View Full Version : It's a heartbreaker
It's a heartbreaker.
I've been a photo addict since about 1942 when I was twelve and built my first darkroom. In the sixties I traveled a lot and photographed all over the country with a view camera, a Rolliflex, and three Leicas: a IIIf, M2 and M4. I even bought the M4 brand new with a 50mm f/2 Summicron. But in 1972 we moved into a new house that had 7 bathrooms, counting the one in the garage, and no place to set up a darkroom. So, after I got back from a second year in Southeast Asia I sold all my equipment.
For about thirty years I've been sorry I sold my Leicas, especially the M4. Eventually, in 2000, when Casio came out with the first 3 megapixel camera I got back into the game with digital and I've been shooting almost daily since -- nowadays with a D2X. But I love street photography, and the D2x is no street camera.
Then Leica announced the M8 and I was ecstatic. Once again I'd be able to work with a small, fast, quiet, black, street rangefinder. I watched the announcements and got ready to buy my M8 and 35mm Summicron for street work. Then the whole thing fell apart. I started reading about the problems my prospective new treasure was having with purple blacks, green blobs, streaking, erratic white balance, shots that never got to the SD card, etc.
Now what? I've been reading M8 discussion threads for days now and I've about come to the conclusion that Leica has had it. That Leica executives rushed this incomplete camera out in time for Photokina reminds me of the ad agency executive who braced an agency "artist" and told him, "I didn't say I wanted it to be good. I said I wanted it by Thursday."
It all seems very unLeicalike. I'm pretty sure panic has set in at Leica and that the "fixes" are going to be required "by Thursday." The problem is that with Leica's financial problems, if the M8 doesn't get fixed by "Thursday" they're out of business. But if the "fixed" M8 comes in at the same level of reliability as the released M8 they're out of business. It seems to me there's a high probability that the rushed fixes will be like the classic problem with the old IBM 360 operating system. Every time IBM did an upgrade to the system they fixed about 5,000 bugs but they introduced about 5,000 new ones.
All I can do is wait and keep my fingers crossed. I want that M8 in my hand, but not with purple blacks, green blobs, streaking, erratic white balance, or erratic storage to the SD card. If I can't have a properly functioning M8 then I'll have to keep doing street photography with my D2X or D100 and hope and pray that someone else will come out with the camera the M8 should have been.
It's a heartbreaker.
Sailor Ted
01-04-2007, 18:22
I disagree- please search on Flickr for images taken made with the M8 or see my photos with this camera. Far from a dog the M8 is the finest digital camera in the world today save for medium format monsters that don't play the Leica "street photo" "available light" shoot anytime anywhere game.
I felt as you do however after scratching beyond the knee jerk reactions I found a different story. I then purchased the camera effectively "putting my money where my mouth is" and I could not be more pleased with the results.
I sense your dissapointment with Leica and I congratulate you for not being as venemous about it as others have been. Your experience and your age have obviously made you fairly uncompromising with products that aren't quite right ... and fair enough! I hope to hell that Leica do sort the problems out and I hope you buy one and are happy with it ... and I hope faith in the company is restored all around.
As you said ... in the meantime you still have your D2x ... and I know that I will be staying with fim in a rangefinder until I am totally confident in Leica's commitment. I hope they just don't throw the towel in and abandon the concept totally as Epson appear to have done!
Cheers. :-)
CameraQuest
01-04-2007, 18:34
It's a heartbreaker.
The problem is that with Leica's financial problems, if the M8 doesn't get fixed by "Thursday" they're out of business. But if the "fixed" M8 comes in at the same level of reliability as the released M8 they're out of business. .
I for one disagree.
As far as I can tell, Leica is on firmer financial ground now than any time since it was owned by the Leitz family many decades ago.
The reason is the new billionaire Austrian majority share holder, Mr. Kaufman. Behind the scenes I know for a fact he is making no secret of his commitment to Leica and a total turnaround for the company.
It may take awhile, and there may be a few bumps along the way, but this guy has the bucks to make it happen!
Stephen
I'd like to say "I feel your pain" but I do not for a very simple reason.
I continue to fail to understand why anyone would expect a company that has a long, hallowed history of making probably the finest mechanical instruments for shooting film imagery would consequently know the first thing about making electronic, digitally-based image-making gear!
There is notihng, anywhere, in the corporate culture of Leica to suggest that they would have any capability of transferring their film-based expertise to the digital milleu.
Unlike the Japanese firms, they did not invest early on in digital photography to "come up the learning curve" of the technology. Instead, they waited forever amd then figured they could buy-in - without the know-how, capital or capability of producing a "killer product" that would surpass all the others.
This was a predicted disaster by many and not a surprise.
If you want to own a label in the digi camera world - buy the Leica. But a label is all you're going to get.
The reason is the new billionaire Austrian majority share holder, Mr. Kaufman. Behind the scenes I know for a fact he is making no secret of his commitment to Leica and a total turnaround for the company.
How often have we heard some billionaire make such grandiose statements until he realised that the venture may turn him into a mere 'millionaire'? :rolleyes:
stevenrk
01-04-2007, 19:08
I for one disagree.
As far as I can tell, Leica is on firmer financial ground now than any time since it was owned by the Leitz family many decades ago.
The reason is the new billionaire Austrian majority share holder, Mr. Kaufman. Behind the scenes I know for a fact he is making no secret of his commitment to Leica and a total turnaround for the company.
It may take awhile, and there may be a few bumps along the way, but this guy has the bucks to make it happen!
Stephen
That's surprising because it goes against what I've read and what Jenopix seems to suggest in their explanation of why they cancelled the sale of Sinar shares to Leica: "Jenoptik intends to avert damage from Sinar AG due to unclear ownership structures."
Stephen, when you speak of behind the scenes info, exactly what are you refering to?
Steven
Sailor Ted
01-04-2007, 19:24
If you want to own a label in the digi camera world - buy the Leica. But a label is all you're going to get.
Really based on what? Does the M8 create substandard images- compaired to what? Canon? I think not.
Sailor Ted
01-04-2007, 19:30
Here is what one can expect from the M8 and an inexpensive CV 12mm lens.
As always click on my Flickr link for the full res image.
tedwhite
01-04-2007, 19:36
RSL:
You could always avoid imagined (or actual) catastrophe and buy an M7. With the money saved you could buy an excellent film scanner and be right smack in the middle of digital. Plus you'd be back on the street with your "small, quiet, fast, black, street rangefinder."
As I haven't the bucks yet for the film scanner, I've been making crisp black and white 8X10's in my darkroom and scanning them in to the digital world with my Epson 4990 flatbed.
Ted
Ken Tanaka
01-04-2007, 19:38
"RSL": As someone a few clicks later than you, but still early enough to recall the IBM 360 operating system (and its countless quirks), I understand and share your disappointment with the M8's birth defects.
But, to be balanced, it's not quite as bad as Internet jabber would suggest. No, it's not completely reliable or predictable. No, it's not really worth anything close to its list price. But it can record a good image under many, maybe most, circumstances.
So if you're really as forlorn as you portrayed, and you are willing to sublimate all considerations of price/value, I'd certainly move forward with getting an M8. Based on the dateline you cited I think that it's far more sensible to just enjoy your photography using anything you want to use. Who cares whether or not Leica is a good investment? You're buying their camera not their stock.
If you do get an M8 I offer one last suggestion: stay away from chat boards like this. Just enjoy the camera for what it is, not what it might have been or might become.
Sailor Ted
01-04-2007, 20:00
No, it's not really worth anything close to its list price.
Ken has any Leica been worth its asking price in your opinion? I say "asking price" because I believe many people never purchase a new Leica film anything- they buy used, Zeiss, or more often Bessa CV. If an M7 is "worth" $3500 and if an a la carte Leica M is worth north of four grand then the M8 is worth its asking price- the savings in processing alone make this an accounting reality. As to shooting film and then scanning I have better things to do- not fun in my book. In fact if this were a viable business option Leica would be making a killing as this has been their digital solution for several years and the market has overwhelmingly rejected this. Let’s see how many digital film scanners there are in two years time.
My guess is Leica cannot make money off internet discount used camera buying hounds (just a hunch) and needed to produce a viable world class digital camera and they have, and it costs five grand. Leica has never been in the business of making inexpensive cameras. They have been in the business of making cameras that are fractionally better then their competition and charging a premium. Nothing's changed.
Ted
While I understand that some may be prone to hyperbole with respect to the M8, I find the extreme negativity, or disappointment if you prefer, expressed by some on this thread, to be over the top.
No one could have reasonably expected Leica, or any other company (including the Japanese companies which enjoyed such a head-start with digital) to come up with a perfect digital rangefinder right out of the box. But to suggest that the M8, even with its early problems and imperfections, is not a solid and exciting effort, is nonsense.
Why do I say that? For the following reasons.
There are many, like me, who prefer the rangefinder experience, yet were not comfortable with a "wet" darkroom. A digital rangefinder which is capable of producing (at least) excellent images, allows us to process those images digitally.
The Leica lenses, including earlier versions, are, as a group, indisputably superb. The M8 allows one to use those lenses, and to actually broaden their potential, in the digital domain.
The physical design of the M8 is, according to many who have more M rangefinder experience than I, quite good on balance. Not perfect, obviously, but still in essence a finely constructed rangefinder which is straightforward to operate.
From my standpoint, those who are bitterly disappointed, or (absurdly) dismissive, either suffer from unrealistic expectations, are over-emphasizing the importance of cost, or don't really know the camera and are pre-judging.
It is far too early to make any kind of final, harshly critical pronouncements. As has been pointed out on other threads, many of the early problems with the M8 are likely to be solved with firmware updates. Yes, the IR issue will remain, albeit with simple work-arounds. The body should have better moisture proofing, and the battery design leaves something to be desired. But this is a first step, and a very good one by most accounts.
Finally, a few months down the road, when the 'net is teeming with superb images taken by those who didn't get caught up in the M8's limitations, but rather embraced its potential, the silly predictions of Leica's demise will rapidly fade into obscurity.
Regards,
Tony C.
Ken Tanaka
01-04-2007, 20:57
Ken has any Leica been worth its asking price in your opinion?
Ted
Yes. In the M's earliest and most popular days (mid-1950's through most of the 1960's) these cameras and lenses were well within the boundaries of professional and dedicated amateur budgets. They delivered terrific performance and value relative to their marketplace peers. Their owners could depend on these simple little cameras and well crafted lenses for many years. That the largest market for these cameras and lenses is the 2nd hand market is a testament to this fact.
Today, however, the M8 is more of a curio than a practical camera. While enthusiasts are enamored by the M's nostalgic design and will exhaust themselves singing its praises, the fact is that the M8 is a comparatively limited instrument by today's digital standards. It's not necessary to elaborate on this point, as it's self-evident.
Nevertheless, the M8 plus one lens carries a price tag that's over 10% of the median U.S. worker's annual gross income. This pricing is, in part, due to the expensive rather socialized German labor that builds the cameras. It's also inflated by the knowledge that the true believers constitute the main primary market. As long as the camera can take a picture and not pose a safety hazard these folks will buy them. But in coming years it's unlikely that there will be much of a secondary market for M8's, particularly after the Leica engineers "discover" a "breakthrough" that leads to an M9 that can't double as a night scope. (It's also vaguely possible that one of the other major camera brands smells opportunity and begins making a rangefinder...but it's a long-shot.)
But someone who really enjoys M-style shooting, who wants to use a "digital M" today, and who's in his/her contemplative years should really not give a damn about such blather.
Sailor Ted
01-04-2007, 21:10
Ken,
Good to know that here in the US the "gross" annual workers income is around eight grand.
Wow,
Ted
"more of a curio than a practical camera...a comparatively limited instrument by today's digital standards...it's self-evident."
Come on, Ken, you're kidding, right? Impractical? Limited? Is there a better digital rangefinder on the market? Is the M8 not capable of producing really fine digital images? You really do need to elaborate, in spite of your arrogant dismissal of any possible reason to do so.
"the M8 plus one lens carries a price tag that's over 10% of the median U.S. worker's annual gross income"
Yes, and what percentage does the unnecessary $30,000 car or truck represent? The house with two extra bedrooms? How many median U.S. workers buy expensive cameras, or ever did?
"As long as the camera can take a picture and not pose a safety hazard these folks will buy them."
Condescending crap, which, by the way, tends to weaken whatever meaningful arguments (still waiting) you may have.
Ken Tanaka
01-04-2007, 21:22
While I understand that some may be prone to hyperbole with respect to the M8, I find the extreme negativity, or disappointment if you prefer, expressed by some on this thread, to be over the top.
No one could have reasonably expected Leica, or any other company (including the Japanese companies which enjoyed such a head-start with digital) to come up with a perfect digital rangefinder right out of the box. But to suggest that the M8, even with its early problems and imperfections, is not a solid and exciting effort, is nonsense.
Why do I say that? For the following reasons.
There are many, like me, who prefer the rangefinder experience, yet were not comfortable with a "wet" darkroom. A digital rangefinder which is capable of producing (at least) excellent images, allows us to process those images digitally.
The Leica lenses, including earlier versions, are, as a group, indisputably superb. The M8 allows one to use those lenses, and to actually broaden their potential, in the digital domain.
The physical design of the M8 is, according to many who have more M rangefinder experience than I, quite good on balance. Not perfect, obviously, but still in essence a finely constructed rangefinder which is straightforward to operate.
From my standpoint, those who are bitterly disappointed, or (absurdly) dismissive, either suffer from unrealistic expectations, are over-emphasizing the importance of cost, or don't really know the camera and are pre-judging.
It is far too early to make any kind of final, harshly critical pronouncements. As has been pointed out on other threads, many of the early problems with the M8 are likely to be solved with firmware updates. Yes, the IR issue will remain, albeit with simple work-arounds. The body should have better moisture proofing, and the battery design leaves something to be desired. But this is a first step, and a very good one by most accounts.
Finally, a few months down the road, when the 'net is teeming with superb images taken by those who didn't get caught up in the M8's limitations, but rather embraced its potential, the silly predictions of Leica's demise will rapidly fade into obscurity.
Regards,
Tony C.
Tony: I'm not sure what category you place my remarks into. As I've noted several times on this site, I'd very much like to have a digital M. But I realize I don't NEED one and can wait until the design is refined. I also indicated that the current M8 is not as much of a train wreck as Internet comments would suggest.
The Net is unlikely to ever be teeming with "superb" images taken with M8s for several reasons. First, the M8's price and availability will keep it solidly in the "other digital" margin. Second, the limitations of the Internet as a photo gallery diminishes most of the characteristics that might distinguish the M8 or Leica lenses. Third, the quality of a camera does not osmotically buoy the skills of its owner. Nearly all of the initial M8 images I've seen have been pretty run-of-the-mill friends/family/street mimicry stuff that could have been recorded with nearly any digital camera.
Again, I look forward to having a really good digital rangefinder...perhaps a future version of the M8. But, in my opinion, the M8 is just not worth the expense for ME at this time. In my perspective, all that matters is the picture. I don't list my equipment on boards like this like service ribbons. Ownership does not equal accomplishment. Whether I used camera-x or camera-y to make an image is largely irrelevant. If the image sucks it sucks no matter what the resolution or medium.
Sailor Ted
01-04-2007, 21:30
I sincerely doubt Ken's statements or half-cocked observations waxing for the "good ol days" and their lower prices will sway many. I seem to recall houses were "somewhat" cheaper back then too.
Ken:
You're right, "teeming" is too broad a term. I do, however, believe that you will see examples of the work of many pro and serious amateur photographers which will reflect the quality of the M8. Will the internet-based examples be as clear-cut as prints? No, of course not.
I certainly agree that "the quality of a camera does not osmotically buoy the skills of its owner", and also that many of the initial M8 images have been ordinary. But the extraordinary ones point out the potential of the camera, do they not?
Like you, I am looking to create fine images, and the cameras and lenses are simply tools to use in that process. I just don't see how you can discount (except from a narrow "value" standpoint) the potential of the M8 to be an excellent tool.
By the way, I do like a number of your Chicago series images. I grew up in Evanston.
Tony C.
I sincerely doubt Ken's statements or half-cocked observations waxing for the "good ol days" and their lower prices will sway many. I seem to recall houses were "somewhat" cheaper back then too.
Geez, by now I think it's obvious that you love your M8 and will criticize and disparage anyone who disagrees with your conclusion.
So the purpose of your continuing comments is?
Sailor Ted
01-04-2007, 21:47
Athena,
And your point is? And this forum is for what? Surely not JUST a place for those who do not own an M8 to cast dispersion on the camera and those of us who enjoy it? The arrogance of people who denigrate M8 users when we present our side of the M8 story especially after they (you) throw the first stone is beyond me.
Ted
Unlike you, Athena, Ted has actually been contributing constructively to the discussion on this thread. And it's particularly ironic that you would be criticizing him, given that your contributions amount to ridiculous statements such as these:
"I continue to fail to understand why anyone would expect a company that has a long, hallowed history of making probably the finest mechanical instruments for shooting film imagery would consequently know the first thing about making electronic, digitally-based image-making gear!"
Right, and I'm still waiting to hear all about the better digital rangefinder which is currently available, or about to be released by one of those Japanese companies.
"There is notihng, anywhere, in the corporate culture of Leica to suggest that they would have any capability of transferring their film-based expertise to the digital milleu."
Pompous nonsense.
"Unlike the Japanese firms, they did not invest early on in digital photography to "come up the learning curve" of the technology. Instead, they waited forever amd then figured they could buy-in - without the know-how, capital or capability of producing a "killer product" that would surpass all the others."
Again, which digital rangefinder does the M8 not surpass?
"This was a predicted disaster by many and not a surprise."
A disaster? Right, that's why the M8 is back ordered everywhere, in spite of the (fixable) early issues. (As an aside, I suppose you also judge the quality of a film by its first weekend box office receipts.)
Tony C.
julianphotoart
01-04-2007, 23:30
It's a heartbreaker.
......
It all seems very unLeicalike. I'm pretty sure panic has set in at Leica and that the "fixes" are going to be required "by Thursday." The problem is that with Leica's financial problems, if the M8 doesn't get fixed by "Thursday" they're out of business. But if the "fixed" M8 comes in at the same level of reliability as the released M8 they're out of business. It seems to me there's a high probability that the rushed fixes will be like the classic problem with the old IBM 360 operating system. Every time IBM did an upgrade to the system they fixed about 5,000 bugs but they introduced about 5,000 new ones.
As for the M8, I agree with your sentiments -- but I'm responding because it's great to see you writing about the ol' IBM Series 360. That could be a very painful and long thread indeed, if we went there. I won't get into it; I gather it might be O/T.
As for everyone else, I didn't mean to interrupt your arguing.
I cannot believe we are rehashing this one again. The original poster is clearly sympathtic to Leica and rangefinder yet has not been internet-savvy enough to see through an Internet dust-storm. rsl - what is your first name btw?- those of us that have not been swept away by hype have bought the camera - used it and found it was a true Leica in the old tradition with relatively minor teething troubles. If you read the net critically and discard hysteria and empty parroting you'll see that a considerable number of them, me included have decided to buy second bodies, use phrases like "from my dead clammy hands" "uncomparably good print quality" etc. Ask yourself what you value more: sweeping denouncements by posters who have not even ever seen the camera or at best have handled it for a few minutes or maybe hours, or the testimonials by those that are actually out there using it, some for days, most for weeks, some like me for months.
Ken Tanaka
01-05-2007, 00:02
Ken:
You're right, "teeming" is too broad a term. I do, however, believe that you will see examples of the work of many pro and serious amateur photographers which will reflect the quality of the M8. Will the internet-based examples be as clear-cut as prints? No, of course not.
I certainly agree that "the quality of a camera does not osmotically buoy the skills of its owner", and also that many of the initial M8 images have been ordinary. But the extraordinary ones point out the potential of the camera, do they not?
Like you, I am looking to create fine images, and the cameras and lenses are simply tools to use in that process. I just don't see how you can discount (except from a narrow "value" standpoint) the potential of the M8 to be an excellent tool.
By the way, I do like a number of your Chicago series images. I grew up in Evanston.
Tony C.
Tony: I do not discount the potential of the M8, or at least its prospective successor models, to be excellent tools. I am not altogether confident of anointing the M8 with such a designation since two of the seminal qualifying characteristics - reliability and consistency - currently appear elusive to the M8. Even so, nearly any camera can be used to great advantages and results in hands driven by strong determination, creativity, and skill. Witness some (by no means all) of the bodies of work created with "toy" plastic cameras.
My remark that the M8 is a "limited" photographic instrument is neither sniping nor criticism; it's simply a matter of fact with regard to the basic rangefinder camera design. My M7 is a fine selection for casual close-range work. But I don't think I'd bring it along to cover a hockey game or a shuttle launch. Conversely, there's basically nothing I could not easily cover with my dslr cameras.
