up with one R5 and two R7 bodies. I do agree that it seems extravagant. To me it is not. The decision means that I decided to go with digital for 99%.And that I could not find a better camera for it. I'm sure a future M9 (or Canon 1DmkIX or whatever) will be even better specified, and that there will be photographers able to make use of that. I, however, am not able to make better photographs than this camera takes, I´m not even able to reach the limits of the capabilities of this one, as a matter of fact.
RObert Budding
01-04-2007, 02:52
I have the evidence for that claim here in my hands right now - I have some 60x40 cm professional prints made of my files. I cannot see how it could be better - even using 645 film....I wish there were a way to show them on the Internet:rolleyes:
I expect that the used prices for DSLRs will plummet because professionals will sell everything they own to buy M8s. I could buy a Leica M8 or a full frame Canon DSLR (5D) and several lenses. Or a Nikon DSLR and a large assortment of lenses for the price of an M8.
Leica is doomed if this is the best that they can do in digital photography. The M8 does not have an image quality advantage over DSLRs. And the price point is high enough that you could instead buy a used digital back for medium format.
OK. So where is the rangefinder window on a 5D? And what does the camel cost you need to carry your medium format back and lenses? You totally miss the point. This is a RF camera with a IQ in the same range as any top-end camera, of which the cheapest is the 5D, with lenses that are not as good and far more bulk, to a DMR and R9 body, with lenses and pictorial quality about the same and more bulk, at about double the price af a M8. Or a 1DSII, at also nearly double the price and double the size. And we are comparing a Hummer to a Porsche.
Latecomer
01-09-2007, 22:20
I traded a Nikon D200, several lenses, flash and other equipment to get me in the hunt to buy the M8. The balance was still a large amount of money. You would have to call the M8's purchase absolute self-indulgence.
And do you know what? ... my pictures haven't improved! What's more without the 80-200mm I no longer have the reach, without the 12-24 I can't go seriously wide, without the 105 micro I can't even go small, without the grip and no spare batteries I can't even shoot all day, without the zooms I even have to walk around. My photography has been seriously restricted.
What has happened is I have faced the fact of my amateur status. With a 28, 35, 50 and 75 on the M8 there remain more photographic challenges than I will ever meet. And my experience so far with the M8 is that the attempt to meet my challenges will be joyful!
The D200 was and is a great camera. I enjoyed using it a lot. But the M8 demands a change in outlook, it is almost, for me, a new way of life.
Finally, when I bought the D200 the internet was a storm of criticism. Microbanding and God knows what else were thought to be issues that would kill the machine. But a lot of good folk are still in the queue to buy one. I suspect that current attacks on the M8 aare just as insecurely based as were those on the D200 In a year they will be history.
BillRogers
01-09-2007, 23:46
Latecomer - You really took a leap into the swimming pool! I decided to dangle my toes in the water first. I bought an eBay Zorki for $52 (including shipping) to supplement my D200, lenses, and flash. You not only gave up everything you mentioned, you also gave up the D200's advanced wireless lighting system. I would love to be able to afford an M8 system, but I love the D200 too much to give it up. Best wishes to you.
Indeed a leap of faith,John. But for amateur use there is a lot to be said for a rangefinder system, as you seem to be finding out. I strongly suspect, that within a year there will be no way that you will ever consider SLR's again, except of course for macro and tele (although, when you have settled down, get an old Visoflex III and some old cheap lenses. It works a lot better than one might think.)
Canon's top of the line film camera the EOS-1V costs $1,649.95, the Leica M7 at 3,495.00 is almost double the price of the Canon (BH photo prices).
Canon's top of the line digital 1Ds MKII costs $6,799.95 almost 4x the cost of the film version.
Considering the astronomical price of it's film cameras the Leica M8 price of $4,795.00 would seem a step in the right direction. It is actually closing the price gap between Leica and Canon, although Leica's small size and volume pretty much guarantees a price premium for anything they produce.
The filter issue and shutter sound is something that is a problem for some and if not a non-issue, at least not a deal breaker for others. Image quality of cameras like the M8, 5D, 1Ds MK II and Nikon D2X are in the same league despite large differences in price. The 5d is less then 1/2 the price of the 1Ds MKII but certainly not 1/2 the quality image, however photographers who choose the 1Ds are rarely accused of being status seekers or idiots for spending more then twice the price of the 5D. Looking at images on the internet won't really tell you anything about any of the cameras quality, although downloading raw files will give you a pretty good idea. If you want to comment on image quality you should have a look at the raw files and make prints to compare to whatever your benchmark for excellence is. Most of what is posted online is crap no matter the camera.
I expect Leica will sell enough M8's to have made the M8 profitable, which may mean they will survive to produce an M9. That would be to the advantage of those who pass on the m8 but hope for a digital M that meets their requirements in the future.
marbrink
01-10-2007, 02:12
Is the use of IR filters a must? I'm thinking of buying a M8 now and wait for the two free IR filters, whenever you get them..
Is the magenta issue less now, with the latest firmware?
And lastly, where can I buy some IR filters? Heliopan or B+W.. seems to be impossible to find them.
Filters is not an issue for me becuase I always use UV filters anyway.
I traded a Nikon D200, several lenses, flash and other equipment to get me in the hunt to buy the M8. The balance was still a large amount of money. You would have to call the M8's purchase absolute self-indulgence.
