I was on there the other day - yeah. They are having an experience that borders on the illicit. And frankly, I didn't notice much different than from any old D&*()^&*)L camera that cost only a fraction of the price ... :confused:
What's the big deal.... [about Leica]
-
A
- Thread starter mps
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Leica M4-2
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
-
For Sale FS: Toyo Sliding Back for 4x5 Graflok
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
I was on there the other day - yeah. They are having an experience that borders on the illicit. And frankly, I didn't notice much different than from any old D&*()^&*)L camera that cost only a fraction of the price ... :confused:
I had the chance to handle the M8 camera for a short time at Photo Plus on Saturday. I did not see any results. But, it is solid, remarkably well balanced, feels and handles (except the back) like any M camera and takes the Leica M glass (with the problem of a chip that results in a multiplier of about 1.3X). If you have the lenses already and want to shoot digital it is a viable option. That is in some ways like the Leica Module R which replaces the back and allows the Leica R8 and R9 to also shoot digital with all the Leica R lenses.
Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
I would say at $4k+ per body, you really have to want to use that glass. One could get quite a D(&*)^&(*L setup for that kind of scratch and have a lot left over.
For me, I'd get a good film scanner before a D^&*(^&(*L body and use the rest for film and lenses and probably could beat the pants off of any pure D^&%^*(&L setup.
Unless things have changed, and I have not kept up on this, the only other Digital RF camera with interchangable lenses is the Epson. The Epson was also quite expensive. This was an extremely tough challenge to design and produce. With their wonderful rangefinder cameras, Mamiya has yet to either create a back or a digital version of the Mamiya M7II. But, we can hope that that may be in the future.
There is no other 35mm SLR that can be used for both film and Digital (besides the R8 and R9). These options not only offer the photographer the ability to use the same glass, but the same camera (R8 and R9) along with the same metering system.
Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm a snob. I have worked hard for a long time and now I am enjoying the rewards of my labors. I like the best. I shoot leica and Hasselblad, wear a Rolex and drive a Porsche. Life is too short to settle for second best.
If you develop the attitude of demanding the best in life you will find it in all areas of your life. Relationships, family, work, where you live, what you drive, what you own Etc...
Leicas are great cameras but some of us own them because we wont settle for less.
If you develop the attitude of demanding the best in life you will find it in all areas of your life. Relationships, family, work, where you live, what you drive, what you own Etc...
Leicas are great cameras but some of us own them because we wont settle for less.
I have one for review. I may even end up paying Leica to ket me keep it. It's as close as you can reasonably hope a d*g*cam can be to a Leica. But if it were a straight choice between M8 and MP (which I also have) the MP wins hands down.
Cheers,
R.
Yes... and no.
The idea is sound, but you don't even have to spend your cash on Leitz lenses. The new Zeiss Ikon lenses are getting rave reviews, and my $300 Konica Hexanon-M 50mm is the equal of my 35 'lux ASPH.
I've never actually owned a Voigtlander lens, but I hear they're excellent as well.
As to bodies - I own an M7 and a Bessa R2A (which I picked up on the cheap). The former does feel more solid, and the shutter is as quiet as anything I can think of, but the R2A is an excellent camera.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,823
- Format
- Multi Format
I'm a snob too. I look down on people who wear second-class watches and flaunt their other possessions.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,823
- Format
- Multi Format
Um, er, ah, this is not an original observation. And it is strongly disputed by Leicaists who insist that what the photographer feels (in his/her/its hands, not between his/her/its ears) when taking the picture is at least as important as the final print. You are, from their point of view, focused on the wrong thing. The destination isn't important, the journey is.
I've been collecting Leicaists' replies to negative comments about the latest all-singing all-dancing all-digital Leica's reported problems. For the record, I don't have one and have no idea whether the people who have used the thing and report problems are chronic whiners, hopelessly confused, or lying. I don't care much, either, but the loyalists' replies are fascinating:
Its all Kodak's fault.
Digital cameras are all do that.
The problems reported are rare and don't matter anyway.
You're an idiot.
Leica lenses are still best.
They're working on it.
There are no problems.
You should know better than to get an early production example of anything electronic.
Cheers,
Dan
Don't you mean Leic-istas?
I would say someone who could justify something that expensive, would definitely have to think that way - those that don't will settle for something that costs less money (Like Medium Format!!
).Leica people are notoriously picky, and given the amount they spent on that, they are paying to be that way.
I wonder if the M8 is going to be like the M5 - a "red haired stepchild" of the lineup, or more like a M2, which took a bit longer to gain acceptance ... ?
I think if the camera is a success, it will be interesting in about 3-6 years when the electronics start failing, how well they can be repaired, and how well they will resell?
Will be interesting.
And I believe the last one = Early Electronics can sometimes be really buggy.
Rich,
I don't know much about what's going on with the M8 - but all the talk on RFF is of either cancelling orders or returning them and demanding a refund.
Some kind of major technical flaw I presume. And this on a mega-buck camera that was "touted" for over a year before being released.
I smell "M5" ....
(Even for D^&*^(*L it would be a shame to see Leica financially hurt by this venture since they have been reeling for some time)
I posted this March 14th 2005 in other thread and I keep my stance!
"Leica and digital technology sounds absurd, and IMHO, that was precisely the biggest mistake of the Leica management.
