Its not a matter of just price but performance.

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by harvey_edelstein|1, Dec 18, 2008.

  1. Look at this comparison, The M8 is such old technology that recent consumer grade cameras
    have leap frogged Leica.
    http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/250|0/(appareil2)/267|0/(appareil3)/202|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Leica/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Nikon
     
  2. rowlett

    rowlett Moderator

    That does it. I'm selling my M8, all my lenses, and I'm going to buy five or six D700 bodies + a bunch of their good glass. :)
     
  3. Pardon me for asking this.
    Haven't you posted this very same thing here before?
     
  4. if he has posted the same thing before then let's ignore this?
     
  5. It's a pity Nikon is not a woman, Harvey would have married it years ago.
     
  6. It's not a matter of price or performance - But personal preference.
     
  7. Haven't you posted this very same thing here before?​
    But that was last month. Harvey evidently still feels strongly about it. :)
     
  8. I like mine. I also like my my D300. Two totally different cameras that accomplish two different types of shooting requirements for me....mind you photography is just a hobby for me. If you don't like your M8, get rid of it.
     
  9. I would never waste my money on an M8, Canon and Nikon far outperform the M8 for my requirements. The only Leica I enjoy playing with, very occasionally, is my Leica III. For anything serious, I whip out my 5D with an array of lenses.
     
  10. Sorry guys if the comparison hurts your feelings about your main squeeze, but I never compared these cameras before. Sure we all commented on the DXO mark tests, but a month ago there was no test up on the Canon 50D and the Nikon D90 is also a new camera I was not familiar with.
    Vivek is still mad at me for reprinting a dozen posts that show that his fave Sigma 30mm is a lemon that has to go to get fixed at Sigma 50% of the time according to the posts I have seen before they are acceptable to their owners.
    Back to the point, a Nikon D90 or Canon 50D at about $1200 will run rings IQ wise around the M8 and that fact you cannot refute, look at all the tests out there by objective people, and stop taking shots at me, I am the messenger, its Leica who is making an overpriced underperforming hobbled camera. Whats with the filters, no other camera needs filters.
     
  11. I don't have an M8, and I can't imagine getting one in the foreseeable future, so I have no 'main squeeze' to protect.
    But Harvey, those tests you refer to "prove" things only to those genuinely interested in charts, graphs, lines, dots, noise measurements, etc.
    It would be different, I suspect, if these cameras and lenses were actually driveway sealing material. Then I think we'd all be asking how much does it cost, how easily does it mix and spread, at what temperature does it dry, what proof do we have that it prevents cracking, how frequently do we have to reapply it, which labs have tested it and what methodology have they used, and so on.
    For many photographers, all the "proof" they need -- or want -- is in the photos they take and the experience they have taking them.
     
  12. Very true, Michael. I don't own an M8 either, but if I were to get back into digital, it would be the camera I'd buy simply based on the b&w from it I've seen here and elsewhere. I don't give a rat's ass about the things Harvey finds so important.
     
  13. Ditto.
     
  14. Vivek is still mad at me for reprinting a dozen posts that show that his fave Sigma 30mm is a lemon that has to go to get fixed at Sigma 50% of the time according to the posts I have seen before they are acceptable to their owners.​
    I really don't give a toss as to what sort postings you find to support the imaginary gear you never would use.
    So, kindly leave me out of your thinking. My response here was about your repeat post to promote DXO.
    You are no messenger.
    In fact, I would go as far as to say that you do not have any positive contributions whatosoever on anything.
     
  15. Micheal S. as far as your observation, I believe that since none of us has all these cameras we often look at tests before spending our money. I used to like Consumers Reports for there car tests. I am liking the DXO tests because it remove emotion from the test. The reporting of machine measurements that reveal the resolution, color depth, dynamic range and high iso with low noise is of value. Subjective tests leave us to question bias on the part of the reviewer vs. machine tests that are repeatable. I trained and worked as an engineer so to me the tests are like a graph on an scope or a spectrum analzer. The facts are in the result of the machine measurement.
    Don if you need corrective filtration to balance out your sensor how can that be good for B&W?
    There are many who still use older model digital cameras but there are those who upgrade too. Leica is in the former category, it need a more up to date imager.
     
  16. Harvey, while I agree with you about looking all the tested statistics, I find that numbers cannot transmit everything about a tool.
    For example, if we only go by figures, we'd all be driving Toyotas. (What do you drive?) Nobody would drive anything costing more than a Corolla, as the price/performance equation would be violated.
    Regarding the M8, and a D700, D3, IDsMkIII, etc., the handling, convenience, and dare I say, gestalt, of the experience can only be had by using it. If you're using them for generating money, it's one thing, but for a hobby the requirements are totally different. Granted, some hobbyists spend their time photographing newspapers hung on walls, so to each his own. In the end, which one generates passion within you?
    Thanks very much for the link, it is quite entertaining and educational.
    Best of luck with your search, and best wishes for the holidays!
     
  17. "But Harvey, those tests you refer to "prove" things only to those genuinely interested in charts, graphs, lines, dots, noise measurements, etc."


    But, when the Leica product (lens) comes out favorably with the charts, graphs, etc., Leica folks use that 'information' to declare their superiority over the Canon and Nikon glass. Odd, when it's the other way around, the tests are suddenly meaningless.
    Whatever. In the end, the M8 is still good enough to make some pretty wonderful pictures. Anyone who needs to debate it either way is too involved with the wrong set of issues.
     
  18. "... Anyone who needs to debate it either way is too involved with the wrong set of issues. ..."
    Well said. Isn't that the raison d'etre for most internet forums, and cable TV news channels.
     
  19. Vic come on now, where did I say we never care what the pictures are like, I never said it and never would. I am just sick of biased statements like " I think that the Dxyz is got the best IQ of any camera out there". Nice but back opinion with facts, never see it. Dpreview does an excellent job but we don't have multi brand tests on the cameras I posted. None of us have Nikon d90, Canon 50D and Leica M8 and the equipment to do a controlled scientific evaluation so the DXO mark is the best level ground based test that can be applied to each camera.
    I believe you pick a camera by looking at pictures and tests but pictures from photographers of different subjects are hard to compare. So at least Dpreview uses the same pictures at same iso and compares the cameras with charts too. But in the end we are seeing that the D90 and 50D run rings around the Leica for a quarter the price.
    Vic I didn't mention the D3 of 1DSMII, I didn't have to, they are FF and the Leica is a cropped sensor, They are high end cameras and my point is that the M8 cannot even compete with prosumer models that cost around $1200. Leica needs to update its sensor and processor and associated software to offer something worthy of the Leica brand.
    Vic read this
    http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/250|0/(appareil2)/267|0/(appareil3)/202|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Leica/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Nikon
     
  20. Many years ago Consumer Reports rated the Miranda Sensorex much higher than the Nikon F.
     
  21. "Don if you need corrective filtration to balance out your sensor how can that be good for B&W?"
    Damned if I know, maybe the M8 b&w photographers here will let me in on their secret. What I've seen is among the best b&w digital across a multitude of photographers is done with an M8. Maybe I'm biased towards rangefinders and the kinds of photos rf users prefer, but I very much like the b&w I've seen.
     
  22. I used a yellow filter with B&W film for decades. Not to mention polarizers and sky filters and red filters... Seems to me they should have left the IR filter out of the M8 entirely.
     