And do you know what? ... my pictures haven't improved! What's more without the 80-200mm I no longer have the reach, without the 12-24 I can't go seriously wide, without the 105 micro I can't even go small, without the grip and no spare batteries I can't even shoot all day, without the zooms I even have to walk around. My photography has been seriously restricted.
What has happened is I have faced the fact of my amateur status. With a 28, 35, 50 and 75 on the M8 there remain more photographic challenges than I will ever meet. And my experience so far with the M8 is that the attempt to meet my challenges will be joyful!
The D200 was and is a great camera. I enjoyed using it a lot. But the M8 demands a change in outlook, it is almost, for me, a new way of life.
Finally, when I bought the D200 the internet was a storm of criticism. Microbanding and God knows what else were thought to be issues that would kill the machine. But a lot of good folk are still in the queue to buy one. I suspect that current attacks on the M8 aare just as insecurely based as were those on the D200 In a year they will be history.
Nominated for one of the top posts ever at RFF.
The 5d is less then 1/2 the price of the 1Ds MKII but certainly not 1/2 the quality image, however photographers who choose the 1Ds are rarely accused of being status seekers or idiots for spending more then twice the price of the 5D.
The big difference is that the 1Ds MKII is a professional body, environmentally sealed, and tough enough that you can play footie in the mud with it, wipe it clean, and continue shooting, this are features that are very important to some pro photographers.
With the 5D and the M8 you will have to stop shooting as soon as the first drops of rain fall out of the sky, or take a big risk, so for people that finds themselves shooting under adverse conditions the 1Ds Mkii is a necessity, the same cannot be said for the M8 since Leica has decided that environmantal sealing was unnecessary for the camera.
That said I agree that if you want a DRF camera likely to be repairable should it fail, and likely to still be around in a few years time, the M8 is the only game in town, often the M8 buyer is not a status seeker, but someone that really had only one choice.
Is the use of IR filters a must? I'm thinking of buying a M8 now and wait for the two free IR filters, whenever you get them..
Is the magenta issue less now, with the latest firmware?
And lastly, where can I buy some IR filters? Heliopan or B+W.. seems to be impossible to find them.
Filters is not an issue for me becuase I always use UV filters anyway.
The use is strongly advised. www.foto-huppert.de
The 5d is less then 1/2 the price of the 1Ds MKII but certainly not 1/2 the quality image, however photographers who choose the 1Ds are rarely accused of being status seekers or idiots for spending more then twice the price of the 5D. Looking at images on the internet won't really tell you anything about any of the cameras quality, although downloading raw files will give you a pretty good idea. If you want to comment on image quality you should have a look at the raw files and make prints to compare to whatever your benchmark for excellence is. Most of what is posted online is crap no matter the camera.
It is well known that the 1DSM2 IQ is the same as the 5D, just a bit more resolution. People pay for the 1DSM2 because they want that pro body and the extra resolution. The extra cost of the 1DSM2 is worth it to those individuals. I guess you can say that if people really wanted the a DRF, then the extra cost is worth it to them. However, I don't remember the 1DSM2 being as plagued as the M8 when it first came out...
The big difference is that the 1Ds MKII is a professional body, environmentally sealed, and tough enough that you can play footie in the mud with it, wipe it clean, and continue shooting, this are features that are very important to some pro photographers.
That's just hype.
My 3 week old Mk11 N dragged itself off the flash bracket and from knee height bounced on the floor and split the corner RHS of the top plate. My fault, but I didn't expect a £500 repair bill. Fortunately, insurance covered it.
So don't play football with it. :)
I traded a Nikon D200, several lenses, flash and other equipment to get me in the hunt to buy the M8. The balance was still a large amount of money. You would have to call the M8's purchase absolute self-indulgence.
And do you know what? ... my pictures haven't improved! What's more without the 80-200mm I no longer have the reach, without the 12-24 I can't go seriously wide, without the 105 micro I can't even go small, without the grip and no spare batteries I can't even shoot all day, without the zooms I even have to walk around. My photography has been seriously restricted.
What has happened is I have faced the fact of my amateur status. With a 28, 35, 50 and 75 on the M8 there remain more photographic challenges than I will ever meet. And my experience so far with the M8 is that the attempt to meet my challenges will be joyful!
The D200 was and is a great camera. I enjoyed using it a lot. But the M8 demands a change in outlook, it is almost, for me, a new way of life.
Finally, when I bought the D200 the internet was a storm of criticism. Microbanding and God knows what else were thought to be issues that would kill the machine. But a lot of good folk are still in the queue to buy one. I suspect that current attacks on the M8 aare just as insecurely based as were those on the D200 In a year they will be history.
Cameras with multiple operating modes and zoom lenses are inhibiting for people who don't have a strong vision of what they're after photographically. For those that do, the added reach and flexibility is a huge benefit. Although I had an M4 for many years I rarely used it but I switched to Leica M for my travel photography because I couldn't see to focus my small, 60's-vintage SLR any more and didn't care for the bulky plastic blobs that the new ones have evolved into. The lack of TTL image feedback and the narrow range of lenses I still find restrictive. Working around it has been a challenge, but not necessarily a happy or creatively inspiring one. Horses for courses.
