Is it 2025 yet?

<p><a href="http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2007/04/leica-m8-pro-and-

con-con.html"><b>Link</b></a>.<p>

I don't have time to read the article and it looks boring as hell. But anyone who thinks that's a legitimate quote at the top has a deficit of common sense.

Dante Stella made that quote up for a humor piece.

 

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/digilux.html

The article on the "Online Photographer" site is full of pretentious twaddle. How appropriate to head it up with a quotation that someone made up for a joke.

Comment (partial) from the author of that creation:

<p>

<i>Sometimes I hate the internet.</i>

The quote seems to have been appropriately deleted. I'd like the mods to delete this thread as well.

The whole thread seems to be quite out of date. And not very funny either. It's now quite obvious that for color work the M8 requires the use of an IR filter. Much of the color criticism applies to the M8 without the lens filter. Finally, I noticed that a few responded to the comment that "but my experience so far is that digital de-emphasizes the importance of optics to the final result." This is just silly. It ignores 100 years of work on lens development. Digital cameras don't need high quality lenses? The M8 actually matches the high quality of the Leica lenses, which is saying a lot.

"The whole thread seems to be quite out of date. And not very funny either. It's now quite obvious that for color work the M8 requires the use of an IR filter"

 

Don't think it's quite that agreed upon- Michael Reischmann just wrote of using his M8 with no filter in the Amazon as there isn't any synthetic fiber in the Amazon:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/amazon-worked.shtml