  23. Doug lets see what does the red herring about CR old camera test have to do with their car tests I like, CR compares car under similar controlled conditions and measures the results, then they survey hundreds of thousand owners every year to find out what car systems fail and need repair. CR take no advertising and has no main squeeze. I have long looked for a camera magazine equivalent that does the same thing.
    So far I have seen a lot of straw dogs and red herrings brought up here but nobody can refute that the medium priced D90 and 50d don't eat Leicas lunch.
    I agree with the other Doug and Derek, yes Leica uses MTF and other tests when touting their lenses. And Doug, even today when you can fake filter effects in software and simulate various black and white emulsions in software and make any digital cameras B&W output look like anything you like the fact that you have to add a filter means something is already there on your lens that may get in your way of using another filter or polarizer.
     
  24. Harvey why do you go on and on about this? I can't refute other cameras eat Leica's lunch because I don't have those other cameras to try. You don't have anything to offer beyond hearsay because you don't have the Leica. You can find a test or review to argue either positive or negative evaluations on the camera.
     
  25. Well,first I admit to a Nikon loyalty, so I can say the following...
    Digital photograpy is just scanning anyway. Its not photography....that is unless you were only allowed to print the RAW file. Anything after that is an I.T. exercise. Certainly not photography.
    And before I get flamed, please read the rest, and tell me I am wrong.
    My grandfather used to photograph portraits onto 8x10 glass negatives. Then he spent hours in the darkroom dodging and burning and retouching an image to perfection. One of his portraits cost the equivalent of $500 in today's money. He was the only independent shareholder in Eastman Kodak when it was privately held about 70 years ago. His archive of glass negatives are in a vault in the National Library of Australia.
    Now if I could just figure out how to mount my Canon 810 Printer/scanner on the back of his huge camera then I could have a negative that big at 4000dpi, couldn't I? Awesome!... But that would not be photography would it! The only difference is the size of the scanner.
    Anyway, no one is worried about the M8. Go have a play with the Leica S2....NOW your talking. 50% bigger than anything Canon or Nikon have in the wings. Why so big? Simple...it will take a sensor that big to approach the resolving power of Leica lenses, thats why.
     
  26. Ray another red herring, a blatant ignoring of the DXO comparisons. These cameras output were openned in common software and analyzed before any processing. In camera processing is mostly for Jpeg, from what they say this is all raw data that is analyzed just like Stephen says.

    Ray your teachers must have loved you, History is hearsay, test reports where someone gives his opinion without backing it up with measurements. The tests were measure on a test bed, the company makes software that could be used with all these cameras so they seem not to have a reason to make up the results. In fact some products from the same companies do well and other from the very same companies do poorly. I do not see any bias.
    Ray if you had the cameras, then you would need the equipment, the software etc. so either you buy a camera blind and take a chance or you find someone that evaluates it scientifically and except the hearsay as testimony of the measurements.
     
  27. Harvey, whatever tool you choose- photography is ultimately about photographs. Have any to show here?
    "Performance."
     
  28. I am new here so I hesitate to involve myself in discusions such as these but I am not clear about just what it is that Mr Edelstein is suggesting. Is the the suggestion that Leica are selling a techically inferior product at an inflated price or that people are in some way being deceived into buying them on the basis that is not so and that they represent good value for money ?
    I should add that I do not have an M8 only an old M3 and a beat up old Pentax ME.
    My next purchase might well be an R or an SL rather than an M8 based on the quality which I have seen from Mr Herr .Don`t know or care about what any test results might reveal. It is all about enjoyment is it not. I may be just me being naive and failing to understand the passion which these debates seem to generate.
     
  29. My performance test is an 8x12 print held about 1 1/2 feet from my eyes.
     
  30. PS: i didnt know Vivek shot Sigma....LOL.
     
  31. Some sit in armchairs and cuddle their photo gear
    Some sit in armchairs and write how they feel that their favourite camera is 2% better than some other.
    Some get up, go out and shoot, and couldn't care less if camera A is 2% better than camera B. They may even live a little longer....certainly they may have more fun
     
  32. Vivek, nothing personal, just a bit funny knowing your interest in Leica RF.
     
  33. [Consumer Reports] take no advertising and has no main squeeze. I have long looked for a camera magazine equivalent that does the same thing.
    'Chasseur d'Images' might fit the bill if you read French. It takes advertising, but its reviews pull no punches.
     
  34. Nothing personal with you guys, spirited discussions get heated but I love you all, even Vivek who like me hopes that they come up with a good M4/3 camera that can take our M glass via adapters.
    I plan this weekend to grap my Nikon F3hp and take some shots at Christmas party today and a Channukah party tommorow. Over the next couple of weeks I will be taking shots with my M4P and Pentax LX. I may use the Nikon D70 with all the zoom lenses for a change of pace too.
    Its too bad we don't have a capable $1200 camera to take our M lenses. I am getting worried M system is going to wind up a dead end. Fabulous lenses forced to sit on old technology cameras.
    Best wishes for a nice holiday
    Harve
     
  35. Vivek, nothing personal, just a bit funny knowing your interest in Leica RF.​
    Funny that you would comment for the sake of commenting. Not surprising though. ;)
    Should I be listing all the gear I carry and use here?
    Paul, Sigma 30/1.4 is a special lens. Useful for UV, Visible and IR captures. Better than any Nikon lens in terms of speed and performance for this purpose.
    Correction to the assumption (yet another one!) made by Harvey: I do use a Panasonic G1. I made an adapter to use M/LTM lenses (and other system) lenses on it. I do use them more than I talk about them.
     
  36. "You can find a test or review to argue either positive or negative evaluations on the camera."
    I have asked this question before, can anyone point to objective tests that shows the M8 in a better light than these Dxomark tests?
    If we are able to conduct tests for resolution, dynamic range, and ISO performance, why not use them.
    I saw a post on the LUG which stated the the M8 excels in fine detail and dynamic range. There were no test results shown. Are we to believe this over objective test results from various publications? Are the tests in those publications wrong or flawed?
    I fear these arguements have become more political than anything else. People argue for their side against the other. They choose whatever evidence to support their conclusions.
    Whatever happened to conversation on a topic? Whatever happened to actually learning something from those engaged in the conversation? Whatever happened to saying, I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing that out to me.
     
  37. "[Consumer Reports] take no advertising and has no main squeeze. I have long looked for a camera magazine equivalent that does the same thing.
    'Chasseur d'Images' might fit the bill if you read French. It takes advertising, but its reviews pull no punches."
    Gerry: Add to that "Réponses Photo", another excellent French photo mag that doesn't pull punches either. Having written for two Canadian mags a decade or so ago, and having been a bit less than fully rigorous in my own tests (it takes time and effort), I am turned off by most English speaking magazines (whether British, Canadian or American) which provide "spec sheet" reviews or subjective impressions rather than quantitative or well controlled multi person subjective tests as found in the French reviews. We ought to petition the French mags to make available an English copy of their editions, like the "Guardian weekly international" does for "Le Monde" articles. It would help a lot of photographers and keep the manufacturers a bit more honest.
     
  38. "I saw a post on the LUG which stated the the M8 excels in fine detail and dynamic range. There were no test results shown. Are we to believe this over objective test results from various publications? Are the tests in those publications wrong or flawed?"
    Marc, the two French mags mentioned by Gerry and myself did very exhaustive tests of the M8. I don't know which publications you refer to for "objective M8 tests", but I have seen little data in English publications to match that offered in "Chasseur d'Images" or "Réponses Photo" when the M8 came out. Most of the English reviews are subjective in nature (Mr. Puts does a decent job though in his columns, in respect of a few of the picture taking parameters).
     
  39. Marc, if you feel like spending $30 or so for access, you should see Sean Reid's reviews. I trust his views to some extent because unlike a lot of other reviewers he's a pretty decent photographer. Like Sean, I think the M8 and 5D, for example- are both excellent cameras, but they're just different. I couldn't say one is better than the other. Depends on what you want to do and what your personal preferences are.
     