"Attacks" on the M8 are based on fact, otherwise Leica would not be recalling them, issuing multiple firmware upgrades, and giving away filters and discounting lenses. The only thing that has a possibility of being "history" in a year is the M8 in its current design vis-a-vis the IR. It's not a possibility if you listen to the chorus of praisers, but once past the initial backlog, the sales figures will direct Leica's future actions.
marbrink
01-10-2007, 07:40
The use is strongly advised. www.foto-huppert.de
But do they have them in stock? I have found the filters on a lot of websites but not in stock. I don't want to buy filters for all my lenses if I'll get two for free later on.
But do they have them in stock? I have found the filters on a lot of websites but not in stock. I don't want to buy filters for all my lenses if I'll get two for free later on.
If you want to be sure call Mr. Huppert. A thoroughly nice guy. I got filters from stock from him. If anybody has them, it is he.
If I am now convinced that I want an M8, how do I go about getting one? They are out of stock everywhere it seems.
http://62.148.175.62/index.php?page=showproducts&subsubtype=886
Cameras with multiple operating modes and zoom lenses are inhibiting for people who don't have a strong vision of what they're after photographically.
That's a pretty broad statement. I can assure you that there are plenty of current photographers with strong visions whose work commands high prices and is widely published whose main lenses are not zooms. I use a Canon 1Ds and my main lenses are the 35/1.4, 135/2 and 90/TSE. -not because I'm intimidated by the range of choice that a zoom offers -I just find the results and the ergonomics of these lenses to be outstanding. I've nothing against zooms and I'm considering picking up the 24-105/4 L for certain types of work. But you might want to survey the top 100 photo books of the last decade, you might be surprised by the number of images made with prime lenses.
You are infering that I said anyone who chooses fixed focal lenth lenses is inhibited by zooms. That is clearly not what I said. I said that zooms are inhibiting for those without a clear vision of what they're after. Perhaps a better word than inhibiting would've been "overwhelming". Just like "expert mode" can be overwhelming to someone who isn't an expert.
Ken Tanaka
01-10-2007, 14:55
... But you might want to survey the top 100 photo books of the last decade, you might be surprised by the number of images made with prime lenses.
I know I'd be extremely surprised to see what lens or camera was used at all for any of these "top 100 photo books" images. I'd be hard pressed to find such attributions in my library (Yes, I do have my share of such books, although I've no idea what the "top 100" such books would be. No idea.)
All that counts is the image. Not the camera. Not the lens. Just the image. Whatever works for you or for a particular job is the best tool...at the time.
I am Nikon enthusiast. I have a Nikon D70. I shoot D-SLR, but was thinking of shooting with a Leica. I just didn't want to have to use film. I would prefer to use a digital Leica. The price seems quite steep for the digital, but I have read a great review from a few online places like Illuminous Landscape, (I think that's the name). This guy raves about the M8. I have never owned a Leica. I tried a Bessa R a few times. I am not used to a rangefinder style cmaera, having shot with SLRs. Is the Leica just as professional a camera as Nikon and Canon? What would you use the Leica for besides street photography or news/documentary styles? Is it more of a cult thing? I am just trying to justify the expense of the camera system. I was thinking of buying into a medium format system, but I don't want to shoot film anymore, and can't afford the digital backs, so that's out.
Also, can you open these files in Adobe? What are the requirements of DNG?
Good thoughts- but do yourself a favour: buy a Zorki or any other RF and find out if you like using such a camera, before you shell out 5000$. It is really different from (D)SLR photography. I use mine for general photography and landscape and would not use anything else - but that is me. And yes- the M8 files are out there with the best that any pro camera can offer.
The files can be opened in a number of programs, including Lightroom, but best results are with C1 (supplied with the camera)
Okay, let's have a look:
- Case A: My $700 Olympus E-300 is now sold at $400 after only 2 years.
- Case B: A new OM-4 retails at $600 (street price is about $400, but for the sake of the argument, let's use $600) in '85, now it's traded on eBoy for around 200-400 depending on condition
So we see the same decrease in price after ... let's see... 2 years for digital and 20 years for film!! THAT's what I mean by "healthy". And this cases are only for Olympus, I'm sure we can easily come up with the same cases Canons Nikons and Pentaxes and soon... thanks to M8, for Leicas also.
As for the size of the market, it's irrelevant, I said healthy, not humongous :) but I maintain that used digital cameras won't even have that small market 20 years from now.
But if you want to think economically (not really sensible for hobby camera's imo but relevant for pro's) The digital camera will have saved you its price several times over in film and developing not used....
I am Nikon enthusiast. I have a Nikon D70. I shoot D-SLR, but was thinking of shooting with a Leica. I just didn't want to have to use film. I would prefer to use a digital Leica. The price seems quite steep for the digital, but I have read a great review from a few online places like Illuminous Landscape, (I think that's the name). This guy raves about the M8. I have never owned a Leica. I tried a Bessa R a few times. I am not used to a rangefinder style cmaera, having shot with SLRs. Is the Leica just as professional a camera as Nikon and Canon? What would you use the Leica for besides street photography or news/documentary styles? Is it more of a cult thing? I am just trying to justify the expense of the camera system. I was thinking of buying into a medium format system, but I don't want to shoot film anymore, and can't afford the digital backs, so that's out.
Also, can you open these files in Adobe? What are the requirements of DNG?
As jaapv stated, that it is a different style of shooting than SLR.
Is the Leica just as professional a camera as Nikon and Canon?
I own a Canon EOS Mk II 1ds which imho is built more reliably than the M8, but not more reliably than the film based M's. The only meaningful difference being the environmentally sealed construction for the Canon and the lack thereof for the Leica. Arguably the Leica M lenses are as good (likely better) as anything available for my Canon.
What would you use the Leica for besides street photography or news/documentary styles?
I have found myself reaching for my Leica RF's for low light and/or wide to normal lens applications. You might add landscape, groups of folks, indoor events ... etc. I reach for my Canon for some portraiture (135 2.0 lens rocks) and zoom/telephoto apps. I also expect to continue to use my 14mm EF lens for some wide angle architectural tasks when I am not looking for spontaneity.
The longer the focal length of the lens, the smaller area within the viewfinder one has to compose and focus for the shot. In addition, longer lenses exhibit shorter depth of field with the result of less reliable use of range focus.
Having said that, my M8 is due to arrive next Thursday.
OK. So where is the rangefinder window on a 5D? And what does the camel cost you need to carry your medium format back and lenses? You totally miss the point. This is a RF camera with a IQ in the same range as any top-end camera, of which the cheapest is the 5D, with lenses that are not as good and far more bulk, to a DMR and R9 body, with lenses and pictorial quality about the same and more bulk, at about double the price af a M8. Or a 1DSII, at also nearly double the price and double the size. And we are comparing a Hummer to a Porsche.
You are so wrong here. Lenses better and hummer to a porsche. You just gave yourself away having little real experience and a serious bias. Do some of you really know what you're talking about or is this something someone said on another forum or is this leica propaganda. I'm not trying to be disrespectful of you but you are wrong. Canon L glass is superb with few exceptions. Larger yes but the M8 isn't auto focus, auto aperture (not needed but esential in the slr) , smaller sensor, fewer modes, fewer pixels, slower motor and very limited lens selection. Above all the camera has far fewer problems if any. Leica lenses are simply not better and I say this as a professional shooting leica for almost forty years and canon for almost 4. I have a darn good concept of what a great digital file looks like having shot a few hundred thousand frames with top end digital equipment including 4x5 scanning backs and I see nothing that wows me about the M8. I think, and this is just my opinion, that most of the wow's are coming form digital virgins. By this I mean folks that have little experience with anything other than a point and shoot digicam and having only average or less skills in photography. No disrespect here and not truing to flame but just an observation. From what i've seen most people with M8 are the classic weekend shooter that takes baby pix, family gatherings and vacation pictures. No problem with that and this is what the camera is really designed for. I would hardly call the M8 a pro tool. For me as a pro any camera has to pull it's own weight and the M8 just won't do that with all the issues and the price tag. It just too limited in performance with 10mp, 1.3 crop and marginal image quality with issues like the magenta and banding not to mention flare (yes I said that). I've shot my 1DsII bodies under conditions like rain that the M8 would have died early in the shoot. You'll certainly find a few pros using them but leica isn't threatning canon or nikon or even olympus at this moment.
I'm glad everyone loves the M8 and hope you make some award winning images but think before you make statements like leica glass is better than someone elses. Think about these statements first before you look foolish. Those of us that have the knowledge and experience will only have a good laugh because we know better. Given a choice between a 20D and L glass and the M8 there's no question I would take the 20D.
You don't have to believe me- after all, I'm not a professional (in your field) but I think that nearly forty years of Leica M use might give me a perspective. And I don't think that four years Canon DSLR make me a digital virgin. Yes - the Canon is a great tool for you - in your line of work. But first define what a pro tool is,before you call me foolish. Because, as an outsider - I see a number of respected pro's making far more rash statements on the M8 than I do. Have a peek at LUF for instance. If you read my posts, the only thing I ever stated was that the M8 files are in the same class as other top-end 135 camera's, but that they seem to print as clean as mid-format film. Yes, I took somebodies word for that (although I have a 60x40 hanging in front of me that bears that out - but it probably wouldn't wash with you being amateur or weekend shooter work) namely David Adamson's, whom, as a pro you may have heard of. Other highly regarded photographers have stated the same. If you don't get the same results you might try copying their workflow. Anyway, your last line shows that you totally missed the point of my post: The m8 is a rangefinder, the best there is right now and pretty good to boot, so there is absolutely no sense in comparing it to any DSLR, as that is apples to oranges (or Porsches to Hummers, as I put it to your seeming displeasure.) I don't really care if you prefer a 20D, or a 1DSII or a cellphone for that matter. We are discussing rangefinders here.
Looking back at your statement it certainly looks like you're comparing the M8 to the 5D and 1DsII and canon vs leica glass. I might be wrong here but it certainly reads that way to me.
I have a good friend that's a very fine studio portrait photogapher that I introduced to digital. His previous work was all hasselblad work on color neg. He makes stunning images up to 40x50 inches. He started shooting with a 20D and his 30x40 inch prints were comperable to the same size in MF. One thing I've learned about digital is some subjects with limited detail in the subject can be enlarged very well like a portrait. Now a subject with very fine detail like a scenic with folliage will just not enlarge well. Another thing I've learned is there is no substitute for pixels as there is no substitute for square inches of film. In my area of photography, commercial, I find digital running out of steam quickly. 10mp is not sufficient for much in the commercial world other than 1/2 page reproductions and some full page. I have and know folks that have stretched our old D1 nikons (2.75mp) and our nikon D1x (5.7mp) cameras but when compared to images with pixels behind them there's no comparison. Enlarging can be done but there is a real limit to how much information there is in a given MP file. I'll even go so far to say in recent months I've had calls from art directors requesting work form LA and other areas around the country and the statement is "you do shoot digital don't you?" and "does your camera have 12 or more MP's?". I had one say no less than 10mp but whaere does the M8 stand here?