I really don't mean to inflame folks. The ORIGINAL post by RSL expressed grave disappointment with, and consequent rejection of, the M8 due to its reported defects and anomalies. My response was that the camera is better than Internet commentary might suggest. If someone's in his late years and really wants to use a digital rangefinder there's no reason not to just say the hell with it and get an M8. There are, after all, only two digital rangefinders on the planet - The M8 and the Epson R-D1.
p.s. Thank you for your remarks regarding my Chicago images, Tony. C'mon back -- Chicago is a terrific place for a nosey lens!
Leica's are not suitable for everyone or for every style of photographic endeavor. I do not have an M8 yet and I have not used my M6's for a few years. I shot the attached shot with my Canon MKII 1DS and 14mm lens. The clang of the mirror and shutter was so loud, it woke up one of the sleepers who then (rightfully so) glared at me for the next 2 subway stops until I exited to proceed home.
I enjoy this type of photography and am willing to purchase the M8 with whatever flaws it may have. There are certainly plenty of opportunities to criticize the attached photo, but it is still one that I enjoy despite its "flaws".
I have seen enough work from the M8 to know that its resolution, form factor, contrast, and whatever other technical metrics that one wishes to measure are adequate for excellent images enlarged to at least 11x14 (perhaps beyond) which will satisfy my needs. It is a personal decision.
Will I dump my Canon - no way. It has served me well and there are times that it will do a task that would be a stretch for the Leica.
Will I dump my Leica lenses that I own because I have read credible sources stating that Zeiss currently has a slight technical edge over Leica lenses? No, because my current lenses are old friends and I know what to expect and appreciate their character. Lenses are similar to guitars to me - each guitar/lens has its own voice and I stick with those that strike a chord with me.
Again the best camera in the world is the one in your pocket or belt pack that you pull out to record an image that you see or imagine and derive from your environment.
Expression is a personal thing and occasionally it gains more universal appeal. Images can touch others even when not technically perfect or conforming to tried and true rules such as golden ratios etc.
So take whatever equipment you have and shoot - do not lament this or that. At the end of the day, it is a personal decision whether or not to upgrade/acquire one's equipment inventory.
I hope to see some images that you like - taken with whatever camera that you use.
Cheers
Mike Abshier
I cannot believe we are rehashing this one again. - used it and found it was a true Leica in the old tradition with relatively minor teething troubles.
That's great news Jaapv.
I'm a wedding photographer who uses and depends on two Leica M's, a new MP and a well serviced 60's M3. Love them both and they NEVER let me down. Totally dependable and reliable.
I always convert to digital for processing and album design, so the M8 will save me considerable effort.
So my question of you and Sailor Ted - can you confirm that the M8 is now so much in the Leica tradition that I can confidently now sell my film M's and buy a single M8 plus a spare battery and some cards and take advantage of the M8's reliability and dependability.
The posts on this Forum have caused me to hesitate from this, but you guys now have sufficient experience with the new camera to give a reliable answer on this.
Obviously, I depend on my M's to eat and keep a roof over my head. The MP and M3 have been so good to me, but it's time to move on.
leicaM8freak
01-05-2007, 03:10
That's great news Jaapv.
So my question of you and Sailor Ted - can you confirm that the M8 is now so much in the Leica tradition that I can confidently now sell my film M's and buy a single M8 plus a spare battery and some cards and take advantage of the M8's reliability and dependability.
The posts on this Forum have caused me to hesitate from this, but you guys now have sufficient experience with the new camera to give a reliable answer on this.
Obviously, I depend on my M's to eat and keep a roof over my head. The MP and M3 have been so good to me, but it's time to move on.
hi Rolo, I am not Jaap and not Sailor Ted, but I have some experience with the M8 in your field (wedding pics) I can only advice you to make sure when you buy your M8 to have a back up camera ready to go.
The first hundred shots you take with it you have to keep in mind that quite some pics cannot be used because of dust and grease that will invade the sensor (breaking in period as some call it) You will have to clean the sensor on a regular basis.
Next what happened to me is a complete lock up of the camera every now and then, only to be " re-set" by removing the battry and replacing it again...you do not want that to happen at the critical YES moment...
(This happened to a lot more owners)
Other then that the camera does a great job I find.
But for above reasons, it did not bring in a penny yet!! for me it was even a bigger investment, because I did not own any glass yet..so just imagine I own the M8 since beginning november last year, now it is in solms for upgrade, which might take another 3 weeks, which brings an investment without return for at least 3 months.
Basicaly my advise would be to sit back and wait for a M8 version without the initial problems mentioned...after that..it will be near to impossible to find a better camera to do the job!
Reginald. Ireland
I cannot presume to tell you what to do - but although it is a real Leica M and as such of supreme build quality, it is and remains a digital product through the nature of things. If my livelyhood depended on it I would not even begin to consider to have just one digital camera with me on assignment - be it Leica, Canon, Nikon or any you care to name. Or even any film camera for that matter. Even a Rolls Royce may require the services of the AA - more so than a Toyota as a matter of fact. Having said that, this seems to me to be an ideal wedding photographers tool, and , quite apart from all hoohah about image quality one thing is certain: any high-end digital camera will beat scanned film by magnitudes, simply by eliminating the scanning process.On top of that, it takes me considerably less than five minutes to convert and photoshop a M8 file, as opposed to what? fifteen? for scanning and working a film shot, or about ten for a Canon 10D file.
RObert Budding
01-05-2007, 03:27
I'd like to say "I feel your pain" but I do not for a very simple reason.
I continue to fail to understand why anyone would expect a company that has a long, hallowed history of making probably the finest mechanical instruments for shooting film imagery would consequently know the first thing about making electronic, digitally-based image-making gear!
There is notihng, anywhere, in the corporate culture of Leica to suggest that they would have any capability of transferring their film-based expertise to the digital milleu.
Unlike the Japanese firms, they did not invest early on in digital photography to "come up the learning curve" of the technology. Instead, they waited forever amd then figured they could buy-in - without the know-how, capital or capability of producing a "killer product" that would surpass all the others.
This was a predicted disaster by many and not a surprise.
If you want to own a label in the digi camera world - buy the Leica. But a label is all you're going to get.
I agree. That why my digital camera is a Nikon D200.
On the plus side - Leica can get away with more because of its very small and loyal base. Compare the banding problem on some Nikon D200s to the M8 fiasco. Only a small percentage of D200 cameras exhibited problems under normal circumstances. And another subset of the total population of cameras only banded under extreme lighting conditions at certain ISOs. Yet many Nikon users called for a complete recall. Nikon solved the problem and fixed affected cameras only.
And then there are folks who will proclaim the M8 superior to all other digital camera. That it rivals MF digital. Yeah, right. Has anyone making that claim used a really good DSLR? Leica is better at digital imaging than Nikon, Canon, or Sony? It must be the little red dot. Or the magical glass transforms the digital sensor.
I just can't see spending money on an M8 to fund Leica's very steep learning curve. They really should stick to making absurdly priced lenses for other manufacturers' digital bodies. Or sell Leica to Kodak or anyone else who wants it.
Need a digital street camera? Stay with your DSLR.
And then there are folks who will proclaim the M8 superior to all other digital camera. That it rivals MF digital. Yeah, right. Leica is better at digital imaging than Nikon, Canon, or Sony. It must be the little red dot.
I just can't see spending money on an M8 to fund Leica's learning curve. They really should stick to making absurdly priced lenses.
Need a digital street camera? Stay with your DSLR.
Err...slightly misinformed-the digital part is Kodak and Jenoptik, not quite newcomers in digital circles I believe. Please tell me what gave you the impression that anybody is interested in a quality contest? The point is- it is a camera of comparable picture quality to other top digital camera's - but it is a rangefinder, a system that quite a number of street photographers find superior to SLR's in their line of work/hobby. As for absurdly priced lenses, well, a lot of really nice things in this world might well be absurdly priced in your philosophy. Fair enough, but fortunately for diversity and progress, there are some that disagree. Maybe you are looking at the wrong learning curve.
But in 1972 we moved into a new house that had 7 bathrooms, counting the one in the garage, and no place to set up a darkroom.
I'm not trying to be critical, but I don't get that. SEVEN bathrooms and you couldn't put together a darkroom?
But someone who really enjoys M-style shooting, who wants to use a "digital M" today, and who's in his/her contemplative years should really not give a damn about such blather.
Ken, I only contemplate while I'm doing a 50 miler on my road bike.
emraphoto
01-05-2007, 04:43
it seems to me that a lot (well mostly all) of folks are very quickly forgetting the learning curves that nikon, canon etc. went through and are going through while producing cameras. the m8 is quickly labeled a "fiasco" and leica openly critiqued while we forget and forgive canon, nikon, olympus etc. for their less than "perfect" attempts at cameras. beyond the few owners on this forum have any of you all actually shot with an m8? a d1x? a d2x? a 20d? and so on??? they ALL had issues and some of them had real serious issues! the d1x was a $4,000 camera that would blow out highlights like you've never seen before. i had so many error messages on a 20d once the weather sank below 0 degrees i finally gave up on it. (and yes i tried a variety of cf cards) "err 99" messages on almost all aftermarket lenses? purple halo's on the 10d?!?
the d1x went on and spawned the d2x... the 10d to the 20d. and so on. are we boycotting or predicting the financial collapse of nikon or canon?
all cameras, REPEAT ALL CAMERAS have their limitations and issues. i know of problems on the 10d, 20d, 1d, 1d mk2, d1, d1h, d1x because i have used them all extensively in a professional environment. you make your choice and learn to make said particulair choice sing. period.
as for leica, folks have been predicting their demise for quite some time now... "the m4 was the LAST great film camera they built"
"the m7 is a dinosaur"
the m8 a "fiasco"
last time i checked, leica makes more than just an m8. as a matter of fact they make more than just cameras.
the issues that have been identified on the m8 will be addressed (AS HAVE ALL MAJOR ISSUES ENCOUNTERED BY ALL COMPANYS). Leica will continue to make excellant cameras. so will canon, panasonic, nikon, olympus at nausea.
i have been putting at least 1 roll of film a day through an m6 for a very long time now and it has NEVER failed me. ever. and that is why i will DEFINATELY be purchasing an m8.
end of very boring story.
john
Bike Tourist
01-05-2007, 05:13
Hello rsl —
I share the same (almost) perspective of age as you. I, too, sometimes think it a chore to drag around a DSLR — in my case a 5D — and so returned to the wonderful world of film rangefinders for most of my personal work.
Since you could not manage a darkroom, something I gave up long ago and do not miss, maybe consider farming out C-41 development to a local lab and scanning the negs. This is a viable way to go and in many ways offers the best of both worlds.
A good scanner and some Voigtlander equipment puts you in business for much less than the cost of an M8. You could be making your street photography while waiting for Leica to sort things out.