  40. SHOCKING;
    the cameras with a later launch date cost less and have more megapixels than the M8!
     
  41. Athur,
    If you have access to these French publications please quote the figures for resolution and dynamic range. They would be some helpful data points.
    Thanks.
     
  42. Here are some tests from DPReview including the Leica M8 test. I find it easy to follow their objective test results.
    Leica M8
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/
    Canon 50D
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/
    Nikon D700
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/
    Sony A9000
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra900/
     
  43. I sure wish they hadn't updated the method to post links. I have tried it the old way and the supposive new way.
    I also have a link to the Pop Photo test. How do I post it?
     
  44. Marc, I will try to dig them out of my dispersed magazine collection and pass along the info (if later, I will propose a separate post on this).
    If I remember correctly, they assessed quite a few parameters, including noise measured at various ISO speeds, resolution as a function of ISO setting (one of the best non medium format cameras they had measured at the time, except for ISOs over 800, where other cameras were measurably better), fidelity to colour (RGB, sRGB, other colour spaces measured) on jpeg (this one was fairly weak for the M8, but then RAW is the way to go for quality), VF accuracy, shutter noise (not so good, 57, compared to film M values of 53 - the values are in dB at a certain distance, but this is a difficult measurement to make), the effect of in-camera sharpness settings (interesting and useful results - one level up of sharpening recommended for B&W imaging), effect of the lens codings on reducing vignetting of the lenses (quite good, they measured the many optical parameters of something like 18 Leica M + Zeiss ZM lenses - I remember the ASPH f2 Summicron coming off as being among the very best), etc.
     
  45. After seeing the DPreview you posted, Marc, it seems quite objective and heads above a number of reviews of other photo magazines. Thanks.
     
  46. The problem is that there is no objective comparison of cameras of different brands so that you can filter for price point, performance, dynamic range, high iso performance, resolution, color, etc.
    The nice thing about the link I provided is I show not how the M8 compares to its price point peers like the Canon 1dsmIII and D3 Nikon but to much more performance/ value cameras like the Nikon D90 or Canon 50D. The point is that is where the Leica belongs on the basis of its performance, against $1200 cameras. Me I might want to spend a bit more for a FF camera to get a bigger VF and no crop factor, and go for a Nikon d700 or Canon 5D2 and get more features and good environmental seals (another thing that the Leica M8 lacks). The DXO site lets you compare cameras raw output data scoring. You can see a cameras measured strong and weak points. Then you could go to flickr and look at images and then decide to go handle the camera yourself at a store to see how it feels.
    Photozone, Dpreview, are great resources, I like to download PDF manuals and look how the menus and features are laid out.
    The problem is that we are accostumed to film camera notions of testing via opinion since in an analogue world the lens was the biggest differentiator of how well the same film would record the image. Now the imager, software, firmware and monitor or printer have all gotten into the act to make comparing cameras via opinion virtually useless when comparing different brands with different sensors, firmware, cpus, etc. The DXO looks at commonly opened raw data to see how well the subject recorded an image so they eliminated lots of variables. This for me is not a decision maker but a tool that lets me start to see how much more value I get spending an extra $1500. I can then do my own homework to decide what to buy. I am not tied to opinion reviews so much.
     
  47. Wonderful. I owned one although its not listed on my list of gear. If this were an aircraft blog Id probably list the planes I piloted or owned too. A golf blog? Man, Id list my favorite golfclubs! Why not?
    Merry Christmas, and a Happy Hannukka to you!
     
  48. If this were an aircraft blog Id probably list the planes I piloted or owned too.​
    Exactly! :) If you own one, know how to use it (that is the problem with many who bought a fast lens for the first time in their life and failed to see the difference between the slow kit zoomz)and are happy with it, good! :)
     
  49. Interesting! Best Regards -- Paul
     
  50. "... and go for a Nikon d700 or Canon 5D2 and get more features..."
    An iconic example why digital sucks, that a two year old camera is outclassed by the new in "features" and "image quality" or well, the tests show that at least. One wonders whether the photographer has anything to do but to buy every 18 months and drive his camera to a location and let it shoot away. Soon enough cameras will be drones with Decisive Moment Detection (DMD) and we can all stay in bed awaiting its return with good shots, far better I'm sure than the Digital Drone DMD we bought a long time ago -- was it two years back? -- proving what swell photographers we are, being so smart.
    Being a photographer, after all, is having a clue about which camera "takes the best pictures"...just read the Beginners Forum if you want proof.
    I'm sure it is cheaper to buy a 1500 or a 3000 or an 8000 dollar camera every two years to keep up with the Rapid Advance of Digital Technology, rather than simply shoot what you like, I must be a Luddite, I know. Anyway, I bought an old IIIf and broke the habit of camera consumption.
     
  51. If toy plastic Diana type cameras and pinholes are still in vogue and some even make careers using them, that ought to tell you all you need to know about camera obsolescence.
     
  52. Maybe the reason Hogla medium format cameras are popular, you get the most bang for the buck. I think Don now gets why the measurements that help us compare cameras image potential without regard to their price help us see that you don't always get what you spend a lot more for. Maybe it pays to buy three $1200 two years apart, trading in the previous camera then spending $3600 every six years. The test results seem to indicate that newer is better. In this case Leica M8 was announced in Sept. 2006 but it really used the R9 digital back sensor that was even older than that. Having just reread the Dpreview M8 test, I saw that they disliked the JPEG images and recommended only using RAW because the processor was poor. Of course Dpreview brought up about the IR sensitivity and the need for cut filters and poor dust sealing, white balance and and other faults that a camera that costs $5K should not have.
    That's it get the best $1200 camera you can get and sell it every two years and get the best follow up model that comes out.
     
  53. "I think Don now gets why the measurements that help us compare cameras image potential without regard to their price help us see that you don't always get what you spend a lot more for."
    I get what I paid for when the camera enables me to make an A4 or A3 print that looks the way I imagined it should look when I made the exposure. Unless your photos are taken from a tripod or you have a specialized need, any of the 1200$ dslrs, no matter how they are ranked in the tests, lenses being equal, are likely to produce similar results in that sized print. In fact, the 700$ dslrs are likely to, as well. What matters is how the camera works in one's hands, which is a much more important factor in image quality in handheld photography than what a DXO test might turn up as evidence that another camera has a ooch more goodness than another.
     
  54. Don E makes a good point: the way a camera works in your hands is an important consideration. Comparisons like DxO's or the old Consumer's Union report I mentioned a few days ago are valid up to a point, but they cannot possibly test every factor that might matter to any photographer (BTW the Consumer's Union test that ranked the Miranda Sensorex much higher than the Nikon F was as detailed and tested as many factors if not more as the DxO test).
    How does a generic one-size-fits-all test put an objective value on the type or quality of the viewfinder? Or the camera's ability to handle abusive treatment? What about the maker's after-sales support? Does the company have a history of making their old lenses unusable on the new cameras? How is this objectively quantified?
    For a rank beginner who knows little of subjective factors involved in using a camera the pixel-peeping tests have some value, and those who proclaim the superiority of Camera A over Camera B based on these these tests are telling me much about their skills.
     
  55. The D90 is about as good as the D700 in high iso and about as good in dynamic range. Color rendition is also important all these are much improved over the last 2 generations of sensors.
    If you get the same look at iso 1600 as at iso 400 you can use a high shutter speed and eliminate the tripod requirement. The tests show which cameras excel in sensitivity and low noise. Even more, many lenses have IS/VR that reduces seen shake 2 or more stops.
     