Jaapv, you brought up the subject of canon dslr's and lenses not me, there is a direct comparison between the M8 and other digital capture devices because they all compete in the pro digital world. Lenses have to be compared and so do the files whether a scanning back, MF 39MP back, 1DsII or M8. Clients don't spot you points because you shoot RF vs DSLR's. In the end it's all one big happy family.
When I read some of the statements here I only laugh and see someone that believes the hype or is trying to justify the expense of a less than stellar camera. It's your choice how you spend your money but I just can't sit back and let statements like some I've read here go uncallenged.
David Adamson (see: http://www.adamsoneditions.com/ (http://www.adamsoneditions.com/)http://www.dpandi.com/adamson/index.html) (http://www.dpandi.com/adamson/index.html) is digital printer for Robert Frank, Annie Liebovitz, Lee Friedlander, William Christenberry, Bruce Weber, Chuck Close to name a few. David says he is blown away by the quality of the M8 files printed at 30x40 and David has scanned and printed thousands of exhibition prints from every film and digital source going back to the beginning of digital printing. Here is a link to the discussion on the Leica forum:
http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/9022-30-x-40-inch-m8-prints-9.html?highlight=30+40+print+epson#post99480
Heres is an anecdote he relates:
“Here is a picture from this morning of the photographer William Christenberry and artist Yankel Ginzberg at the studio, both after looking at my 30x40 M8 prints. Bill is a famous user of everything from brownies to 8x10 view cameras and his new book published by aperture was voted one of the four most important books of the year by Time. I asked him what he thought of the prints and his quote was " I thought I was looking at prints from an 8x10 neg" his next question was can I get one of these camera's now? “
Now before everyone freaks out and claims that he is saying that the M8 = 8x10 quality he was just relating an off the cuff remark from Christenberry about the quality of the print.
I have some experience in digital myself having worked on all the first production drum scanners, the first commercially available paint system (think ½ the functionality of photoshop for $1,000,000.). I owned one of the first prepress-retouching studios in NY to actually be profitable with a 100% digital workflow and counted L'oreal, Revlon, Cartier and Mercedes-Benz among my clients. My first DSLR was a Kodak/Canon monstrosity that cost $16,000 and produced 1.5MP files. I used Leica M's when I was working for a newspaper in the 70's and today I use Canon 1Ds and L lens for commercial work which is about 20% of my billing (design is the rest), it's been 5 years since I owned a Leica. So I have no ax to grind.
Yes the L lenses are great, the 135/2 is as good in its results as any lens that I have used in any format but Leica does make great glass and in some cases has an edge (wide, all the 50mm lenses) on Canon. I won't go in to value, whether filters are acceptable or not, or SLR versus RF, as what is value and ergonomic heaven for one is a nightmare for someone else. But as to image quality, I have had a look at the raw files and I have to agree with Adamson, Leica has produced a machine capable of producing first class images (assuming you have the fixes and the filters). That doesn't mean you should run out and buy it, but it's good enough that I'll be using a Leica again in the not to distant future for the first time in years. As to reproduction in web printed CMYK publications -by the time you screen it at 133 or 150 line screen a correctly prepared file (if the designer has not cropped out 1/2 the file) from an M8 would make a spectactular 2 page spread.
I have no problem with you challenging statements, it is your right and puts things into perspective. But don't accuse me of making sweeping claims that I did not make. Yes- I stated that Leica M lenses are generally considered to be of a higher quality than Canon lenses. My own experience seems to confirm that to me.And considering the price difference they should well be too. But that is not saying a number of Canon lenses are not very fine lenses too.Or Nikon Or Zeiss. Or Olympus etc. But there is imo a very good reason that a considerable number of photographers are putting Leica and Zeiss lenses on their Canon DSLR's, despite turning those into mainly manual camera's. And given the fact that there at least some preferring those, there is a consensus amongst Leica users that M lenses are slightly superior to R lenses. In the end- it only shows in extremely well made prints of large size, that I grant you. The same for Leica M8 files. I like the way I (that is me, personally) can make them look better than the way I can make the files of other digital camera's look. And I prefer them to prints I used to make on my Mamiya 645 system. If I would do my own colour darkroom (which I used to do) it might be different, but as I can get it now- no way.You confirm that by your remark about the 20D. A claim as sweeping as the ones you denounce - to film users btw. I would dearly like to hear you having it out with Guy Manusco. He is in the same line of work as you are, and his -rather outspoken- opinions run 180 degrees counter to yours, as he claims there is no better file quality to be had with any camera in the 135 class than the M8. I- as an innocent bystander with no stake in the outcome will gladly take a ringside seat;)
In the meantime I will take my little bag and happily pursue my hobby on a level that I find more than satisfactory, whilst you lug your cases of DSLR stuff to arrive at the quality you need in you work. The prerogative of freedom I would call it.:)
That touches on what's perhaps the main reason I'm sticking with my 20D and the RD-1: I can afford both, so I can pick whichever happens to suit what I'm most likely going to shoot. For general travel it'll be the RD-1, and for shots of the grandkids and their pets (I've proven to myself I really benefit from AF in that type of shooting--must be my lack of fast reflexes), and the occasional wading bird down south, it'll be the 20D. For the size of prints I do (max 11x14) and for my main use which is burning to a DVD and showing on a big-screen TV, either of them has plenty enough resolution. If I just had to have the most possible resolution camera, I'd have to choose between a 5D and an M8 since I couldn't possibly afford both together (considering I'd also need to replace my entire lineup of lenses for the Canon because the ones I have aren't sharp enough for it). If I had all the money in the world, screw the M8 and the Canon, I'd buy me one of those 39-megapixel medium format thingamajigs, and hire a lackey to carry it around for me :D
No problem lugging my dslr system and after carrying my 8x10 and 50,000 wat seconds of strobes and gear for years it seems light in comparison. I don't mind because it's my job and I make money doing what I love. I respect Guys opinion as yours if supported with other than what someone told someone on the internet. Like Guy I've been around the block more than a few times and shot for Esquire, Life, News Week, Time, Parade, USA Weekend magazine plus commercial clients like catalogs and many ads for Phillips Electronics, annual reports for Union Carbide, ads for Arco Petrolium, Phillips Petrolium, annual report work for Motarola, Exxon plus man many more. I also show my work in galleries from Charleston SC. to New York city. I didn't start yesterday and shoot for the big guys.