RSL:
You could always avoid imagined (or actual) catastrophe and buy an M7. With the money saved you could buy an excellent film scanner and be right smack in the middle of digital. Plus you'd be back on the street with your "small, quiet, fast, black, street rangefinder."
As I haven't the bucks yet for the film scanner, I've been making crisp black and white 8X10's in my darkroom and scanning them in to the digital world with my Epson 4990 flatbed.
Ted
Ted, Yes. I've considered that for a long time -- even buying an M4, which was my old love. But I don't really want to get back into tanks and reels and dark bags and storage bottles and funnels etc., etc. I'm a software engineer with a little company that's now a one-man show -- still working because I love that too. I'm also a retired Air Force officer and I have thousands of negatives, going all the way back to 1953 when I was a fighter pilot in Korea. I have a very good negative scanner and I've scanned hundreds of the my negatives. You can see a few at www.rslstudio.com (http://www.rslstudio.com). Once you get into digital it's awfully hard to go back to film. The D2X does superb work, but I still want a good street camera.
Yes. In the M's earliest and most popular days (mid-1950's through most of the 1960's) these cameras and lenses were well within the boundaries of professional and dedicated amateur budgets.
Ken, Right. Seems to me I paid about $650 for my brand new M4 with 50mm Summicron f/2. That was a chunk of money in those days but not the kind of chunk Leica is asking for the M8. Of course our government's driving the dollar down hasn't helped much.
Ken, Right. Seems to me I paid about $650 for my brand new M4 with 50mm Summicron f/2. That was a chunk of money in those days but not the kind of chunk Leica is asking for the M8. Of course our government's driving the dollar down hasn't helped much.
But, on the other hand, a Triumph TR4 was 4000 $ then. And a Exacta SLR maybe 150$. Circumstances change, perspectives change. I paid 3500 Dutch guilders for a M6 body in 1991. The minimum wage was about 1400 guilders then. A M8 is 4195 Euro now, the minumum wage 1400 Euro = 3000 guilders.Relatively the M8 is less expensive than the M6 if one (conservatively) counts 1000 Euro for the sensor.
I cannot presume to tell you what to do - but although it is a real Leica M and as such of supreme build quality, it is and remains a digital product through the nature of things. If my livelyhood depended on it I would not even begin to consider to have just one digital camera with me on assignment - be it Leica, Canon, Nikon or any you care to name. Or even any film camera for that matter. Even a Rolls Royce may require the services of the AA - more so than a Toyota as a matter of fact. Having said that, this seems to me to be an ideal wedding photographers tool, and , quite apart from all hoohah about image quality one thing is certain: any high-end digital camera will beat scanned film by magnitudes, simply by eliminating the scanning process.On top of that, it takes me considerably less than five minutes to convert and photoshop a M8 file, as opposed to what? fifteen? for scanning and working a film shot, or about ten for a Canon 10D file.
Jaapv,
I am a professional wedding photographer. I take 4 cameras and 2 flashguns to each wedding, plus a monolight and umbrella. Carry two cameras and leave two in the car in case of emergency.
The question was on reliability and dependability not image quality or scanning negatives (which the lab does by the way). I find image processing 150 frames from 500 is about equal with film (from scan) or digital, but it seems to be common practice to shoot almost twice as many frames with digital and that adds a lot of time at the reviewing end. Since Christmas Eve I've reviewed over 2,000 images and prepared proofs for client review.
So, whilst not guaranteed, a Leica M, even one that is 50 years old, is utterly reliable for shooting a non-repeatable event. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you are suggesting that level of confidence.
Don't get me wrong, I want two M8 bodies for this job as two fast prime lenses need to be on hand and I will still carry backup cameras, but the reliability of Nikon or Canon is necessary for event use and to truly justify the Leica brand values.
Best wishes and regards
Jaapv,
I am a professional wedding photographer. I take 4 cameras and 2 flashguns to each wedding, plus a monolight and umbrella. Carry two cameras and leave two in the car in case of emergency.
The question was on reliability and dependability not image quality or scanning negatives (which the lab does by the way). I find image processing 150 frames from 500 is about equal with film (from scan) or digital, but it seems to be common practice to shoot almost twice as many frames with digital and that adds a lot of time at the reviewing end. Since Christmas Eve I've reviewed over 2,000 images and prepared proofs for client review.
So, whilst not guaranteed, a Leica M, even one that is 50 years old, is utterly reliable for shooting a non-repeatable event. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you are suggesting that level of confidence.
Don't get me wrong, I want two M8 bodies for this job as two fast prime lenses need to be on hand and I will still carry backup cameras, but the reliability of Nikon or Canon is necessary for event use and to truly justify the Leica brand values.
Best wishes and regards
Well, Rolo, I am not a professional ( at least not in your sport;)) but an amateur with 50 years experience, of which 35 Leica. And you read my post right. I would not call the M8 as reliable as the film M'6. Having said that I would make the same comment on a Canon 1DsII versus a Canon 1V. So even as an amateur, who travels and photographs extensively, I am picking up my second M8 tomorrow. A vote of confidence in the camera - but not a vote of confidence in matters electronic....Having said that, I always travelled with two or three M or R bodies in the past.
rsl - what is your first name btw?
Jaap, my first name is "Russ."
I'm not trying to be critical, but I don't get that. SEVEN bathrooms and you couldn't put together a darkroom?
Trius, I had four teenage sons at home. Get it now?
Welcome on the forum, Russ. It is a friendly place, albeit somewhat lively since the introduction of the M8.
Sailor Ted
01-05-2007, 07:10
Rolo,
Would I use an M8 exclusively if the roof over my head, future work, or my reputation depended on it? No. Would I use any other competing digital camera exclusively? No. If I were in your shoes (I am in a way more in a minute) I would have one or two M8's and a few film cameras "just in case." I would then shoot with my digital cameras for at least six months before selling all but one film camera that way I would be covered no matter what. This plan would give me time to gain practical experience to make my final decision as to what level of redundancy I would need.
Now to my story. Two thirds of the year I work like a dog for my company- I travel across the US, Europe and Asia but the summer months are mine. My passion when I’m working (aside from the work it's self) is photography as this gives me something other then work to look forward when I’m on the road. During the summer months however I’m the sailor of a 42ft sailing boat. A boat I’ve sailed from San Francisco to Hawaii a few years back and have been sailing and exploring the Hawaiian islands with ever since. During this time my Leica Digilux 2 was totally unreliable and I used, you guessed it, my old trusty M6. That said I do not enjoy wet film process anymore and hate getting film developed almost as much as I hate scanning transparencies- so when faced with film photography as my sole option I opt not to shoot all that much.
Enter the R-D1s. I purchased one just before a business trip to China and Hong Kong this past November. Almost from the first I was delighted with a camera that shot like my M6. The images I created in difficult light were to my eye excellent and I had a ball with this camera. Three days later and the range finder went out of vertical alignment. Two weeks later and the RF was so out of whack that it was useless to focus aside from zone focus so back to Robert White it went and there it stays as I await the final call from Epson.
Enter the M8. At first I did not care for this cameras ergonomics (no longer the case.) I took it out one night and shot a bunch of streetlights trying to recreate the banding issues so common on the internet- for perhaps 50 shots. No luck (mine is a second production run chrome body from Popflash. Tony what a guy.) I used the camera a while longer and I now love this cameras ergonomics- aside from AP exposure compensation that's nested in an LCD menu. On the plus side I prefer the ISO setting on the LCD menu to that of the R-D1. Most recently I've completed (today) a product shoot under studio conditions and a day trip to San Francisco to put the camera through its paces (where I grew to respect this camera). Let me just say that the M8 is capable of IQ far and away beyond that of scanned transparences and in most ways it's an evolution of the film M. The M8 delivers on the dream of a fully digital M camera where the magic of our Leica glass comes through in images that surpass the film medium.
And now for the reliability litmus test yet to come. I will be sailing to the Line Islands on the Equator from Honolulu this spring aboard my sailboat. To photo document the crossing will I use my M8? Hell no- I’ll use my M6. The M8 will be in a Pelican case with a bunch of moisture absorbing packets along with most of my lenses. In fact the only lenses that will not be so protected will be my 25mm Snapshot Skopar and my old trusty, non-Asph 35mm Summicron. This is just a reality for most digital cameras including the M8 under such circumstances. When I get to these islands however I’ll break out the M8 and have quite the shots to share with my friends here on RFf when I return. And when I return I’ll have a very good idea regarding the long-term reliability of the M8. At this point however the M8 has a much better RF then the R-D1 and vastly superior IQ and in all ways seems as reliable as a digital camera can be without toting a huge and heavy weather sealed Canon (something I have absolutely no interest in doing.)
Sailor Ted
PS. I hope this novalla also gives rsl some insight into the M8.
PSS. Russ my father was a photography test pilot USAF during the Korean war : )
Since you could not manage a darkroom, something I gave up long ago and do not miss, maybe consider farming out C-41 development to a local lab and scanning the negs. This is a viable way to go and in many ways offers the best of both worlds.
Dick, What? Let the drugstore process my film? Over my dead body! Actually, kidding aside, I used to take film to a local processor in Can Tho, Vietnam. I think the guy was using Dektol on my film. On the other hand, some of the stuff I got wasn't bad, as per the attached. Actually, I've considered the C-41 alternative and I haven't completely thrown it out. But it's awfully hard to go back to film from digital.
----------------------
Russ Lewis
Some people are in a financial postion where $4800 (or $9600) + however many IR filters at $100+/each isn't a major consideration to spend on a hobby item, and if in a year there's a new model that doesn't need the IR filters, I'll bet most of those people will trade up and not blink at the cost of that, either. But for some of us it's a major purchase decision and one we'll need to live with for several years at least. I have serious misgivings about being obliged to have a filter over the lens because I frequently encounter situations where I need to remove my UV filter to avoid flare and ghosts. My Canon 20D produces stunning images for display on my 52" plasma TV and in prints up to 11x14 (my biggest size) with relatively inexpensive lenses, using DxO's lens corrections, and Miranda's optimized resizing and sharpening plugins. It's a bulkier setup than I like for travelling, which is why I refrain from getting a 5D, and had high hopes for the M8. Between the 20D and my M6 (as of this morning, film was still available and affordable) I choose to wait and see if there's an M9 with a stronger IR filter in the next 2-3 years. Meantime I got a refurb RD-1 but it's going to have to prove a reliable sample before I will travel with it.
Welcome on the forum, Russ. It is a friendly place, albeit somewhat lively since the introduction of the M8.
Jaap, Thanks for the welcome. It's an interesting forum. I certainly wish Leica the best, but I'm kind of in a wait-and-see configuration until I see what they do with their fixes.