  56. what if I don't want to use a forkin' slr? get it??
     
  57. you can objectively evaluate whether you should marry a girl who keeps the house clean, cooks, does laundry, is always faithful, and earns 100 grand a year. but so what if you don't love her?
     
  58. >>> In fact, the 700$ dslrs are likely to, as well. What matters is how the camera works in one's hands, which is a much more important factor in image quality in handheld photography than what a DXO test might turn up as evidence that another camera has a ooch more goodness than another.

    That is so true...

    My current cam is $560 on Amazon. Superior RAW files and resulting images. Great performance to ISO 1600. And ergonomically outstanding for one handed shooting; which is a requirement for me. Can change ISO, aperture, exposure compensation, etc. all one handed with the strap wrapped around my wrist. And it's small and light weight - it's like it's not there...
     
  59. "An iconic example why digital sucks, that a two year old camera is outclassed by the new in "features" and "image quality" or well, the tests show that at least. One wonders whether the photographer has anything to do but to buy every 18 months and drive his camera to a location and let it shoot away."
    That's not an example why digital sucks. It's an example why consumers are weakminded. There's nothing wrong with the ongoing march of technology. No one ever complained when film manufacturers developed and evolved their products. That you can shoot a Fuji neg film at a box-rated ISO of 800, when 50 years ago, a reasonable ISO might have been under 100.... Did anyone complain that modern photographers had to do less to make good photographs? None of the features in a digital camera have anything to do with composition or timing or taste.
     
  60. My question about the 'value' of an M8 is one of 'relativity.'
    It seemed that, among the early reports of M8 'fantasticness,' those glowing comments came from long-time Leica users who had, to that point, been exclusively analog photographers. The M8, for them, was the first serious digital camera, because, as 'traditional Leica photographers,' they had previously been resistant to digital. So, if someone like that raved about the beauty of an M8 file, or waxed lyrically about the detail and subtleties found in an M8 file, yada yada yada - were those comments coming simply out of the novelty of the technology?
    Because, later, when others bought the M8 - others who were used to a 5D, for example - i don't recall any of those people ever saying the M8 was quite as 'magical.' Those opinions seemed more tempered and objective. It was more like, the 5D may have slightly better files, but i enjoy using the M8 (for whatever reason).
    I still have not seen a test that shows that an M8 file is actually better than a 5D file. But, this may also be consistent with the DMR-users' claims that the DMR gave files that were superior to everything else, but that only THEY could see those differences. And, that people who didn't see them were just plain photographically ignorant....
     
  61. A long-time user of both the M8 and 5D recently purchased a 5DII:
    http://leica-users.org/v38/msg05517.html
     
  62. "That's not an example why digital sucks. It's an example why consumers are weakminded. There's nothing wrong with the ongoing march of technology."
    You're right. My statement was off-base and digital doesn't suck, so I retract that. However, "the ongoing march of technology" is often merely the ongoing march of the merchandising plan.
     
  63. "I still have not seen a test that shows that an M8 file is actually better than a 5D file.
    Derek, you may wish to check Erwin Puts quantitative comparison of the 5D (which he owns) and the M8 performance, about 2 years ago, where the nod went to the M8 (but not by much). Sorry, I haven't got the link, but it is no doubt easy to find. He also compared the M8 to a digital Hasselblad (no contest there, as expected) in another review, and I think also the flagship Canon.
     
  64. Harvey got his wish. The debate goes on.....and on.........andzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
     
  65. Ray my mom said "you could love a rich girl as easily as a poor girl". If your familiar with the Panasonic G1 with its HD lcd finder you know the march of technology will obsolete the slr and the rf some day when the HD LCD gets a little better, no more mirror slap, and no more rf parallex at close focus, no focal length limitations etc.
    Ray I hear you, best to get a real rangefinder like M2, M3, M4 with no electronics at all not even a meter. You can boss it around make it clean the house and take pictures your way.
    Derek well said you nailed it, Leicaphiles touted their M8 and did not compare it to other leading cameras because they were DSLR and Leica has had the digital RF except for the Epson all to themselves. But the emotionality " what if I don't want to use a forkin' slr? get it??" that is just luddite like. I love using my M4P and other really tiny optical finder cameras like my Rollie SE, Minox gl, Mamiya TLR that also have no mirror.
    But, any comparison to Leica digital must be done against the only competition the Dslr since nobody else currently make a digital rf.
     
  66. Ray my mom said "you could love a rich girl as easily as a poor girl". If your familiar with the Panasonic G1 with its HD lcd finder you know the march of technology will obsolete the slr and the rf some day when the HD LCD gets a little better, no more mirror slap, and no more rf parallex at close focus, no focal length limitations etc.
    Ray I hear you, best to get a real rangefinder like M2, M3, M4 with no electronics at all not even a meter. You can boss it around make it clean the house and take pictures your way.
    Derek well said you nailed it, Leicaphiles touted their M8 and did not compare it to other leading cameras because they were DSLR and Leica has had the digital RF except for the Epson all to themselves. But the emotionality " what if I don't want to use a forkin' slr? get it??" that is just luddite like. I love using my M4P and other really tiny optical finder cameras like my Rollie SE, Minox gl, Mamiya TLR that also have no mirror.
    But, any comparison to Leica digital must be done against the only competition the Dslr since nobody else currently make a digital rf.
     
  67. Even the 5D at a third more weight and twice the size doesn't have the viewfinder of the M8. This is one of many things you Leica haters never talk about. Get a smaller dslr closer to the size of the Leica and you have a puny little finder. No thanks.
    But y'all can do what you want and kiss my ass. :p
     
  68. Whats happened in the industry is this: In the film days, the film was the constant and the lens and artistry of the photographer was the differentiator. Into that add digital, and we now have another variable...the sensor and its supporting software. This makes it impossible to campare like to like.
    So you can't compare like to like now at a price point. Or csan you. So how much is, say, a D700 plus a 50/1.4...maybe $4k or a bit less. Canon equivalent, the same. How much is a used M6 and a Summilux,....perhaps a bit less . Upload a RAW image from the D700 or 5D. Process and scan with say a 400 ISO B&W negative from the Leica....then you will see the difference at that point.
    In digital you pay for technology. In film, you actually have to do some work, but its worth it. Thats if you are an artist, that is!
     
  69. The M8 is simply old technology. If you are happy with what its three year old sensor can do, fine. But, The latest generation of DSLR cameras blow it away image wise. There isn't anything magical about the M8 or its sensor that shields it from the advancing state of the art in sensor technology. That's a problem for Leica. They sold fewer than 20,000 M8's, and had nothing to replace it when needed. The 8.2 is selling very poorly, and Leica doesn't have three more years on it's old 10mp sensor. So the 8.2 is unlikely to help their bottom line very much. It will likely be the last digital M.
     
  70. Jim, you've never seen an M8 file—let alone worked on one, hey
     
  71. Jim's dire prognostications aside (where have we heard the "death of Leica" before?), the M8's sensor is old now - it does not matter really in terms of photographic results, but it probably does if one is in the market for a top-notch digital camera. I know because I am thinking of it myself and it is a difficult decision to make: a second hand M8 (if one could get one for $2,500), or, say, a new Canon 5DmkII at the same price. Certainly a new M8.2 is out of the question for me.
     
  72. The sensor in the M8 is the same as the one introduced 4 years ago for the R9 digital back.
    The sensor is nowhere near capable of the Leica lenses resolution which would take at least 16mp.
    I think that the idea these days that you can keep the same sensor for 5 years is crazy.
     
  73. Harvey Edelstein [​IMG] , Dec 22, 2008; 01:15 p.m.
    The sensor in the M8 is the same as the one introduced 4 years ago for the R9 digital back.​
    No, it isn't. The DMR's sensor has a very efficient UV/IR cut filter affixed on the sensor. A pity about the price and some support issues but that (DMR) was a stellar product from Leica.
     
  74. Vivek your posts are very dramatic. Thanks for your showmanship. Thanks for your contribution to this discussion.
    Both sensor 10mp, both no AA filter, both from review at the time were Kodak sourced if I remember that far back. The only difference I saw was one DMR was crop factor 1.37x vs. 1.33x on M8 sensor. Could you see the difference of 0.04x larger sensor? I won't quibble with you the difference is irrelevant but there for hair splitting posts. Close enough for horseshoes I think, unless you are good with a micron measuring.
    Vivek OFF topic, did you ever read the fine test report on Photozone de of the Sigma 30mm f1.4 in Canon mount. This would make a good lens for a M4/3 conversion. Read the test an you will see why.
     
  75. "Its not a matter of just price but performance."
    That was the title of this thread initiated by you! LOL!
    If price wasn't the factor, you should have bought the DMR a looong time ago!
    Are you even into photography (picture taking) or you are some sort of a web analyst of online reviews from odd places?
    Get a life, man!
     
  76. Harvey ... when you find a moment to get away from all that in depth interweb research and plagiarising all the wonderful information the web offers.
    get hold for some M8 files and have a look.
    tech sheets and reviews tell you nothing particularly worthwhile ... its hands on that counts
    In the last weeks I've been doing a fair bit of work with D700 files (for exhibition standard prints) and also had the chance to put some M8 files through the wringer.
    Its all fresh ... so I can talk authoritatively on comparisons between the two
    The M8 files stack up very nicely against the D700 ... You have to do FAR less work on the M8 files.
    The Nikon D700 NEF are, in a word SOFT .... they are also heavily interlaced but there's still a lot of work in getting out all the detail.
    I suspect some interlacing in the Leica files also ... I know for a fact Phase-One interlace and assume the Leica files are likewise.
    The colour the fidelity and shear crispness of M8 files is outstanding in comparison to anything I have seen out of a DSLR (DMR aside) and I see a lot of different file types. Which is what you would expect out of a Kodak CCD sensor sans AA and Leica lenses. They are astoundingly good Leica lenses you know.
    Well no don't suppose you do because you haven't used Leica gear
     
  77. >>> The Nikon D700 NEF are, in a word SOFT .... they are also heavily interlaced but there's still a lot of work in getting out all the detail.
    OK, I'll bite. What does interlaced mean in that context? Perhaps you post some of your images comparing the D700 and M8.
     
  78. You may as well argue over what kind of shirt the other guy should wear. What's the diff? geez
     
  79. Why Bite?
    strange response ... I'm not attempting to prove a point or evangelize for a particular brand.
    The D700 is a very capable camera ... and even if I do say so myself ... I've been able to pull some very nice prints from D700 files.

    "Perhaps you post some of your images comparing the D700 and M8."

    that would constitute a breach of intellectual property ... I mostly print for other photographers.
    though I could do that ... I have a D700 sitting next to me on the desk ... an have some of my own files sitting around somewhere ... but to what point?
    what use would small web based 72 PPI jpegs be in illustrating anything particularly worthwhile?
    All the current crop of top end DSLRs with heavy AA filter blocks produce noticeably soft files straight out of the box.
    Its a no brainer ... cameras with no AA filter blocks produced crisper results ... how could it be any other way.
    As I suggested Harvey do ... get hold of a D700 and look for yourself.
    With so much opinion floating around the Internet its the only way to really find out about these things is test for yourself—don't take some stranger off the web's word ...
    when you've done that we'll have something to discuss.

    "What does interlaced mean in that context?"

    again—when you get your D700 to play with ... pull your RAW data out (or if you are not that way inclined... get someone to do it for you) and take a look for yourself.
    The answers are in the files. File data cannot lie. The information is either there or it is not.
     
  80. C before you can get a file you have to take a picture. Acording to tests of the much cheaper D90 a prosumer camera $1200 it takes cleaner pictures indoors at high iso settings, noise will always blotch out details and ruin resolution. The dynamic range of these current cameras is better so that you can do high contrast subjects with a wide range of tonality. So much goes into using raw data that I wouldn't know why your D700 files are not working right for you, but acording to DXO they are much better than the 33rd place M8 got.
     
  81. Thanks Harvey ... but back up a bit lad.
    Don't put words in my mouth because you're on a mission and don't like anything that doesn't agree with your view ... who said the D700 files were crook and who said the files I'm discussing came from one particular camera.
    You don't want a discussion—you just want to ram your ideas down other's throats and then make it up as you go along when someone makes an observation which does not accord with you particular view of the world.
    Have you got any ideas or knowledge of your own to share or just naff sound-bite quotes you've grabbed from here and there.
    I'm not pushing any boat and nothing I've said is controversial, its common knowledge, or should be.
    I hear round the traps there are some issues with the Canon 5D II files ... Canon have been made are aware of them and are working on it.
    Now if it had been Leica—you would be all over it, there would a hallaballoo from your quarter about Leica releasing an expensive substandard camera and what a joke blah blah...
    Photographic equipment is not a pissing game ... these things are but tools of the trade... people select their tools based on what they want and need. Often the choice is not always a completely super rational matter. That's about the size of it.
    Vivek is spot on ... quit wasting your life worrying yourself silly over the foolish mistakes made by others—move on ... get a life man!
    The M8 is great little box if rangefinders are your thing ... lots of people use them very successfully and produce high standard work with them ... FACT ... be happy for them, learn the live with it.
    I'm not a pissing completion with you, or anyone else. Not need to get all overwrought, take what I have to say, or leave it. Life can be as simple as that.
     
  82. >>> "What does interlaced mean in that context?"


    Still looking for an answer...
     
  83. C I have done more discussion here than you have and have responded close to ten times, that is discussion. Please note that I have posted here on pnet over a thousand times. More than that if they hadn't lost the server years ago, I go back about 12 years here.
    Mostly those posts were helping answer peoples questions, not giving my views and opinion.
    I have 4 kids to boss around thank you, I could care less if you want to spend thousands of dollars buying a Leica when a $600 Pentax 20 digital scores higher on the DXO mark and gets great reviews on all the non biased sites like Dpreview. Its a discussion, you can take anyones opinion for what its worth, discard the one you don't agree with and learn as I do from others. I have in the past 12 years a lot from guys like Al Kaplan and David Hartman and the Nikon forum's Shun.
    I never bite the teachers hand for they make me smarter, and I find that all of good will here are my teachers. I only object to hot heads and donkeys.
     
  84. Harvey, for someone with such a long and rich association with P.net, it's somewhat of a surprise to see you're not a $25-a-year paid-up member.
     
  85. Come on, Clive!
    Who should be paying whom?! ;)
     
  86. >>> that would constitute a breach of intellectual property ... I mostly print for other photographers. though I could do that ... I have a D700 sitting next to me on the desk ... an have some of my own files sitting around somewhere ... but to what point?
    Go for it. I want to see what you're talking about. This is a photography forum, right?
     
  87. Brad, have you really nothing better to do than be a professional troll?
     
  88. >>> Brad, have you really nothing better to do than be a professional troll?
    Why so hostile, Ray?
    Perhaps you can share with others here what "Interlaced" means? I sure don't know.
     