Over 98% of my work is digital and has been mainly digital for about seven to eight years. I know you can get away sometimes with a small file and sometimes not. I also know there's a really big difference in printing on you epson printer vs CMYK printing. And yes, art directors crop the heck out of files.
Nothing personal here.
X-ray,
I recently purchased an Canon 85mm f/1.2L for my 1DsM2 and I am very happy with the results. The final prints that I get are so smooth with high detail especially in the subject's eyes it is quit amazing. I wont say that the 85mm f/1.2 is better than the Leica 90mm APO summicron, but I took extensive portraits with both, and I would choose the Canon. It is very lifelike.
Regards,
Steve
Don,
Quote from Guy Manusco: I just picked one from dozens, not the most enthusiastic one either.Btw, he is one top-pro who sold his whole Canon equipement in favour of first the DMR and then added the M8, for quality reasons. No disrepect here either, I respect you and your work, but I have a feeling there is some missionary work to be done here. ;)
Hi folks wanted to post just how easy this camera really is to get dead on and show some images from a Model and talent convention that I am working and i put the M8 into some heavy service and pushed it to places i thought would certainly fail and that is stage lights right in the the camera and frankly there is not one image were it blew apart, no vertical nband , no streaks and the color was extremely easy to WB in C1 . I loaded about a 1000 images in C1 took a Wb off the back wall and apllied to all images and bam , dead on. Now i expect this from the DMR which i also shot today but the M8 acted exactly like the DMR. The DMR i shot at ISO 400 and i will post some of those later but these are all M8 at ISO 640 with the 28, 50, 35 and 75 cron. All about f2 to f 4 on different lenses. No noise no banding , just perfect looking images. Now let's forget the models and talent here they are all wanna be's and this is competition stuff so the images are not what counts here but the use of the M8 and how well it can handle a situation like this. i will just post the images and not put the lens in use at the time just becuase i need to get back to work but i thought this would be of interest to some folks that this camera can perform beyond what i thought it was capable of and for stage work this thing rocks.
Quote from David Adamson. One of his first, this camera was a non-updated ine:
Here are a few shots of the first 30 x 40 inch print,CV 35 1,7,160 iso, Epson 9800,Crane Museo max paper
Looks like a 4x5 scan (maybe even better) !
Leica should run some of the Magnum guys through my studio (listening David) and quickly produce a show of these images, it will have photographers queing up in droves to buy !!
As I said before,you don't have to believe me, but consider what others, more expert than me, think.
Every major camera manufacturer has some great lenses in their line up. Companies like Zeiss and Leica don't have any low end consumer lenses so the ratio of stars to dogs is much better. But when you compare the pro lens lineup of i.e., Canon L, Pentax Ltd., etc., modern lenses are all stellar performers. Except on the very wide end I don't see the point of putting 3rd party lenses on a Canon.
There are design choices that do tend to give some manufacturers lines a certain personality. The modern Leica lens designs are outstanding wide open edge to edge (at f/1.4 nothing can touch them on the lab test bench) but have a bokeh thats different from the older lenses -some love it, some hate it. The new Zeiss ZM's manage to acheive modern resolution and contrast while keeping that old school smooth transition to soft oof areas. The Canon 135/2 and 85 lenses to me have this sort of signature, plenty of snap in the in focus areas and a smooth transition to dreamy OOF areas which is why I like them so much -as a matter of fact I am thinking of going all Zeiss with the M8 for this reason.
Hand held photographers are limited to resolution numbers far below what the lenses are capable of resolving so the differences between lenses resolving power is even more minute in practice then in shooting test targets on a tripod. I gravitate towards lens that give me a look in print that I like shot after shot. My favorites list would include the 4th gen Leica 35/2, the Hassy 150/2.8 FE, Nikkor 80/2.8 (for the Plaubel 67), Rodenstock 150/5.6 Sironar-S and 55mm Grandagon and the Canon 135/2.
X-ray,
I recently purchased an Canon 85mm f/1.2L for my 1DsM2 and I am very happy with the results. The final prints that I get are so smooth with high detail especially in the subject's eyes it is quit amazing. I wont say that the 85mm f/1.2 is better than the Leica 90mm APO summicron, but I took extensive portraits with both, and I would choose the Canon. It is very lifelike.