As several people on the forum have pointed out, nobody's perfect, as Microsoft unfortunately has demonstrated over and over again. But I'm not really in a mood to be a paying beta tester for Leica or Microsoft. As someone said, there were plenty of problems with the earlier Nikons, and even my D2X has some corduroy banding in the viewing screen. But on balance, Nikon jumped on their problems and fixed them, though I have a really ticked off friend down the hall from my office in Colorado Springs who's a professional and bought a D1 a few days before the D1X came out. Nikon didn't fix that.
I guess my biggest worry is that Leica will rush too fast to do their fixes. I've seen that kind of thing in the software business over and over again. It would be very unLeicalike for them to do that, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
My other worry is with the fact that the digital world is moving at a pace film never matched. CCD and CMOS sensors are going to go through the same kind of explosive development LCD screens have gone through. A few years ago you couldn't afford an LCD screen for your computer. Now you can buy a huge LCD TV screen and not really go broke. Already digital can beat film hands down in color, though I'd say B&W is still a head-to-head. That situation's going to continue and the pace is going to pick up. It appears to me Leica is still thinking in terms of the old days. If they are, it's going to cost them.
Again, thanks for the welcome. Here's a handshake :)
------------------------------
Russ Lewis
jaapv & Ted,
Thank you for your speedy and honest replies. I feel that it balances the enthusiasm for what I and you believe to be a great camera and I have no doubt that the IQ is stunning.
I shot 60 frames with an M8 demo unit at a dealer event and then went back later and shot the same scene with the MP for a direct comparison. On-screen results and on paper are different, but the M8 certainly meets my requirements.
I'll continue to read your posts with interest.
Sailor Ted
01-05-2007, 07:48
Ben,
Back to the same ol circular IR filter song and dance are we? How's that R-D1 working out for ya in this regard?
: )
Everybody respects the purchase decisions we all have to make, Ben, after all it is all a matter of the level where it starts to hurt. One of the reasons why all these "It is so expensive" "Ït is relatively cheap" "It will drop 2000$ in the first year" etc posts are so irritating to all of us is that this is a very personal thing that should not have a place in a forum like this.Fortunately this thread seems not to be headed in that direction :)
Ben–
You are quite right, there is an important distinction to made between those who can easily afford to use the M8 now, and those who feel the need to be more careful about such an expenditure.
But I'm afraid that on this thread, and elsewhere, there is a tendency for some to conflate the price/value issue with the qualities and limitations of the camera itself. In other words, I fully appreciate that the M8 is expensive, and that for some, such an expenditure may only be comfortable when a more refined (future) version is produced. But that issue should be kept separate, as the cost of the camera (or car, or loudspeaker, etc.) is not relevant to its performance.
These discussions are really about the camera, and as such, the M8 can and should be assessed without regard to cost issues. Those should, ideally, be addressed in separate threads.
As a final note, I find it amusing that some knock the M8 for being much too expensive. Setting aside inflation adjustments, etc., which would put the price of the M8 in a rather different light, I can virtually gaurantee that most of the very same people wouldn't blink an eye if you were to tell them that you had just purchased a $40,000 car, when, of course, a $30,000 model would have been capable of providing exactly the same basic function, with only trivial distinctions.
And with a camera, we're talking about making art! I certainly know where I'd rather spend the extra money.
Regards,
Tony C.
Ben,
Back to the same ol circular IR filter song and dance are we? How's that R-D1 working out for ya in this regard?
: )
It's there but not as severe as the M8. But then you knew that since you have both ;) With the RD-1 I have several options not open to me with the M8. Because of the lower IR sensitivity I don't need filters in as many situations. Because of the $1395 price I can afford to buy a few filters if I really need them, and because of the $1395 price I can also afford to keep my Canon gear for times when I know it's mostly low-light indoor shooting, and because of the $1395 price I can also afford to play with it a while and if I really don't like it, sell it for what I paid for it (though I suppose for the next few months while supply is low that might be true of an M8 so we'll call it a draw on that point). What I am finding is that not having an in-camera frameline for less than a (effective) 42mm lens is very annoying, and the vignetting is definitely more severe than I've seen from the same (uncoded) lenses on the M8 despite the latter's larger sensor area. No question, the M8 is in a league above the RD-1 in many important ways. That's what makes it so infuriating to me about those blamed filters.
Ben–
But I'm afraid that on this thread, and elsewhere, there is a tendency for some to conflate the price/value issue with the qualities and limitations of the camera itself. In other words, I fully appreciate that the M8 is expensive, and that for some, such an expenditure may only be comfortable when a more refined (future) version is produced. But that issue should be kept separate, as the cost of the camera (or car, or loudspeaker, etc.) is not relevant to its performance.
Here I have to respectfully disagree. Basing expectations on price is not something people invented for the M8, it's an accepted fact of consumerism. Accepted by consumers and exploited by manufacturers. If you want to try and convince the world that cost and performance are not mutually relevant, all I can say is, good luck with that. Some people can compress a wide range of cost into a single arbitrary category and not hold anything within that range to different standards. But eventually all sensible people no matter how wealthy they are, place a higher expectation on higher-priced items...whether that expectation is in terms of performance, quality, or perhaps just status.
Sailor Ted
01-05-2007, 10:00
Ben in regard to price I have to say this is a very different concern- valid but not in the context of the M8's performance. The fact is the M8 is the best DRF by vast and wide margin. Agreed it would be nice if it also never required an IR cut filter but so be it. When assessing the performance of a 200k Ferrari one could draw the comparison based on price and specs that the newest Corvette is in the same league (as the Ferrari) and in some respects it is. However when taking the less tangible subjective reality of driving experience, fit and finish, engine sound, handling and how the machine coveys it's reaching of it's limits the Ferrari is in a whole different universe. Just as the M8 is when compared to other digital cameras- DSLR or DRF. If the M8’s strong suites are what you seek in a digital camera then no amount of money will deliver the M8 experience except an M8 (of course.)
Back on track regarding IQ you can see in images made with the M8 even from the low rez perspective of a calibrated high quality monitor that it has a certain three dimensionality and color saturation like that of the best film cameras- M or other wise. Again this is irrespective of price and quite unlike anything else currently available on the market at this time. I will also add that these qualities are nothing short of breathtaking when viewed in the context of a top quality print.
Ted
"Here I have to respectfully disagree. Basing expectations on price is not something people invented for the M8, it's an accepted fact of consumerism. Accepted by consumers and exploited by manufacturers. If you want to try and convince the world that cost and performance are not mutually relevant, all I can say is, good luck with that. Some people can compress a wide range of cost into a single arbitrary category and not hold anything within that range to different standards. But eventually all sensible people no matter how wealthy they are, place a higher expectation on higher-priced items...whether that expectation is in terms of performance, quality, or perhaps just status."
I never suggested that price isn't, or shouldn't be a relevant variable for either the consumer or the manufacturer; of course should be. But when a serious assessment is done on any product, whether an M8 or a point and shoot, a Porsche or a Ford, the cost of the product is irrelevant. That is to say that there are two assessments to be made, only one of which should include questions relating to cost/value.
The consumer (or professional test driver) who takes the newest 911 out for a spin isn't likely to be thinking "wow, great handling and acceleration for a $90,000 car." The car has certain performance characteristics, period. Of course the individual consumer will eventually decide whether or not those charachteristics (and other qualities) warrant a particular expenditure, but that is a separate issue.
The M8 has certain performance characteristics, design characteristics, etc. It is preferable, in my view, to initially explore and discuss them without the cost variable coloring one's reaction. Then, it goes without saying that each individual consumer will decide for him or herself whether or not it represents good, acceptable, or poor value at its price.
Tony C.
I will also add that these qualities are nothing short of breathtaking when viewed in the context of a top quality print.
Ted
This I can only endorse. I have never seen top quality prints from a 1DsII so I cannot compare. My cousin shoots a couple of top-level Nikons and a Kodak whacumecallit 14 whatever pro but those do not even come close.(The Kodak though rather more so than the Nikon)
Richard Marks
01-05-2007, 10:59
Dear heartbroken RSL
Stop sobbing
Get hold of a demo model and go take some pictures. This camera is brilliant in my opinion.
The real question is do you want a rangefinder. if you do , this is a significant development.
The only opinion that matters is yours.
Try the camera and then report back (please)
Richard
The consumer (or professional test driver) who takes the newest 911 out for a spin isn't likely to be thinking "wow, great handling and acceleration for a $90,000 car."
If it was me and the Porsche came without windshield wipers, omitted allegedly to increase aerodynamics, and I was given the option of a free squeegee to reach around and wipe off the rain, I agree I would consider the car's cost irrelevant--as well as the great handling and acceleration ;)
Sailor Ted
01-05-2007, 11:28
Ben,
Oh please certainly the M8 has no such egregious issues at least not from the perspective of this photog who actually owns one. On a slightly different note however, a few years back when riding my Ducati 999 through a Southern California mountain pass I happened upon a group of 911 (Porsche) pilots on the side of the road and in a bit of a dilemma. You see it was beginning to frost up and they had removed their windshield wipers for just the reasons you put forth. I rode away laughing out loud in my helmet at that one.
Ted
Ben,
Oh please certainly the M8 has no such egregious issues at least not from the perspective of this photog who actually owns one. On a slightly different note however, a few years back when riding my Ducati 999 through a Southern California mountain pass I happened upon a group of 911 (Porsche) pilots on the side of the road and in a bit of a dilemma. You see it was beginning to frost up and they had removed their windshield wipers for just the reasons you put forth. I rode away laughing out loud in my helmet at that one.
Ted
Uh huh, now imagine you're shooting in a banquet hall and there's spotlights overhead and you can't take off your IR filter to avoid flare and ghosts because everyone is in black evening wear, and some wiseguy walks by with a digital ELPH and laughs at you ;)
I personally would not dream of visiting a banquet hall where they would be so plebian as to wear PLASTIC tuxedo's.
Sailor Ted
01-05-2007, 11:55
Ben,
You got me I'm selling my M8 and getting the ELPH. Now imagine I ride a train through China taking pictures of a fascinating and vanishing village culture, all of National Geographic caliber, and all with the help of my M8. Now imagine everything I need for this one-month adventure fits in a small backpack- cloths, camera, lenses, everyting. Wait don't imagine- I'm making this pilgrimage, hopefully very soon, and will share the results when I return.
Ben this is getting to be a bit of a broken record and what you always revert to. I have found no shortcomings in the M8 that cannot be corrected for either with filters or post process. What I have found are prints of a breathtaking three dimensional clairity not matched by my R-D1s or any prints I’ve seen from Canon DSLR's- and I've seen a lot of those as all my friends shoot with Canon and they're as adamant about their kit as I am about mine. That said they're all envious of the M8's size and IQ- every last one of them acknowledges when viewing my prints they exhibit a saturation and depth of color combined with a natural sharpness more film like then anything their cameras can produce.
Ted
patrickjames
01-05-2007, 12:55
I find it funny to read these M8 threads because they are usually filled with comments by people who with all due respect really haven't a clue. The people who own a M8 say that they appreciate the camera. It is not exactly perfect but little in this world is. The camera is a tool. The photographer takes the pictures, not the camera. Every camera has limitations for the photographer. Think about it. The IR issue can be avoided with filters and the banding has been solved the last I had heard. What is there left to complain about? If you don't want to buy one because it is too expensive then don't. If you have money to burn and want one go for it. If you don't have one and will never buy one then just give it a rest. The only people who have a right to complain are the ones with the camera.
Ben,
You got me I'm selling my M8 and getting the ELPH. Now imagine I ride a train through China taking pictures of a fascinating and vanishing village culture, all of National Geographic caliber, and all with the help of my M8. Now imagine everything I need for this one-month adventure fits in a small backpack
"all of National Geographic caliber"??? I hope you're not planning on trying to stuff your ego into that little backpack too :D
I have found no shortcomings in the M8 that cannot be corrected for either with filters or post process.
Just because you haven't found any situations where you would get either flare/ghosts from the filters or magenta without them, that you couldn't successfully deal with in Photoshop doesn't mean you won't, or that others won't. Flare off of the filters in fact has already been reported by several people.
every last one of them acknowledges when viewing my prints they exhibit a saturation and depth of color combined with a natural sharpness more film like then anything their cameras can produce.
I'm sure every last one of your friends knows better than to challenge your opinions ;)
The only people who have a right to complain are the ones with the camera.
I suppose you would say the only people with a right to complain about the destruction of the ozone layer are those with skin cancer. Some of us had $4800 cash in hand ready to plunk down on the dealer's counter until we found out we'd need another grand of filters, and that would give us flare if we take them off in the very same situations they're needed most to combat IR, i.e. point-source artificial lighting such as a theater or reception or outdoors at night, where there are people dressed in some black clothing. If we complain, Leica will know there are a lot more people out there they could sell an M8 to if all they do is fix the sensor so the filters aren't needed. Of course, then all the early-adopters will be the ones complaining ;)
Sailor Ted
01-05-2007, 13:27
Ben perhaps you should go back to the R-D1 board and extoll the day before yesterday's technology that's certainly perfect and stop Trolling this board?
Ted
Sailor Ted
01-05-2007, 13:36
I find it funny to read these M8 threads because they are usually filled with comments by people who with all due respect really haven't a clue. The people who own a M8 say that they appreciate the camera. It is not
Patrick,
Agreed but fortunately it's confined to a handful of people with predictable circular rhetoric.
Ted
Ben perhaps you should go back to the R-D1 board and extoll the day before yesterday's technology that's certainly perfect
You mean, that which has less IR contamination and produces less magenta blacks than the M8's cutting-edge technology of today? :D
Patrick,
Agreed but fortunately it's confined to a handful of people with predictable circular rhetoric.
Ted
You mean, that the M8 (which they've got at least $5000 invested in) is the best camera on earth, out-resolving anything with more sensor area and more pixels? Or that filters don't cause flare? :D
Sailor Ted
01-05-2007, 14:23
Aside from the R-D1s inherent softness and lack of dynamic contrast as compared to the M8 it exhibits serious filter / sensor flare as exhibited in the following two shots. Look around the florescent fixtures both shot on San Francisco's BART- one with the R-D1 and the other with the M8. As always please see my Flickr account for the full res images.
saxshooter
01-05-2007, 14:28
The clang of the mirror and shutter was so loud, it woke up one of the sleepers who then (rightfully so) glared at me for the next 2 subway stops until I exited to proceed home.
Apologize for O/T, but Mike, there is a "silent mode" on the camera. You have to set it via personal functions (firewire hooked up to camera via computer). Use the camera on single frame advance. It is VERY quiet. It only drops the mirror back down when you let go of the shutter button.
Let's all just all agree to a point somewhere in the middle. The M8 is simply a digital camera that in low and moderate ISO situations, produce images equally as good or no better than the other high-end digital cameras in its class. My comment is supported by the fact that from all the M8 images we've seen, none of them stand out due to the fact that the M8 has an image sensor capable of higher image quality. The only obvious advantage of the M8 is that it is more compact than the DSLRs in its class.
Leica's are not suitable for everyone or for every style of photographic endeavor. I do not have an M8 yet and I have not used my M6's for a few years. I shot the attached shot with my Canon MKII 1DS and 14mm lens. The clang of the mirror and shutter was so loud, it woke up one of the sleepers who then (rightfully so) glared at me for the next 2 subway stops until I exited to proceed home.
Sorry guy, no sympathy for you there. Who attempts discrete street photography with a 1DS camera!? There are lots of cameras out there. Your options are not limited to just 1DS or M8. The 5D for example, has a very quiet shutter.
Sailor Ted
01-05-2007, 14:36
Further evidence regarding sensor/filter flare on the R-D1 shot on a Zeiss 21mm f2.8 and 12mm CV f5.6. As always please see my Flickr account for the ful rez image.
This your Duc, Ted ?
Sorry couldn't resist :)
Roland.
Actually I'm willing to give these gentlemen, whose work indicates a discerning eye, the benefit of doubt that the M8 is capable of print quality of an exceptional level. Frankly I wish I could believe it's just average, because it would make it's fatal IR flaw less tragic. As it is, it's just a crying shame that such an otherwise magnificent camera was given a club foot through some unfathomable bumble by one or more of the technology partners Leica relied upon to craft it.
Sailor Ted
01-05-2007, 14:43
High ISO (640) images all shot on the M8- 800 ISO on the R-D1 according to Sean Reid Reviews. As allways please see my Flickr account for the full rez image.
Ted, I actually like the look of the flares in your pics. In fact, I don't find them distracting at all. I almost wish that these were the first M8 pics that we were exposed to...
Further evidence regarding sensor/filter flare on the R-D1 shot on a Zeiss 21mm f2.8 and 12mm CV f5.6. As always please see my Flickr account for the ful rez image.
I think it might be possible to fix those florescent light flares in Photoshop. The kind of flare you get off a front filter is impossible to fix because it veils large areas of the image. Believe me I'm a staunch UV-protector guy, not one of those "never put a filter in front of sacred Leica glass" guys, and I can tell just by looking at a shot when I had better take the MRC-UV off or else.
Not to mention, heaven forbid you want to use some other kind of filter like a polarizer and have to stack it on top of the IR-486 instead of replacing one with the other.
Sailor Ted
01-05-2007, 14:52
ywenz,
Yes it is not an issue for me either. However if this were the case with the M8 this R-D1 "defect" that has gone largely unnoticed would be all the rage just as the R-D1s magenta cast was/is a non issue with the Epson. The thing the Epson cannot match when compared to the M8 is IQ. The Leica's print quality is unlike any thing I have ever seen from a digital non medium format camera- Canon included. These prints must be seen to be believed.
My shot "Daddy's Little Princess" is available for download on my Flickr account in full rez however in jpeg and 8 bit format. Anyone one who wishes to get an idea of the print quality this camera is capable of need look no further then this.
Ted
High ISO (640) images all shot on the M8- 800 ISO on the R-D1 according to Sean Reid Reviews. As allways please see my Flickr account for the full rez image.
I don't know why you insist on harping (circular rhetoric?) on trying to show that the 3 yr old 6MP RD-1 available for $1395 as a refurb, is not as competent as the brand-new 10MP $4800 M8. I never claimed they were equal, only that given another 3 years of technology, plus help from Kodak and Jenoptik, plus the ability to recoup R&D through a $4800 price and a guaranteed loyal customer base, I don't see why the M8 had to be not even equal but worse than the RD-1 in IR sensitivity even if it's better in every other respect.
Sailor Ted
01-05-2007, 14:57
Not to mention, heaven forbid you want to use some other kind of filter like a polarizer and have to stack it on top of the IR-486 instead of replacing one with the other.
Ben,
Yea like at your banquet plastic tux extravaganza? Sometimes the camera is the TOOL and some times it's the photographer.
Ted
Sailor Ted
01-05-2007, 14:57
I don't know why you insist on harping (circular rhetoric?) on trying to show that the 3 yr old 6MP RD-1 available for $1395 as a refurb, is not as competent as the brand-new 10MP $4800 M8. I never claimed they were equal, only that given another 3 years of technology, plus help from Kodak and Jenoptik, plus the ability to recoup R&D through a $4800 price and a guaranteed loyal customer base, I don't see why the M8 had to be not even equal but worse than the RD-1 in IR sensitivity even if it's better in every other respect.
Ben,
Where prey tell can I find the R-D2?
Ted
Actually, I find the suggestion of 1000$ worth of filters wildly off the mark. I own an extravagant ten lenses equally extravagantly two M8 bodies. That means four free filters, and six I have to buy. B&W pro 486 filters have set me back an average of 50 Euro's apiece with the internet shop of FotoHuppert. That makes 300 Euro or 400$. The average M8 owner can safely be assumed to own four lenses. That means two to be filtered, or 130$. For 1000$ one would have to own an astounding 15 lenses for one camera. Even if it were reality that those were 15 Jupiters of 20$ each, it hardly seems to be congruent with buying a 5000$ camera body. Either that or you are seriously being ripped off by your filter supplier.
As to the stacking of a polarizer onto an IR cut filter: yes that is necessary. Yes it flies into the face of all photographic wisdom to do so. But also yes - there is no problem. Why? because a polarizer works only when the light is at 90 degrees to the optical axis. A minimum flare situation.
I thought there was a forum rule; to start a 'hand wringing thread' you had to own the camera :confused:
but what do I know. I'm just a 64 year old youngster, enjoying his M8....
:)
[QUOTE=gogopix]I thought there was a forum rule; to start a 'hand wringing thread' you had to own the camera :confused: [QUOTE]
No offense, but only in your dreams..
Sailor Ted
01-05-2007, 15:58
[quote=gogopix]I thought there was a forum rule; to start a 'hand wringing thread' you had to own the camera :confused: [quote]
No offense, but only in your dreams..
Now that's both very funny and true ! : )
As for everyone else, I didn't mean to interrupt your arguing.
Sounds like it may be time for some more Tim's coffee? :D
GO LEAFS GO!
Toronto 10 - Boston 2
Today, however, the M8 is more of a curio than a practical camera.
With all due respect ... Oh PLEASE. The rest of your post contradicts this, but just suppose for a moment that a pro (or "amateur" with an entrepreneurial bent) makes some photos with the M8 that sell and provide payback with one shoot. Is that a curio? Are you saying it won't ever happen?
Others added comments, and I haven't read the entire thread, so I'm not trying to pile on. But man, think about stuff before you write it.
Yeah, it may not be worth it for you, but that hardly qualifies as a curio for everyone in the whole freakin world.
HOWEVER ... given your skill, I'd love to see an M8 in your hands....
Trius, I had four teenage sons at home. Get it now?
Nope. 4 teenage sons, (presumably) 2 parents = 6 individuals. Seems like a pretty big house to me.
Russ: BTW, no animosity, I'm just playing my usual devil's advocate role. What matters are the pics. And the Leafs. :D
Nope. 4 teenage sons, (presumably) 2 parents = 6 individuals. Seems like a pretty big house to me.
Five bedrooms, each with its own bathroom. One downstairs powder room, and one half-bath in the garage. Which one would you capture?
Russ: BTW, no animosity, I'm just playing my usual devil's advocate role. What matters are the pics. And the Leafs. :D
Trius, No offense taken. It's a fair question. Yes, I agree that what really matters is the pics -- how they feel to you more importantly than how they feel to anyone else.
I've been selling prints out of four galleries in the Colorado Springs area for a few years, and I did a five-page full color spread in the December issue of Focus. But in the end, I'm a lot more interested in what I get with my camera than in what I sell, or what I show, or even what anyone else thinks about my stuff. What Cartier-Bresson meant by the "decisive moment" was the rush you get when everything suddenly comes together and you trip the shutter. That's really the end-all -- at least for your personal work. Last summer I spent nine days on the prairies in 106 degree weather shooting deserted farm houses and dying towns. Now, when I look at those prints with time captured in them like a bug in amber, the rush comes back. Nothing else I know of is quite like that.
Sailor Ted
01-05-2007, 17:24
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamebait
espressogeek
01-05-2007, 17:26
I shot the attached shot with my Canon MKII 1DS and 14mm lens. The clang of the mirror and shutter was so loud, it woke up one of the sleepers who then (rightfully so) glared at me for the next 2 subway stops until I exited to proceed home.
Then you will be horrified by the Leica as it sound like a small toy pistol going off. I was shocked at how loud it is.
Teething problems for digital products are common to all manufacturers. The Hassy H1 had lockup problems, Leaf has a disastrous problem with their current $30,000 back and its got to be at least a 5th gen product, they have been making digital backs as long as anyone. I've always found Apple computers to be very reliable. But the last desktop I got was a lemon, something about the build just never really worked right.
M compatible digital RF has some unique technical problems, so Leicas first effort has some unique compromises. But I have looked at some M8 RAW files, and the image quality is up there with cameras costing similar amounts. Digital is incrediblly expensive compared to the analog stuff it replaced. I paid $8000 for a 1Ds when it was Canon's flagship. A few years before I would have told you you were crazy if you told me I would be laying out that kind of dough for a Canon body (or even if you told me I'd be using a Canon). The 1Ds MKIIs is well over 6,000. despite the fact that you can get the 5D for less then half that. So the current Leica flagship is quite a bit less money then Canon's top of the line offering. I never thought I'd live to see that.
It's understandable if many will pass on being early adopters of Leica digital, it's generally a bad idea to be first in line for any new digital product. But to call the M8 a curio or a joke is nonsense. I've looked at the RAW files from the camera and they speak for themselves. If you want a digital RF that can produce files in the same league as Canon/Nikon's top of the line and are compatible with the entire range of Leica lens going back 50 or more years then the M8 is in a class of one. If you think RF photography is a quaint throwback to more primitive times that should be relagated to a museum, well then there are plenty of DSLR's to choose from.
Sailor Ted
01-05-2007, 17:35
Then you will be horrified by the Leica as it sound like a small toy pistol going off. I was shocked at how loud it is.
Espressogeek,
While it is true that the Leica has a sonic signature louder then what we might expect from an "M" camera, it is neither as loud as the aforementioned Canon nor is it loud from the distance of opposing sides of a subway car. Case in point- I have several shots using the M8 on my Flickr account at less then four feet from the subject and they had no idea their picture had been taken.
Ted
boilerdoc2
01-05-2007, 18:23
I used my M8 in church on Christmas eve and no one was the wiser! It has to be a little louder because of the shutter re cocking and the metal (not cloth) shutter. It is a whole heck of a lot quieter thatn any SLR!!!!
Bugs? Sure. Solveable? Absolutely. But... buy the IR filters unless you're shooting for B&W. Magenta is an understatement for indoors stuff!
Sharp? REALLY sharp. See the veins in your eye sharp!
Steve
The reasons for wanting an M8 are not that complex. That is if you want a camera capable of the best or near the best photo files in a simple, compact body that is also very cool and a chick magnet to boot. What more is there to understand ?
Rex
Teething problems for digital products are common to all manufacturers. The Hassy H1 had lockup problems, Leaf has a disastrous problem with their current $30,000 back and its got to be at least a 5th gen product, they have been making digital backs as long as anyone. I've always found Apple computers to be very reliable. But the last desktop I got was a lemon, something about the build just never really worked right.
M compatible digital RF has some unique technical problems, so Leicas first effort has some unique compromises. But I have looked at some M8 RAW files, and the image quality is up there with cameras costing similar amounts. Digital is incrediblly expensive compared to the analog stuff it replaced. I paid $8000 for a 1Ds when it was Canon's flagship. A few years before I would have told you you were crazy if you told me I would be laying out that kind of dough for a Canon body (or even if you told me I'd be using a Canon). The 1Ds MKIIs is well over 6,000. despite the fact that you can get the 5D for less then half that. So the current Leica flagship is quite a bit less money then Canon's top of the line offering. I never thought I'd live to see that.
It's understandable if many will pass on being early adopters of Leica digital, it's generally a bad idea to be first in line for any new digital product. But to call the M8 a curio or a joke is nonsense. I've looked at the RAW files from the camera and they speak for themselves. If you want a digital RF that can produce files in the same league as Canon/Nikon's top of the line and are compatible with the entire range of Leica lens going back 50 or more years then the M8 is in a class of one.
Thank you for summing up nicely, Hank.
Athena,
And your point is? And this forum is for what? Surely not JUST a place for those who do not own an M8 to cast dispersion on the camera and those of us who enjoy it? The arrogance of people who denigrate M8 users when we present our side of the M8 story especially after they (you) throw the first stone is beyond me.
Ted
Please do not confuse ME with THEY. That is an act of sterotyping that is very offensive.
And, BTW, it was NOT the presentation of your "side" of the "M8 story" that I found most offensive. It was your characterization as "cheap" of the CV lens you used in your picture post!
CHEAP is a perjorative word that indicates of low quality and not worth what one pays for it.
In fact, the CV lenses I have used represent extraordinary VALUE.
VALUE as in the sense of acquiring an item at a lower cost that provide excellent performance that is as, or nearly as, comparable to competitor products that are priced at multiples thereof.
Sadly, you seem to confuse your ability to afford objects with their concomitant value. There are those of us who can also afford what you can - but who seek value over brand prestige.
Enjoy your M8 - but it will never be worth its price because, while it is expensive, it lacks "value".
Sailor Ted
01-06-2007, 02:32
Please do not confuse ME with THEY. That is an act of sterotyping that is very offensive.
And, BTW, it was NOT the presentation of your "side" of the "M8 story" that I found most offensive. It was your characterization as "cheap" of the CV lens you used in your picture post!
CHEAP is a perjorative word that indicates of low quality and not worth what one pays for it.
In fact, the CV lenses I have used represent extraordinary VALUE.
VALUE as in the sense of acquiring an item at a lower cost that provide excellent performance that is as, or nearly as, comparable to competitor products that are priced at multiples thereof.
Sadly, you seem to confuse your ability to afford objects with their concomitant value. There are those of us who can also afford what you can - but who seek value over brand prestige.
Enjoy your M8 - but it will never be worth its price because, while it is expensive, it lacks "value".
Athena,
In your mind is there any difference between either the words or the concepts of "Cheap" vs. "Inexpensive?” In reality there is a world of difference. Here is what I actually wrote, and to what Athena is referring and taking great offense from on page 2 of this thread-
Here is what one can expect from the M8 and an inexpensive CV 12mm lens.
Athena at first I was a bit surprised at the pompous nature of your original post to this thread (really it is a good read and I recommend it to anyone interested- see below). Now however after reading your last post I see that being "pompous" is just a nature of your "personality" (such as it is) after all you not only profess to understand the intimate inner workings of the corporate culture of Leica corp., you also posses an attitude to assume you can determine what is not only a good value for yourself, but also for everyone else.
Perhaps Athena you should stop projecting so much into the world and actually open your eyes and "see." Start by looking up the words "cheap" and "inexpensive" in the dictionary as in this case your projection prevented you from reading what I actually wrote.
Case in point taken from Jaapv's thread explaining why he decided to purchase a second M8 body.
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!!
Athena your above post shows your inability to reconcile the world as you "project" it and as it is for someone else- it may just be a simple lack of empathy or it may be more serious. Again perhaps you should stop projecting so much- you'll see things quite differently. Despite all the glowing reports from M8 owners (myself included) you cling to your preconceptions and profess to be confused by our points as to why we love our cameras. "Reports I've heard"? start reading not the opinions of those who do not own the camera above the reports of those of us who actually do unless you have some vested interest or insecurity that causes you not to like the M8. Athena the merit of the M8 is an "inductive" and not a "deductive" argument. Reaching a conclusion before all the facts are in is a fallacy of reasoning. Do this often and the world becomes a bewildering place.
Ted
Lastly this is Athena's first post to the thread- this really puts it all in perspective.
I'd like to say "I feel your pain" but I do not for a very simple reason.
I continue to fail to understand why anyone would expect a company that has a long, hallowed history of making probably the finest mechanical instruments for shooting film imagery would consequently know the first thing about making electronic, digitally-based image-making gear!
There is notihng, anywhere, in the corporate culture of Leica to suggest that they would have any capability of transferring their film-based expertise to the digital milleu.
Unlike the Japanese firms, they did not invest early on in digital photography to "come up the learning curve" of the technology. Instead, they waited forever amd then figured they could buy-in - without the know-how, capital or capability of producing a "killer product" that would surpass all the others.
This was a predicted disaster by many and not a surprise.
If you want to own a label in the digi camera world - buy the Leica. But a label is all you're going to get.
Five bedrooms, each with its own bathroom. One downstairs powder room, and one half-bath in the garage. Which one would you capture?