  89. Here are some test pages from DPReviews tests of both the Leica M8 and the Nikon D700. You can see for yourself the artifacts present in both cameras.
    Leica M8
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page12.asp
    Nikon D700
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond700/page16.asp
     
  90. "Brad, have you really nothing better to do than be a professional troll?"
    You mean we can be paid for our trolling? Brad, why didn't you let me know?
     
  91. >>> You mean we can be paid for our trolling? Brad, why didn't you let me know?
    I didn't know that either! I've been donating all this time. Don't understand why people get uptight when a relatively simple question is asked.
     
  92. Not surprising to have a comment about how expensive things are for you Harvey, for someone who does not contribute to the subscription to P.N. , stop being such a tight ass and worry more about taking pictures, can we see some of your work?
     
  93. I love taking pictures of kids but then I've been told that other people find it boring looking at other peoples kids. When I can get away to some scenic place I promise I will post it on Flickr a sight where complete strangers look at photos for fun.
    Meanwhile like Jack Benny I am cheap, I found out years ago that is how you retire rich. Look at all the guys stuck on the upgrade treadmill of high end (super expensive) cameras that are out of date in a year.
    One thing came from this discussion is that I realized that buying $1200 cameras ever year and a half apart and selling it and buying the next newer and more improved body is cheaper and better IQ wise then buying a $3600 camera and keep it for four and a half years. I mean who is going to want to buy that $3600 expensive camera after nearly 5 years.
     
  94. There is no correlation between paying the $25 and adding value. A lot of d-bags are paid up members.
     
  95. I agree that icons don't mean a thing.
     
  96. I've had Nikon stuff and recently sold some of it to get a used M8. The M8 is small enough to go with me almost everywhere. I could have gotten a D300 + lenses and maybe even a D700 for the same money but they would be sitting at home as they don't fit in my regular daybag. So, the M8 is always with me and the Nikons wouldn't be.
    I know the latest Nikons and Canons are great in low light (in fact, I don't think there's a bad camera on the market today, which is great for photographers). But I can't take a photo if I don't have the camera with me. The Leica is a small but professional-level camera that is eminently portable. That's an issue that doesn't show up on any comparison charts.
     
  97. You could have gotten a very compact D60 that has dust removal system and would fare better in imclement weather than the M8 which has no weather seals and no dust removal system and has been known to have bitten the dust from condensation. Its not even warranteed for condensation damage. Personally I would get the D90 and put it in a neoprin case and stick in my day bag its lighter and more compact than a D300 and gives at least as good pictures.
     
  98. You guys realise that the same arguments were made about the inferior M7 vs previous models..? Leica have always been more expensive than other brands and probably always will be - but one person's idea of expensive is another person's loose change - get over it.<p>Shame to see W/NW section disappear into the right hand margin - thats what I say. <p> The proof of the pudding is in a print gentlemen - not on a screen. the M8 punches way above its weight where it counts. In 20 years or so my eyes wont be as good as they are now - so I will probably need an autofocus system - til then I am happy with a bright vewfinder in a small package with a back up film body using the same three lenses.
     
  99. Pete you missed the point. M7 takes exactly the same picture with correct exposure as M4 using same film. We are comparing Raw digital output capabilities as measured by a machine test bench using software to analyse the results instead of opinion of human reviewers. Its not about money because the rating list of 50 cameras shows some of the best rated cameras cost a lot less than some that cost much more for lesser performance.
    Since cameras in the digital age are obsoleted faster than film cameras were this means thinking through how much sense it makes to spend big vs. getting the best mid range camparable performance camera and shortenning to time until trade in and upgrade is the decision one should take seriously. Something better is seemingly only a year or two away so upgrading is more necessary then ever in the past.
     
  100. The M8 files stack up very nicely against the D700 ... You have to do FAR less work on the M8 files....
    ...The Nikon D700 NEF are, in a word SOFT .... they are also heavily interlaced but there's still a lot of work in getting out all the detail.
    These two statements need a bit of context.
    The amount of work you have to do depends on what you're starting with. At lower ISOs with a good exposure the M8 can make excellent images. At higher ISOs it cannot, regardless of how good your starting exposure. And the quality of any image depends in the first instance on the lens you're using. It's perfectly possible to take an image with a modern Nikon prime that will have far greater resolution and contrast than the M8 using an older or single coated lens. So, there's no basis for making a definitive statement on comparative qualities between the two camera -- unless for the purpose of hyperbole or promoting ignorance.
    I own a D700 and an M8 and some of the best lenses that Nikon and Leica have made. On the basis of every day comparative shooting I can say there's not much in it. And IMHO, in cases where exposure is less than optimal, the D700 wins hands down.
     
  101. I'm sorry for those who don't like the idea—but the M8, for all its quirks, is capable of producing exceptionally good quality files. Its not the mangy dog this particular forum make it out to be.
    The evidence is in the prints ... there are things the M8 will not do and things it does—as well and sometimes better than some of the DSLRs.
    as Peter A so astutely points out .."the M8 punches way above its weight where it counts."
    The M8 certainly aint the total package ... it was not designed to be. What it does do well, however—it does very well.
    The same can be said of rangefinders generally
    Diversity and choice in the marketplace IS a healthy thing. The M8 is a different kind of camera and this IS a good thing.
    You are allowed to own, or use, more than one camera and one kind of camera system you know.

    Are people suggesting strong AA filtration, doesn't not, effect the translation of the optical image through a digital camera system?
    AA filters bring a number of advantages but also have a down side. There are no golden bullets in photo-technology is about coming up with appropriate comprise and solutions. From an engineering point of view ... you do this — and this happens — sort of stuff.
    The respective manufacturers have strategies (both hardware and software) to deal with each scenario.

    I don't own an M8 ... nor do I intend buying one btw. I have used one, but not for any serious work, but have worked on a number of M8 files now. An in my experience they stack up well against those from the big Canons and Nikons especially
    People don't have to agree with my observations and nor does it upset me if folks proffer a different of opposing view. There are gaping holes in your logic though Harvey ... to get your point across you need to stop trying so hard. This discussion is going no place so leave y'all to it ...
    The answer is in the files Brad! — have a gander mate — then we'll have something to discuss.
    respect and be nice to each other, Craig
     
  102. "At higher ISOs it [the M8] cannot, regardless of how good your starting exposure."
    Neil ... well since you have a D700 ... you'd use that for situations which demand the use of high ISOs No?
    Save yourself some PP hassles, eh
    sounds like a nice kit you have there
     
  103. >>> The answer is in the files Brad! — have a gander mate — then we'll have something to discuss
    Still no explanation on what "Interlace" is with respect to digital image files. Just more gobbledygook...
     