Regards,
Steve
I have both the apo summicron and the 85 1.2 and like both but the 90 apo is not a very good performer at close range under 8-10 ft. The 85 1.2 outperforms the apo in that range and then the apo has a slight edge at greater distances. Both have their place. Tha 85 1.2 is even a very fine lens at 1.2. If you like the 85 you should try the 135 F2 and the 200 1.8 and the 35 1.4 is exceptional.
I really don't want you to think I have any issue with M8 owners. I just feel the M8 is less than expected in a pro level camera. I don't question the reasons why Guy or a few others have gone to the M8 but for my work and my clients it would be a step backward. Image quality from raw files is fine but there are too many issues with filters, flare and magenta creaping in the blacks even with a filter. I've seen first hand magenta in blacks even with the filter in place.
A great deal of my work involves close work that inly the 90 TSE will do and teathered to the computer to shoot direct to the HD. Other aspect of my annual report work involves adverse conditions like a few weeks ago. I was in a coal mine for two days and then in the rain for a day. My clients routinely make double page spreads from my images and crop. Even if the M8 were perfect image wise it would not work for these applications. This is not to say it doesn't work for a number of othere.
Before the M8 was introduced I had high hopes and had planned to buy one when the system settled out and all the traditional bugs were delt with. When it came out I was shocked and still feel to this day it's only marginal as a pro tool and more suited for amateur use. The reason for this, I believe, is leica knows it market and the market is not and never will be again the pro shooter. Life has moved on from the RF in 99% of the pro world and Leica no longer has the inovative spirit it had in the beginning. When Nikon brought out the Nikon F it was the kiss of death for the RF. I still love RF shooting and purchased two new a la carte MP's and a ZI last year. I added and updated 7 M lenses for two seperate systems so you can see I have nothing against RF or Leica. 80% of my documentary work is RF photography and the rest is scattered from 2-1/4 to 8x10, all B&W.
I'm glad the M8 is out and very pleased some pros are finding applications for it. I certainly hope Leica makes it and feel the M digital is the only way they will. My issue is when anyone starts putting down Nikon, Canon etc. whether digital or film equipment. Both are more than excellent in what they make and none have the maket cornered on quality or lenses. Each have their problems and strengths and no one system will do it all.
I'll go back to what I've said before, you can get away with enlarging some digital files to extreme degrees but many you can not unless you're willing to accept some ragged images. There is only a finite amount of information in a file and you can not add information that is not there. A good example is a shot with tree leaves in the scene. Take a 10mp file up to 30 inches and the leaves start to look like sea sponges soaked in green paint. They become blobs of color and in my opinion look terrible. Skin and people are another thing or things with less detail work fine.
I agree that a peoperly processed digital file is stunning. If yo think about it a 1DsII file for example has a native size of 11x17 inches. In reality the quality at 11x17 is much like an 11x17 transparency contact printed. The same is true of the native file size of any digital camera. The down side is it won't enlarge like an 11x17 piece of film. Like I mentioned before there is a very big difference in printing on your epson printer and CMYK litho printing. You just can not get away with the extremem enlargements on the lith press that you can on the epson printer. It just does not work that way. In my work 99% of my commercial work goes to press in brochures, ads and catalogs. Very little is ever printed for display. Only about 25% of my work could be done or accepted by art directors if shot on a 10 MP camera. Big clients with big budgets have big demands.
When i got into digital I felt the same way. I felt digital was the answer to everything. The more I use digital the more I see it's not the total answer. I made the serious mistake of sell a great deal of my film equipment and lived to regret it. The more I use digital the more I appreciate film again. In the past couple of years I've purchased much of my equipment back and added a fuji finescan 5000 scanner that I scan up to 11x14 on. I now shoot the work that will reproduce large on film and scan it. If I had a choice but unfortunately I do not I would shot 50% of my work on film again. Unfortunately my clients have been caught up in the digital mania.
Ten weeks with the M8 now [...]
So my decision has been made: The M6 goes, the Digilux2 goes, some other stuff goes and I will buy a second M8 body and live happily ever after.:angel:
Sorry for being a bit late in answering, I just got back from Ukraine this morning and still feel 36 hours of train in my bones.
Congratulations for getting a camera that you like. Especially since that way, you free up a M6 for the rest of us :)
Philipp (who is still waiting for the decisive moment for the first Leica, and who thinks of saving up for an M7 or M8 as a PhD present once I get that done over with)
Richard Marks
01-12-2007, 08:22
Hi I appreciate x rays requirements for large images and clearly this can not reliably be done from 10mb file sizes. This however is not really relevent to the debate about the M8. The comparison is really with 35mm film and use in rangefinders in particular. My experience with the M8 tells me it has gone beyond the resolution of all but the finest grain film emulsions, and its performance at ISO 640 would give my MP with print or tranny film at ISO 640 a serious kicking. The real debate is, if you already value M series cameras for what ever reason, the M8 may or may not as the case may be represent a genuine improvement on its film counterpart. For me ot is in a lot of ways. The only real downside is battery dependance, and the long term storage reliability of digital files as apposed to film negatives.
If you work within the limits of the file size of any digital camera the results can be stunning. Like I mentioned it is like having an original transparency the size of the default size of the file. Digital gives a flexability that isn't possible with a film image. To me this is the big deal with digital. In my commercial work I shoot only raw and alter curves and design my own look to my image. With raw you are no longer bound to kodak, fuji or any other makers design for a particular emulsion. This and the ability to deal with adverse conditions of mixed light and varying color temperatures makes digital the king in this respect. With a properly converted / corrected file within the limits of the file size the image quality is sunning. In some cases I've even seen the MKII looking better than 4xr provia. For most of you you'll never enlarge beyond 13x19 and this isn't a big factor but for many of us it is. When you enlarge a digital file beyond the default you soon run out of info and the image takes on a strange plastic look with artifacts and detail takes on a smeared blob like texture wirth strange looking edges. It's hard to explain to someone that hasn't seen it. Film on the other hand can be scanned to any size. In a 35mm frame there is only so much information too but enlarging it to extremem degrees you only see larger grain not the odd edges and artifacts of digital when over sampled. To my eye and many others this is much more pleasing than the plastic artifacts of digital in these extreme enlargements. Like I said I've seen some great looking 30x40 prints but I've seen some really bad ones too. The same can be said about a 35mm enlargement. Much of success with either comes from knowing what to do and how to do it properly plus the limits of the medium.
I thought some of you might like to see some samples of digital and film. See if you can figure out what is what (no cheating).
Here are a couple more examples of film and digital from the canon 1DsII. Which are digital?
For the first group, I'll guess film, digi, dig, film
second group:
digi, slide, film, digi
But I'd only bet on the first and last one.
For the first group, I'll guess film, digi, dig, film
How about the second group? After a few guess i'll tell. See if you can guess the film format.
How about the second group? After a few guess i'll tell. See if you can guess the film format.
okay, I added to my original post
Here are two more samples. One of them might surprise you.
If that first one's not film, I'm selling my Leicas and the second one looks like shots I get from my Hexar Af when I mess up the flash sync. So both film?
If that first one's not film, I'm selling my Leicas and the second one looks like shots I get from my Hexar Af when I mess up the flash sync. So both film?
How much are you asking for your leicas? :D
I always appreciate your comments, x-ray. I can't wait to see the results of your test. Maybe this should become a forum here on RRF?
Take a guess! I won't make anyone sell their cameras.
One thing you'll see coming from this is how the internt brings everything down to a lowe level of quality. You really can't judge quality on the internet.
The second thing you'll see is how close film and digital are in the right hands. I'll give a little teaser here, one shot is 8x10 ektachrome.
I'm not a professional, but I would guess that the last two of each group are film.
I'd say the Ektachrome is the group of workers.
What is it that says film or digital about your choices? Reasons not guesses. More saturation, depth dynamic range or what?
It is a feeling. I am a visual designer and the last two of each series look like photos that I have seen for years in the photo annuals.
The first two of each series feel like the photos that I have been taking with my Canon 20D and Canon glass. The way the camera deals with the lighting in these pictures reminds me of the digital work I see our staff photographer make. There is a silky quality to digital.
There, I may be talking out of my hat. I'm interested to see the results.
Digital is cleaner isn't it. Sometimes just too clean for me.
X-ray, usually when digital is shot without much care, the digital-ness of the image is very apparent. All of your examples were shot with a lot of care and studio strobes, in these conditions, the difference between digital and film kind of cancels out. I can imagine all of the images to be digital. I know you said Ektachrome.. but I'm just sayin..
I go by overall appearance -aspect- a term I've borrowed from medieval manuscript studies. Sirius calls it a feeling, but I think it's an unconscious intelligence borne of experience.
The problem becomes one of level of experience. My scanned film photos look one way; someone else's might look different, same with my digital shots. In the end, the more experience you have with the many different modes of shooting, the more likely you'll guess correctly.
Well thought out answers and good reasons for your choices. I also feel the personality of the maker comes through even in the digital conversion. The point here is digital gives that ability over film. It is what you make it if you shoot and process raw. Process raw not to the default setting but to your individual vision of what the image should be. You ar in controll not a grup of engineers in Japan or who knows where. Film can exist side by side with digital. One is no better than the other but offer different options. Unfortunately in my work the weakest link is the CMYK printing process. In the end film with all of it's richness and depth looks just like digital with all of it's glass like tonality and clarity. Now we have options and tools for almost any job.
Answers to the question--- Left to right ---
group 1 ---
shot 1 Digital 1DsII 70-200mm might have been f3.5 exposed for about
15-20 seconds (can't remember without looking at exif data) using
only the modeling lights from my speedotrons / I think I used 8
with grids and large diffusers. Complex lighting - note the lack of
digital noise
shot 2 same as above
shot 3 8x10 ektachrome tungsten 19 inch red dot artar on a deardorff
shot 4 4x5 Provia shot with a Sinar Norma and 210 Symmar S
Group 2 ---
shot 1 1DsII and 24-70 canon
shot 2 1DsII and 24 TSE and long exposure
Shot 3 Rollei SL66 50 Distagon and provia - extensive lighting on the
7th floor of the 12 floor high worlds largest twin boilers --
many spot lights and 6 ft soft boxes -- around 20K of strobes
shot 4 Rollei SL66 and 120 S-Planar and provia - studio
group 3 ---
shot 1 1DsII and 70-200
shot 2 20D with 24 1.4 - dragging shutter hand held using slow sync
and popup flass on camera
Good answers!
How much are you asking for your leicas? :D
From what I've learned, 50¢ :(
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.