With all the space, rip out the 1/2 bath in the garage, make it a real darkroom. Cars are better left outside. :angel:
Cars are better left outside.
Not in Colorado in the winter!
Actually, I find the suggestion of 1000$ worth of filters wildly off the mark. I own an extravagant ten lenses equally extravagantly two M8 bodies. That means four free filters, and six I have to buy. B&W pro 486 filters have set me back an average of 50 Euro's apiece with the internet shop of FotoHuppert. That makes 300 Euro or 400$. The average M8 owner can safely be assumed to own four lenses. That means two to be filtered, or 130$. For 1000$ one would have to own an astounding 15 lenses for one camera. Even if it were reality that those were 15 Jupiters of 20$ each, it hardly seems to be congruent with buying a 5000$ camera body. Either that or you are seriously being ripped off by your filter supplier.
First of all, I hope you're not proposing it a reasonable economic strategy to buy a second M8 to get 2 more free filters:D Second, I own twelve lenses, all older and bought used and several are Voitlanders so I probably didn't spend as much for all of them as it would cost for two new Leica lenses today. Third, take a look at the prices for those 486 filters at B&H, in the US where I live and buy things. Last, so far the only IR filters that have been clearly marked "MRC" are the ones Sean got from Leica, and I will not spend a dime on single-coated filters. I shudder to think how much those non-free Leica filters will cost but unless I could be sure the ones I'd get from B&H were MRC I wouldn't buy the B+W's. So $1000 is actually a little on the conservative side, if you really want as flare-resistant a band-aid for the M8 as possible.
Ben,
Yea like at your banquet plastic tux extravaganza? Sometimes the camera is the TOOL and some times it's the photographer.
Ted
Resorting to a juvenile personal attack is either a sign you've run out of intelligent points to support your opinion, or else that you think this is photo.net :D
BTW, the notion that only "synthetic" black fabric is affected by the IR is a fiction created by Leica's PR department to minimize the ubiquitousness of the problem. There are numerous other things that are thrown off including "natural" black fabric, certain metallic objects, and green foliage in daylight, to name just a few.
Ben, I started the plastic tuxedo thing, it was tongue in cheek.... But really, don't you think this IR filter thing is a fact of life by now that one either accepts or does not accept. I think all points on both sides have been made by now and we are starting to go round in circles.
True, but I think Leica should be aware that they are losing an enormous number of sales as a result, a lot more than they lost by having a cropped sensor with the same number of megapixels as a Rebel XTi and much poorer high-ISO noise. That much even I was willing to accept in return for its other virtues. And looking at Leica's history, they really need to be bombarded from every direction with lots of noise and flashing lights to wake up just as they're teetering once again at the brink of bankruptcy. I'm a lot more loyal to Leica than those who accept and praise the shameful way they've pawned off these filters as a so-called fix, or point to the current waiting lists as an indicator of enduring demand for the camera as-is. When the temporary backlog clears in 2-3 months, I'm sadly sure you'll see sales of the M8 will fall off rapidly to a trickle.
I agree that synethetic black fabric is not the only problematic items for the M8. Just look at all the new owners on the Leica user forum with their "look at this great image from my M8" threads when in reality it is merely a poor picture that is a perfect example of the M8's IR problem and there was no synthetic black fabric at all in the image.
http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/12968-last-m8-arrived.html
http://www.leica-camera-user.com/attachments/digital-forum/20570d1167948960-last-m8-arrived-l1000019-1-.jpg
Oh, the M8 war of words has reignited...
My opinion has been voiced here many times and I, like Athena, caught a lot of grief.
I just wonder why some owner(s) are so strongly compelled to shout out their praise and to question the intelligence of and insult the critics whenever critical comments appear here.
I have some theories but I don't want to fan the flames any more.
In any event , I think that the proof is in the pudding -- that is to say the pictures that the M8 lovers take.
I suggest that when someone slams the M8 (or M8 owners) in the future that those who feel compelled to react defensively do so with all of the wonderful photographs they have taken -- not with words.
As for waiting lists...
As of yesterday afternoon, Precision Camera in Austin (http://www.precision-camera.com/) has a black M8 sitting forlornly in its display case.
The demand in Austin apparently isn't that strong.
Give them a call at 866-802-8500 if this one has your name on it.
One of the things that concerns me about all this is that if I buy an M8 and like it ... I'm seen as a zealot trying to justify the expense! If I criticise the camera without owning it I'm a tosser! If I own it but don't like it I'm an outcast! If I like it but don't own it I'm a dreamer .... there's nowhere to go! :confused:
>I buy an M8 and like it ... I'm seen as a zealot trying to justify the expense!
Not if you let your photographs do the talking...
>I buy an M8 and like it ... I'm seen as a zealot trying to justify the expense!
Not if you let your photographs do the talking...
But what if I'm just a crap photographer and feel self conscious about it? :D :D
Ken Tanaka
01-06-2007, 10:34
One of the things that concerns me about all this is that if I buy an M8 and like it ... I'm seen as a zealot trying to justify the expense! If I criticise the camera without owning it I'm a tosser! If I own it but don't like it I'm an outcast! If I like it but don't own it I'm a dreamer .... there's nowhere to go! :confused:
Now that's the funniest, and perhaps most insightful, comment I've seen here!
Think carefully as you pick your pox.
One of the things that concerns me about all this is that if I buy an M8 and like it ... I'm seen as a zealot trying to justify the expense! If I criticise the camera without owning it I'm a tosser! If I own it but don't like it I'm an outcast! If I like it but don't own it I'm a dreamer .... there's nowhere to go! :confused:
Good point, Keith, good point :)
And you are not a "crap photographer", I like your postal lady, her Rottie, and the guy on the deck !
There is a whole bunch of good photographers on RFF who have apparently bought the camera and just use it, without many comments in the M8 threads ....
Check with blakely, gabrielma, furcafe, etc. Cann't wait for their gallery updates !
Roland.
willie_901
01-06-2007, 11:02
I agree that synethetic black fabric is not the only problematic items for the M8. Just look at all the new owners on the Leica user forum with their "look at this great image from my M8" threads when in reality it is merely a poor picture that is a perfect example of the M8's IR problem and there was no synthetic black fabric at all in the image.
You are certainly correct.
A careful examination the M8's color space response in the Luminous Landscape's initial M8 review, reveals the black ---> magenta problem is not the only IR/color problem in M8 images.
willie
Picking out a crappy photo that's been posted online as proof that the M8 is crap is a bit lame, as there are millions of crappy photos on the net taken with every make and model of camera in existense. By that standard all cameras suck.
If you want to compare, ask someone for the raw files of a few well taken images and put them up against anything out there. They will hold up fine. As to performance at 3200 or 2500 ISO. I rarely used anything but ISO100 slide film in 35mm as 400+ color neg looked nasty in such a small format, by comparison the M8's 640ISO is excellent.
As someone else said the filters are either acceptable to you or not. The image quality is there, if the ergonomics of the camera (filters and all) work for you it's an excellent tool. Costs more then a 5D? so does the 1DS and 1Ds MKII and in print you'd rarely be able to tell the difference. I don't get the over the top hyperbole (on both sides) when it comes to discussing a lowly device for taking pictures. Leica set out to produce a digital M and they did it, not well enough for some because of price, or not being full frame or the filter requirements or the shutter sound. But I think it likely will be good enough for enough photographers to keep Leica digital development going.
Are the buyers dupes, no -are those that feel the camera doesn't float their boat in present configuration idiots, no. There are a million reasons for choosing to buy or not buy any particular tool. Different strokes -can't we all just get along:)
Ywenz, I don't think you can use somebody else's tottering first steps on the digital road this way. Quite apart from the fact that we all started off with crappy digital photo's, there is such a thing as copyright.
>But what if I'm just a crap photographer and feel self conscious about it?
Then enjoy your cameras and keep quiet about it! :)
My two cents after reading this thread and thinking it rather silly:
I bought an M8 as it's the only tool in the digital realm that I'd actually enjoy using and working with. It cast the same as my M7 did two years ago and I can use all my lenses on it. I always use a UV filter and have not once lost a shot because of reflections and/or flare. This may be a different story in the digital realm because of the reflective coating on the CCD, but, practically, I don' t see this being a problem for to warrent a compromise on my part and moving to a DSLR system I'd loath to carry 100% of the time like I do with my M7.
As I said in one of my first posts on this forum, I love using a rangefinder system. Picking up the M8, after worrying for years about the cost involved in shooting trannies (New Zealand prices are insane) rocking around with a digital equivilent was invigorating to say the least. It made me smile. That's why I bought it.
Tim
Harry Lime
01-06-2007, 16:00
RSL:
You could always avoid imagined (or actual) catastrophe and buy an M7. With the money saved you could buy an excellent film scanner and be right smack in the middle of digital. Plus you'd be back on the street with your "small, quiet, fast, black, street rangefinder."
Ted
You just described me. A pile of M, R, LTM and Rolleiflex gear and a Nikon 9000ED scanner. Get the Nikon 5000 or SCS5000ED if you are only scanning 35mm.
Last year I bought a Canon 5D and ended up selling it after 6 months. I prefered the look of Tri-X and I missed my small and unobtrusive M cameras. The 5D is a great camera, but it just wasn't for me.
HL
Harry Lime
01-06-2007, 16:28
I don't think the M8 is as seriously flawed, as it is made out to be.
Obviously the IR issue is the biggest hurdle, but this problem can be completely solved with an IR filter. Not a perfect solution, but given the choice between having to use a filter and not having the M8, I'll take the filter- thank you very much. If you only shoot B/W the IR problem may not even be an issue.
Bugs in the firmware? Annoying, but not a show stopper. These issues will be ironed out with time.
If anything really bothers me it's the lack of weather sealing (yes, I know that I sound like a broken record), but I suppose I could learn to live with that also.
Personally I think it's a minor miracle that Leica got the M8 as right as they did. Not bad for a dinky little company with no resources and little experience in this area. Jolly good show indeed.
If I was rich or if travel with film became totally impossible, I would run out and get an M8 tomorrow. But frankly I'm in love with Tri-X and my Nikon 9000ED magically transports me into the digital age. So, for the moment I really don't have a good reason to get one, but you never know what the future holds.
>But what if I'm just a crap photographer and feel self conscious about it?
Then enjoy your cameras and keep quiet about it! :)
I don't see you keeping very quiet about your opinions, Dave ;) But then, you are certainly not a crap photographer. Congratulations on you succes in publicizing! :)
Harry Lime
01-06-2007, 16:38
My two cents after reading this thread and thinking it rather silly:
I bought an M8 as it's the only tool in the digital realm that I'd actually enjoy using and working with