  104. What really goes obsolete with digital is folks brains.
    One can shoot nice images with an older digital that is paid for.
    Here my five 1.3 Megapixel Olympus P&S shoot are still used all the time; for Ebay photos; documenting repairs.
    The two phase one scan backs that are a decade old still are used; one is 35;' the other 50 megapixel..
    The Epson RD-1 is used alot too; and it to has been declared obsolete by folks who want to "keep up" with what ones Neighbor buys.
    Maybe one just wants to document some House repair for a client; you just use the 10 year old obsolete 1.3 Mp camera to shoot some plumbing; its only in VGA mode here; thus OVERKILL P
    Preaching that digitals are obsolete in a few years is a great thing; thus one can buy spares like the ones that shot these for little money or one gets the cameras free.
    The first unit cost 320 bucks new; the second unit 50 bucks; with a wad of cards; the last two were 30 and 12; a last one was free.
    camaera/ [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  105. Here is the bottom of a Signet 35 shot with a 10 year old obsolete 1.3Mp digital; that cost about the same price as a 12 pack of great beer. The images were shot in VGA mode; not even what the camera can really do. [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  106. Here is what the obsolete Signet 35 ABOVE that cost 4 bucks at the Simi Valley Swap meet shoots like; at the TRW swap meet afterward. Thats Gordos car on Supulveda about 10 years ago. The lens really is just average in looks ; a Leica owner would say is cosmetically worthless; ie it has a few cleaning marks; thus a mint Summicron would shoot a zillion times better:) . The C41 was drug store processed at Savons; its just a dumb snapshot using the sunny 16 rule; with a camera built in 1955; with some expired asa 400 Kodak film; the stuff in the junk fire sale table. [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  107. "Just more gobbledygook..."
    Brad — having a few difficulties getting your head around it all ... fair enough
    try a different tack ... more hands on ... write the digital files from the following cameras back to film (using a film writer)
    D3x, IDs MkIII, PhaseOne P45 and Mamiya ZD 22Mp
    All should, in theory, provide a perfectly printable (darkroom) negative or clean usable E6 chrome, roughly 645 size ... as it happens one of them will, the other three will not ... why?
    you can figure out the context from there
     
  108. Craig, What is a film writer? Thanks!
     
  109. >>> try a different tack ... more hands on ... write the digital files from the following cameras back to film (using a film writer)
    Why? I make prints.
    Just more nonsense instead of being direct and answering the question...
     
  110. Geez, I've been reading these posts and it occurs to me that some people really need to think about getting a life.
     
  111. Don't be frighten to get you hands dirty brad
    Vivek ...
    Kinda like a scanner that works backwards ... instead of producing a digitized file from film ... it yields an image on film from digital files. They do cost whack though
    Particularly, useful for making RGB color separation negatives for tri-color carbon printing and allied processes. These are contact processes ... i.e. the print is the same size as the negative. So a typical way of working these days is to shoot 4x5" E6 and make separation negatives which can then be enlarged.
    Done the traditional darkroom way, I think you can see, its all a hell of a lot of work which can take days.
    A non-interpolated 22 MP digital file yields a usable negative just under 645 size ... which can then be enlarged the traditional way.
    Working digitally at the capture stage saves time and adds unlimited control over the final product ... you can set curves etc and pump out the perfect negative ...
    It only works on clean files ... if additional information is added into the in-camera RAW files, the output is garbage.
    Interpolation is a dirty word, so the manufactures borrowed a less offensive video term "interlacing". Which is what Brad is going on about.
    Don't know why interpolation is a dirty word ... digital stills is an interpolative process after all, not much more than clever mathematical algorithms when all said and done.
    It is possible to analyse the RAW file data and determine how much "information" has been "added in". I think folks would be a little surprised at just how much data in some of the files is non optically derived.
     
  112. Hi Craig, Thanks! :)
    I had a hunch that there will be an expansive exaplantion covering some of the questions posed. Nice.
     
  113. Neil has no axe to grind since he owns both the M8 and the D700. Of course if you have better dynamic range , color depth, lower high iso noise you have less PP to do. In broad daylight at 400 iso you can get great shots with any decent inexpensive camera. And according to the tests you can do much better than with the Leica with much cheaper cameras than the very fine D700 you can get similar results with the D90 IQ wise. Of course you may need the extra features and build quality with weather seals. Neil says the D700 is his choice in less than ideal conditions and that validates what the ratings show. Here is the complete ranking of the top 50 cameras.. the D700 is #2 the D90 is #7 and the M8 is #35.
    http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Camera-rankings
     
  114. Harvey ... you got a ranking for the top fifty cars too?
     
  115. >>> Interpolation is a dirty word, so the manufactures borrowed a less offensive video term "interlacing". Which is what Brad is going on about.
    Great. Can you point me to a few references from manufacturers where the word interlacing is now the new interpolation?
     
  116. What is the stuff above, below, in front, and behind the sensor? Chopped liver?
     
  117. Is there any significant difference besides low light iso performance? Would DxO's ranking of rated cameras on the linked page change significantly if they measured by that metric only and dropped the rest?
    "The DxOMark Sensor scale aggregates the performance values of its three constituent image quality metrics, Color Depth, Dynamic Range, and Low-Light ISO."
     
  118. "You could have gotten a very compact D60 that has dust removal system and would fare better in imclement weather than the M8 which has no weather seals and no dust removal system and has been known to have bitten the dust from condensation. Its not even warranteed for condensation damage. Personally I would get the D90 and put it in a neoprin case and stick in my day bag its lighter and more compact than a D300 and gives at least as good pictures."
    has anyone mentioned that the m8 is a RANGEFINDER? i haven't used a d60 but i am pretty sure it's not a rangefinder?
    harvey, i appreciate where you are coming from but to pass on internet hearsay re" the m8 biting the dust etc" without actually using one, or producing prints from one doesn't really hold any water with me. i have used an m8 professionally, daily for a year and a half in very adverse weather conditions and it performed flawlessly. not a single hiccup. it also produces extremely high quality prints. that, through hands on experience, equals a great camera to me.
    m8 = great camera
    d700 = great camera
    fui s5 pro = great camera
    nikon d3 = great camera
    nikon f3 hp = great camera
    none of this is supported by other peoples scientific testing... just my user experience.
    ps add to the list a m6 ttl, m4, contax rts III, ricoh gr1, nikon d1x, nikon d2x, mamiya 645 pro... you get the point.
     
  119. Wow. I thought that the Canon EOS forum was fiesty!
    I'd like to afford an M8 one day. For now, I'll use my 5D with my 35, 50, and 90 cron and 80 lux. Moving from Canon "L" to Leica "R" was enough of an upgrade for me for now.
     
  120. The real world scenarios DXO's tests respond to, according the the website, are landscape, flash studio, and action photography (although they make reference to photojournalism, the appear to mean something akin to auto racing, thus photojournalism is lumped into the same category with action photography). How relevant are these scenarios to rangefinder photography?
    It seems that a lot of M8 and rangefinder photographers here think these tests are missing criteria for the functionality they are looking for when they assess a camera's quality and useability.
     
  121. Bingo.
     
  122. I'm with Brad on querying the "interlacing" garbage. Why not give a clear, concise, referenced explanation instead of beating about the bush? Interlacing and interpolation are two totally different things. Come on, out with it. Seems C Levett is at a loss to explain. You can always gracefully back down if you like...
     
  123. Working digitally at the capture stage saves time and adds unlimited control over the final product ... you can set curves etc and pump out the perfect negative ...
    It only works on clean files ... if additional information is added into the in-camera RAW files, the output is garbage.
    I'm struggling to think of what is being referred to here; it's certainly not any digital to film process that I'm familiar with.

    I do a lot of conversions to film from digital using a Durst Lambda process, where a film negative is made from a digital original, so I'm pretty familiar with the process. The starting point is always a post-processed flattened file (i.e. a TIFF for preference), and never a RAW file. The whole point of the digital to film process is to create a printable film negative that contains all the data of the post-processed file, including significant adjustments to colour, tone and dynamic range. In other words, there's plenty of added information beyond what the RAW file contained.
    And that's how it's supposed to work because using a RAW file would be pretty pointless. You might as well shoot slides; same result and much cheaper.
     
  124. Raw files are data not images. There has to be a conversion (or development), which means additional information will be added. If you merely convert the raw data, what you will get is whatever the jpeg settings are in your camera at the time of exposure or the defaults of the converter. So, you might as well characterize the exposure as you please.
     
  125. this has got to be just about the most boring photography discussion ever, anywhere....
    the only point I'd like to add to it has to do with Lica's ads.....they usually just show you a great piece of machinary, and lots of words to discribe what it cab do........ but no photographs shot with that machinary....
    00RtXx-100411584.jpg
     
  126. rowlett

    rowlett Moderator

    Brian Seay said, "Wow. I thought that the Canon EOS forum was fiesty!"
    The Canon forum, and all other forums on photo.net, don't know feisty. This forum invented fiesty. It is purely an on-line Leica phenomena, much like the waving fists and yelled cuss words that are likely this evening when I am doing my Christmas shopping.
     
  127. Canon and Nikon don't do boutique editions Leica does, if any camera would have a Gucchi edition or a Cartier edition it would be Leica. Its more than a camera at least in the old days when they lasted 50 years, took as good a picture as the latest film camera model. There have alway been those who would never look at the Hexar RF or the Zeiss Ikon rangefinder because not being Leica they had no CASCHE no lineage and no resale value. Then there is the collectability of all the special order, limited editions. Even old empty boxes are collectable. This I am sure why an M7 holds its price well while the Nikon F5 does not. Both cameras are beautifully made.
    But the problem is that those days of Leica film cameras being forever are only for film users, and I love my M4P, I have 5 M lenses the MR4 and the motor drive, a Metz flash and a couple of optical VF's for my wide angles. None are collectible, just plain jane.
    Today digital environment has changed even Leicas universe. Unless the whole image processor and associated sensor module can be swapped out then the Leica M digital gets obsolite just like every other camera. All the good camera are now made with Magnesium metal bodies and long lasting shutters. Even the concept of RF and SLR is going to change because at 1.4MP the electronic HD lcd VF like the one in the Panasonic G1 is a new way to have no mirror and direct view TTL. This should be the next camera catagory. But products are disposible in the digital age a 5 year old camera design is no better than a $700 camera these days.
     
  128. Leica has ALWAYS been an expensive camera when they are bought new. Its like that today;yesterday; a decade ago; in the 1970's; in the 1930's. A Kodak Retina in the 1930's cost less than Leica;
     
  129. Harvey; Santa can make you the 500 buck M8 or 300 buck RD-1 if you just can get 100,000 Good little boys and girls to buy them; and say 5 to 10 million raised for the tooling costs. :)

    The M8 and RD-1 are made in 1/1000 the sales volume of a Walmart/Best Buy dslr; thus the tooling costs per unit at ONE THOUSAND TIMES MORE PER UNIT. An change that costs to design; tool and test might cost 50 bucks per M8 and 5 cents for the walmart dslr. I don not know why this is so hard to fathom; ie costs per unit are higher with zilch volumes.

    An analogy is that it costs a photographer MORE to shoot 1 students photo's at 1000 schools; than 1000 students at 1 school. I mentioned this concept in the several other threads where you ask why doesnt a M8 or RD-1 cost less; and you compared it ALWAYS to a super high volume dslr.

    Camera makers are probably not going to fart around and risk retrofitting a used body with a new upgraded sensor; thats loony from a warranty issue;and a massive about of labor.
    If you are fixated on Leica always having the latest sensor of the month; you will wait for all time.
    Its really not a new concept that cameras get new features each year; it was like that before anybody on Photo.net was born.
     
  130. Harvey ; One also novel concept is why it costs more tranasction fee per share to buy 10 shares of GE stock versus 10,000 shares; or buy 10 potatoes versus 10,000 potatoes. Just because YOU want a vendor to sell a low volume product at a loss is not going to happen; unless they are irrational and ignorant of production costs. Companies actually do consider production costs.
     
  131. Kelly, Please don't pre-empt any future threads. Without Harvey, p.net will have very low traffic.
     
  132. Love these my cam is better than yours threads.
    Jeez,we all know the M8 is the ultimate photo machine. Not sure why, but is must be cause it cost loads of bucks and you can say sucks boo to the financially challenged folks. Cool or what! I say old chap i use a Leica M8 what do you use..a Canon? Oh dear but it does rather suit you. Ha,ha.
    Now my mate Vivek,well,he got himself a Panasonic thingy..and, then got himself an adaptor and filed it down, so now it's nearly a proper M8. Cause it's files are very small he had to interlace them (sort of like they do with the thrilly bits on nickers). Now it does nearly just as good but just looks ugly.
    Merry xmas folks and a happy new year.
    ;)
     
  133. I say old chap i use a Leica M8 what do you use..a Canon? Oh dear but it does rather suit you. Ha,ha.
    That's pretty funny.​
     
  134. If it's OK with everybody, I've just patented the use of this thread, read aloud by a professional Basil Rathbone impersonator, as a new type of surgical anesthesia.

    Why, I've fallen asleep three times just typing this sentence! Am... amazzzz.. oop! Amazing!
     
  135. Kelly, Kelly, Kelly, As an EE I know about economies of scale, payback on R&D and amortizing fabrication and tooling for manufacturing. Of course Nikon partners for electronic sensors and cpu's and does well. Canon could supply their last generation 1dMIII 1.3x crop 10mp chip its not going to compete with their new cameras but it finished in the top 10 on the DXOmark.
    *
    http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Camera-rankings
    *
    This would be a good deal for Leica and Canon could make more money on already depreciated R&D and fabrication. Leica could have a much better camera if they partnered up. Just one way.
     
  136. "Canon and Nikon don't do boutique editions Leica does"
    Really, Harvey?
    http://www.cameraquest.com/NRFS3%202000.htm
     
  137. It is really amazing how much those S3 kits cost.
     
  138. I for one am glad Harvey re-posted this link. It's what I had always suspected; Canon is blowing doors on Nikon! I for one, have been a Nikon user for forty years and it seems now they have lost their integral optical and technological edge to Canon. If I had to do it all over again I'd definitely go Canon. As for Leica, only an older M2 or M3 when I want to fool with film again. Even though I could purchase a sweet system from Leica for the price of one or two high-end bodies from Canon or Nikon. Thanks Harvey for reposting the link!
     
  139. Thanks Phillip, Canon clearly has the most top cameras in the first tier of cameras, but Nikon does have the top 2 and the D90 is a bargain. I too have lots of Nikon gear and hope for an 18MP Nikon the size of the F6 with a 100% viewfinder the D700 only has a 95% vf and I would love to have a 5:4 mode for portraits so I can frame exactly the 8x10" section of the frame in the camera. If I don't get what I want from Nikon in two years I will get a Canon and a 24-105mm and a 300mm tele that should be enough for most of my shooting and I will just keep my favorite film Nikons. They ain't worth selling but and F3hp and the F100 are sure dandy cameras.
     
  140. Very good news, Harvey. Please tell us (well, you won't show any photos but could articulate your feelings)
    all about how your zooms and the cameras function after you get them. Would this be Canon EOS or Pentax or Nikon?
    While you are at it check out the Nikon RF prices! :)
     
  141. "I for one am glad Harvey re-posted this link"


    Are people really so insecure about their equipment choices that they need to resort to measurebating?
     
  142. Its better than looking at the photographic world thru Rose Colored Cut Filter glasses, and brand fanboy bias.
     
  143. Its better than looking at the photographic world thru Rose Colored Cut Filter glasses, and brand fanboy bias.
     
  144. Yeah, if you are a Nikon user for 40 years or threaten to switch to Canon that does not make you a fanboy at all.
    It is a pity that you have common Leica M2 or M3 and not one of those really valuable Nikon black SPs with 50/1.1 lens and the original hood.
    Don't stop. This is far too entertaining.
     
  145. Where's the Pancake Bunny when you need him?
     

Share This Page