This is a race, the Leica "horse" can`t win and shouldn`t even run."
Cheers
André
"Leica and digital technology sounds absurd, and IMHO, that was precisely the biggest mistake of the Leica management.
This is a race, the Leica "horse" can`t win and shouldn`t even run."
Cheers
André
Leica management had no other choice but to make an attempt at digital (which may yet be successful - the Leica User Group users have been raving about it).
Their sales were already dwindling before the digital revolution and only got worse (as the dollar weakened, prices rose and digital took over).
Unfortunately, their flagship product costs twice as much as a Canon 5d, offers no great advantages over that (aside from being able to use your Leica glass, of course) and actually has some disadvantages (1.3x crop vs. full-frame, noise). (Similar arguments can be made for the Nikon D200, of course, except for the crop.)
Could they have produced a $2500 body? I don't know. Maybe. I bet Zeiss Ikon and Cosina-Voigtlander will be able to produce one.
Their sales were already dwindling before the digital revolution and only got worse (as the dollar weakened, prices rose and digital took over).
Unfortunately, their flagship product costs twice as much as a Canon 5d, offers no great advantages over that (aside from being able to use your Leica glass, of course) and actually has some disadvantages (1.3x crop vs. full-frame, noise). (Similar arguments can be made for the Nikon D200, of course, except for the crop.)
Could they have produced a $2500 body? I don't know. Maybe. I bet Zeiss Ikon and Cosina-Voigtlander will be able to produce one.
DeLoreans were expensive too.
There is also something to be said for having limited production items that are hand made as well. I think that that also applies to not only cameras such Leicas but also to photos themselves.
Rich
Rich
One of these things is not like the other...
I've used Leica rangefinders for over 50 years. The Niccas and Canons I also used, and their lenses, are long gone. The present Leica gear, mostly bought overseas 30+ years ago, still performs well. Even allowing for inflation and 100% depreciation, it has cost maybe $20 USD a month. That's only a fraction of the cost of film run through the camera. This makes Leica economical for me.
Of course newer gear has some advantages. Single coated lenses with cleaning marks do flare. A flare-buster, also known as a lens hood, eliminates much of that. My older gear has its advantages, too. It has proven to be reliable from the equator to the artic circle. It is more expendable. The M4 never needed battery replacement. It has a familiar good feeling in the hand. The few advantages of an upgrade are not worthwhile. I often use a Nikon SLR because of its versatility, but it is a poor substitute for the Leica.
Of course newer gear has some advantages. Single coated lenses with cleaning marks do flare. A flare-buster, also known as a lens hood, eliminates much of that. My older gear has its advantages, too. It has proven to be reliable from the equator to the artic circle. It is more expendable. The M4 never needed battery replacement. It has a familiar good feeling in the hand. The few advantages of an upgrade are not worthwhile. I often use a Nikon SLR because of its versatility, but it is a poor substitute for the Leica.
I think Epson did that (R-D1) based upon a CV body. But this is fast becoming a D^&*(%^&(L conversation.
Leicas are best with film, but I think just about everything is...!
Well, yeah - I meant with updated technology (less crop, more MP) and better build quality. The Epsons weren't known for their fine finish.
While I can afford a M7 kit, I don't have one because I just don't want to spend that kind of money. But I would readily agree that it is arguably the finest 35mm rangefinder made.
I could also afford a M8 kit but I don't think it is finest 35mm digital camera (RF or SLR) made. It's sensor is only 6mp or so, likely prone to a high noise factor. In fact, it is about two or more technological generations behind the current state-of-the-art for digital gear.
True it will let you mount your M-lenses to a digital body - but to what effect? This camera was obsolete before it ever hit the market - nothing's going to change that fact.
I could also afford a M8 kit but I don't think it is finest 35mm digital camera (RF or SLR) made. It's sensor is only 6mp or so, likely prone to a high noise factor. In fact, it is about two or more technological generations behind the current state-of-the-art for digital gear.
True it will let you mount your M-lenses to a digital body - but to what effect? This camera was obsolete before it ever hit the market - nothing's going to change that fact.
Hi George,
The M8 is a 10.3 mega pixel camera. With the software for the Digital Module R for the R8 and R9 the module has more color depth than their competition. From my understanding many have been finding that the mega pixel count may not be as important as once thought. Additionally, I know that there have been users working with the Digital Modular R and stopped using (at least for much application) the 16 mega pixel top of the line Canon camera. At least some time back these users were finding (or suggesting) that the Leica Modular R (with Leica glass) was outperforming the output capabilities of the Canon (with Canon glass). So if that is the case, do not underestimate the M8. It is newer than the Digital Modular R.
Rich
The M8 is a 10.3 mega pixel camera. With the software for the Digital Module R for the R8 and R9 the module has more color depth than their competition. From my understanding many have been finding that the mega pixel count may not be as important as once thought. Additionally, I know that there have been users working with the Digital Modular R and stopped using (at least for much application) the 16 mega pixel top of the line Canon camera. At least some time back these users were finding (or suggesting) that the Leica Modular R (with Leica glass) was outperforming the output capabilities of the Canon (with Canon glass). So if that is the case, do not underestimate the M8. It is newer than the Digital Modular R.
Rich
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |