Kamber's M8 Extensive Field Test

"Conclusion:

<p>

I find the M8 useful in some situations. Naturally it shares the benefits of

all rangefinders; it is quieter and smaller than an SLR. It is less noticeable

in dangerous situations where this unobtrusiveness may mean the difference

between getting the picture or not, or even getting home safely or not. In most

situations, usually in bright daylight, it will yield a usable image if one is

willing to put in some time with Photoshop.

</p><p>

 

That being said, I have found the Leica M8 to be unreliable, poorly designed,

and to deliver substandard results in most of the situations in which I have

used it. I canﾒt think of any camera--or for that matter any electronic device

I have recently used--that so thoroughly fails to live up to its potential and

its heritage..."

</p><p>

<a href="http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.html"

>Complete review here</a> </p>

Interesting review. Interesting quote: "An old M4 with a 35mm f1.4 or a 28mm f2 and Tri-x (or 400 speed color negative) pushed a stop will easily better the M8 at 640 ISO. " I had an M8. Never been to Iraq, though. I had most of the same problems taking photos of the kids around home. I think that the high ISO photos had more noise than some digital SLR's, but also more sharpness and matched the SLR's noise level with some noise reduction (which reduced the resolution).

Sad, but I don't think the M8 is designed to cater to photojournalists any more...

 

In a dusty hostile place like Iraq, one would assume that weatherproof sealing, ability to survive drops, etc. would be important, which is why pro cameras like the EOS 1 series now rule the world.

 

It's probably unfair to criticise Leica for not field testing the M8 in a place like Iraq. I think photojournalists represent maybe 0.1% of their customer base now. 99% are just rangefinder enthusiasts.

A damning report and, apart from the annoying punctuation errors throughout (M8's instead of M8s, etc), a great read! Obviously, as has been pointed out above, the M8 is NOT a rugged-use camera. However, Kamber's criticism goes well beyond that. At the end of the story he test shoots tourist shots in Barcelona and still the camera lets him down (and this is the replacement camera for one that has already failed!).

Very well done IMHO -- keeps me in LTM Leicas & my 2 Leicaflexes (SL and SL2).

This isn't just about the M8 as the reviewer highlighted: The M7 is notoriously unreliable. Whilst the rest of the camera manufacturing world has been making progress Leica has been doing two things: Failing to enhance a good product to keep pace with the competition and failing to ensure that they maintain one of their key differentiators: Ruggedness and reliability.

 

What I am surprised about is the number of professionals, like the reviewer, who really want to use Leica. Leica is stuffing this up all on their own.

 

If they provided what they used to provide: a robust, reliable, simple to use photographers' tool at a competitive price then they would kill it. Leicas and Nikon Fs used to be price comparable, not so any more. No Leica is weatherproof; and the latest M8 is simply a kludge as a user camera.

 

Leica, the environment is evolving away from you. You, like the dinosaurs, are failing to co-evolve with that environment. It makes me sad to see such a comprehensive failure. And if I hear about another special edition of some lens, housed in a box made of scrapped Stradivarius violins, I'll vomit.

 

Dr Kaufmann, do something about this now: an effective, robust, reliable user M9 with the useability failings fixed, that takes decent photos and the price set at $3,000.

 

Otherwise, like the Leyland P76 we will be sitting here in 5 years laughing about the failure of the M8 and the demise of Leica.

 

#end rant#

 

Mike

Their demise started with selling rebranded Japanese stuff at inflated prices. That worked. So now try a non durable M that needs red filters on the lens and is noisy as a an AK47. Sold some of those too.

 

What is next? Yes an R10 for $15000. That should finish up the trip to bankruptcy.

 

Be sure to mark off a few $4000 lenses, $1200 upgrades, and short product cycle as rest stops on the trip.

 

We get all this from a company that made a camera whose shutter design was 400,000 cycles WITHOUT SHOWING WEAR.

 

What is wronog with this picture?

Given the problems I'm surprised he stuck with the M8 as long as he did. I think I

would have chucked it after the first week.

 

Obviously the camera is not up to that kind of challenge. I hope the next version will

come closer.

As an M8 owner since January 2007 I am familiar with the camera's foibles

described in Kamber's article. I cannot say whether or not the M8 is for Iraq. I can

offer a few of my experiences that match and do not match Kamber's.

 

Before discussing the M8 I want to say that I have had no trouble with the M7 that I

bought used at Tamarkin in New York back in August 2005. It had been serviced by

Leica and carried a one year warranty. Kamber's experience with his M7 is not

unique I know. Happily it has not been mine.

 

Now to the M8.

 

Noise is a problem at 2500 ISO and at 1200 ISO but not so much at ISO 650 in my

experience. With film the higher in ISO you go the more grain you get. I recently

shot a production of Hamlet at my university with my loaner M8 (more on that later)

set at ISO 2500, my Epson RD-1s set at ISO 1600 and my M7 loaded with Fuji ISO

1600 color film. Scanned, the film was noisier than the M8 at ISO 2500 and the RD-

1s at ISO 1600. The M8 and RD-1s are about equal in noise.

 

Note: in the theater performance I had to use fairly quiet rangefinder cameras and I

had to use high ISOs because of the dim lighting.

 

Inaccurate frames. Indeed. In my recent "Viewfinder" ( Vol. 41, No 1, 2008) article

"M8: 75 = 85?" I prove with extensive shots with my M8 and Canon 85/1.5 that the

M8's 75mm frame is ipso facto an 85mm frame. I have calculated that the best lens

of the 50mm frame would be 58mm. But that said, I've been cheerfully using my

new used Summilux 75/1.4 on my M8 and am grateful for the latitude the 75mm

frame affords. The Voigtlander 25/4P works brilliantly with the M8's 24mm frame.

 

Banding and odd colors. Last year when I shot "A Midsummer Night's Dream" at my

university the color rendition in the theater (actually a gym) was so bad that I

switched to black and white. I got extensive banding with ISO 2500. This year

shooting Hamlet the loaner M8 rendered color generally very well with the white

balance set at Auto (best I found for the complex lighting) and I got no banding. I

have since shot my returned and repaired M8 at ISO 2500 and experienced no

banding so far. Colors seem to equal to the good to excellent color rendition I got

when shooting Hamlet under very difficult lighting conditions.

 

Accidently hitting the self-timer with flack jacket. It has not happened to me once. I

do not wear a flack jacket, however, and cannot judge.

 

Accidently setting ISO to 2500 with flack jacket. I do not see how this is possible.

I can see inadvertently activating Set with the flack jacket but changing ISO

requires a separate right hand action that I don't think a flack jacket could do. But

then I do not know flack jackets.

 

Quirks and build quality issues. The M8 has one quirk that Leica has not solved.

Sometimes it freezes or shuts down and you have to take the bottom plate off, take

out and put back the battery and then all is well. Not what you want to do in the

heat of battle in Iraq. Regarding overall build problems, I had to send my M8 to be

repaired when I got a nasty line in all of my pictures. The M8 had other issues.

Heating up for no apparent reason a few times was my major concern. I gave up my

M8 in March and received a loaner the next day. Except for that quirk I just

mentioned, its performance was flawless. I'll see how my returned M8 will function

in the coming months.

 

There are other issues Kamber mentions which have to do with irksome designs.

One is having to disembowel the M8 to change SD cards--a pain when your SD card

is about to be confiscated because you shot illegal scenes. For me it has not been

a problem, bearing in mind that I operate in Japan where I only have to be on the

watch for knife-wielding maniacs. Kamer complains that you don't get a 28mm frame

in the M8 and using a 21mm lens with a 28mm external viewfinder is a drag

because, among other things, it gives you too much depth of field. This

unfortunately is the problem of nearly all digital cameras and why a pair my M8 and

with a film M camera. Suggest using the Voigtlander 25/4P with the 24mm frame. It

is almost equal to 28 and offers less of a problem with depth of field that the 21mm

acting as a 28mm lens.

 

Strange exposures and off-colors. Yes. Sometimes the M8's exposure is way off.

I think the problem is that one sometimes inadvertently presses half-way when

shooting, thus engaging the exposure lock. I've learned to only lightly touch the

shutter release button (equipped with Mini-Softie) before shooting. I believe that with

the various downloadable upgrades the color problem has been solved to a great

extent.

 

Dreadful exposure compensation controls. Couldn't agree more. But the controls in

general as very straightforward.

 

Did Leica release the M8 too early? I believe it did. It needed at least another year

of testing. Am I sorry I bought the M8? No. I like the thing in spite of its quirks.

Most of the time it works well. Am I sorry I did not wait a year to buy my M8? No,

no, no. It was about a thousand cheaper back then.

 

I agree that Leica prices have gone through the roof. I partially blame the high Euro

for that.

 

I guess my biggest regret in having the M8 is that my film camera are underused. I

do not regret savings pots of money on film and processing. But that is off the

point.

 

Finally, what Clive said about Kamber's sometimes poor editing will no doubt have to

be said about this posting from me. It is past my bedtime here in Japan as I write.

My poof reading will be cursory, alas. No apologies. This is free copy.

The review seems to point to inexperience on the part of Leica with what is now the state of the art. One might normally forgive this lack of experience were the price not so high (and apparently the service intervals so long).

 

I don't think the problem is "rebranded japanese stuff." Minolta's CL and CLE were great little cameras with modern tech that actually worked. And Yashica and Kyocera showed that they could produce modern cameras (Contax SLRs) that were every bit as Teutonically rugged as German gear with great ergonomics and technology too. Though to be fair, their first camera, the RTS I had electronics that WERE troubleprone and which are virtually unrepairable today.

 

I just am not sure there is ANY "right" path Leica can get on that can save them. Trying to design an M8 followon digital that the traditionalists can accept seems to lead to prices that eliminate it from most people's shopping list. Creating a modern digital rangefinder (well made of modern materials) would have it's major buyer rejecting it for blasphemy. And can Leica really produce ANYTHING for a Canon/Nikon/Sony price?

 

I'm greatly saddened both by my lack of a digital rangefinder I can actually buy and what I see as the downfall of a great camera and lense-maker. But it hasn't happened yet, and where there is life there is hope.

I'm greatly saddened. I have lots of Leica glass (21f3.4, 28f2, 35f2, 50f1.4, 65f3.5, 75f2, 85f1.5, 90f2, 135f3.5, 200f4, 280f4.8, 400f5 and several different versions, all in all about 30 lenses.)

 

But I've just purchased a Nikon D3.

 

If Leica can't even keep me as a customer then there doesn't seem to be much hope.

He cites <a

href="http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_6.html">lack of

depth of field</a> as one negative of the M8. The images he shows to prove his

point are powerful examples. We are never going to see a full fame Leica RF.

This look is what finally drove me away from APS-C DSLRs to a full-frame

digital. Even if Leica did somehow pull this off they don't have the

resources or technology to compete with Canon, Nikon or Sony.

His terminology's funny. What he's saying is that the M8 has <i>too much</i> depth of field, not that it lacks depth of field. (Of course, that's inevitable with a miniature sensor).

 

The Leica M8 is as digitally stealthy and as quick as it gets out here in the real world of professional street photojournalism. I love the M8 - foibles and all. It is a great camera. That said I do look forward to its continued maturation and further evolution into the finest stealth professional picture-making machine it already is.

 

I have great faith that Leica will more than adequately evolve future generations of the M to our satisfaction now that they've put their first gen out. We've already seen numerous improvements and a continuous commitment to upgrade or repair customer's M8s.

 

The M8 is still a marvel to me in that they've been able to cram all that they did into such a compact body. Do I expect the M8 to evolve? From the looks of it, it already is. Will the evolution be fast enough to satisfy me? Maybe. The reality of what is already out there in the genre of an M digital dictates patience. We've got a start and a damn good one. Foibles and firmware are being worked on. I continue to see Leica's dedication to design and manufacture the best out there. Sometimes itﾒs a struggle. Good engineering means designing what the engineers are convinced will work based upon years of science, materials, craft and art. Most importantly, good engineering means learning from what was thought to be the best solution and wasn't - and moving on. Ask any engineer.

 

"Stealth," as my friend and National Geographic photographer Sam Abell once said, "is paramount to good photojournalism." There surely is a need for the high quality stealthy digital rangefinder that is the Leica M8.

 

What's good for the professional is good for the amateur. Its an approach I'd like to see continue. In the absence of the expense for film and processing we have seen the onslaught flood of "pro-sumer" digital photographers that have no concept of the business ﾖ a bad situation for our profession. The Leica should always be designed for the hard use and versatility of the professional. Leica aficionados I should think would want that quality as well as the bragging rights that go along with it.

 

This to me is not so much about the M8 as it about digital vs. analog. Iﾒve had similar operating problems with my Canon EOS Mark II Ds. The EV comp gets regularly bumped (rotated) and Iﾒve overexposed, or the camera failed to operate and I look at it stupidly, like, ﾓWhat the hell have I now bumped, spun or pressed that I now have no clue about?ﾔ

 

Reality based Reality.

 

I take exception to Mr. Kamber's holy rail against the M8 without fully familiarizing himself with all the aspects of the M8 before baptizing himself with (under) fire.

 

A mentor of mine, John Sexton of large format fame, technical assistant to Ansel Adams and who acquired all the empirical data for last set of Adams books on photography once said something to the effect that with any new piece of equipment a photographer should sit in a comfortable chair and play with the camera (while watching TV if need be) to get to know it so intimately that he can work it blind folded (In preparation for the 1st ever trans Borneo vehicle crossing or the island - as photographer even - I had to learn how to drive a Land Rover blindfolded through a "tight" obstacle course listening only to the instructions of the person standing next to me. One bumped cone and we were disqualified-but that's another story!)

 

Michael, didnﾒt you ever learn "not to bite the hand that feeds you?" I just love it when people you attempt to help (Leica loaning Michael the M8) make a public display of such (dis) affection.

 

Michael, if you have a problem with the M8, it should be a quiet constructive intelligent collaboration between you and Leica and possibly the public. Anger such as yours should be reserved for and is perhaps the root cause of the battlefields you choose to cover. Diplomacy between parties is so much better than an angry war between reasonable people. The best developments - and relationships come from such astute quiet and constructive discussions.

 

I give Michael extreme credit for his war zone coverage but expecting the first gen M8 digital to perform exactly like an M with Canon digital experience is not reality. It sounds like although a long time M user you had certain expectations and just weren't up to speed on the M8. Expectations are the root cause of marriages/relationships going bad. Letting go of expectation and working with reality is, well, reality based. Yes the M8 may not need your needs at the moment but complete testing and evaluation might have made that clear earlier.

 

The M8 is every bit its roots in focusing, handling and sharpness but the similarities end there. (But yet there is the complaint about EV compensation but that's not in the DNA of the M6 or MP.) John Sexton's advice is important here. The M8's digital nature takes a ﾓlittleﾔ bit of a learning curve - we're talking computer over abacus. I also use a Canon EOS-1 MkII Ds and prefer the simplicity of M8's controls and menus. I do in fact use an aftermarket device to protect the buttons and the screen of the Canon - but that's another story and something to talk about with Leica or an aftermarket company like Hoodman. The M8 is not the "clunky" oversize hyperborg Canon. The learning curve on the MkII Ds was considerably higher than for the M8. Would I jump into combat for the first time with the Canon without familiarizing myself with it? No. Would I pay attention to all the reports out there? Absolutely.

 

Work with it and get to know it intimately. I still do this after 27 years in the business. Find and recognize the cameraﾒs strengths and get those strengths to work for your photography. Likewise being familiar enough with the camera to know what does not work for you is essential - and getting that info to Leica ﾖ or any manufacturer in a constructive way is equally important. IF after getting to know the camera, and finding that it does not work for you - then don't use it.

 

Too much depth of field? Yes I see your point but usually we've always clamored that we never had enough. Selective focus is usually the domain of longer lenses and using your feet to move back. Yes in your situation it can get you killed.

 

The M8 is also Leicaﾒs first foray into M digital and personally think that theyﾒve done a very good job on the 1st generation. Realize that the small company that Leica is has been though several management shakeups ﾖ not that it should be the consumersﾒ problem - but that again is reality.

 

The M8 is a joy for sure. There is still more to learn. Own one? Yes. Even after your review. I've used friends' and loaners. I've read enough users comments and reports to stop a tank. If I do have problems or find way to improve it (I like your ideas on the self timer and the button protect ﾖ it happened to me) I will work with Leica as I have in the past - for I've had a wonderful working relationship with Leica since the M4-P Walter Heun and Ronnie Greico days of the late 1970s.

 

Remember what kept Marty Forscher in business for years? Besides camera repair he continually modified cameras for the individual needs of photographers. Necessity is the mother of invention and in that Michael, your gaff tape appears to be exactly the sort of thing we would have done way back when. Was it Cartier-Bresson that marked his lens barrels with nail polish so that he could choose an f-stop and the corresponding hyperfocal distance point so that he could estimate, point and shoot?

 

Oh yeah, I still carry two bodies with me in case one goes down. Even in this age of digital I carry a film body with me. With an M itﾒs not taking up all that much room anyway.

 

Computers, (read - digital cameras) are notorious for all their foibles. And yes they do seem to require rebooting at the most inopportune time. Computers are much more susceptible to shock and water with a completely electronic based system. Like any computer out there, well, good luck bouncing it off the pavement.

 

After 3 summers and 3 continuous months each summer on the Greenland ice sheet living in tents, loosing my tent in one of several 70mph storms and one that eventually dumped 13 feet of snow on us in less than a week my analog cameras - all Leica M and R - functioned flawlessly. It took 2 of us 8 hours to dig my tent ﾖ and my Leicas out after a storm on the first day of one of those three month periods. (www.digitalrailroad.net/lousapienza) When I returned home my analog cameras were home to condensation and still liquid water. They functioned primarily because they had little or no electronics. Would I try that with a digital of any brand and be so battery or electronics dependent in such cold? NEVER! I might test the digital in those conditions and see how far I could go with them - but I certainly would not rely upon ANY brand of digital under those conditions. With any luck - and it would be luck with any digital - I might get through the entire expedition. I'm over all the extremes (not recommended for use) listed for Canon, Nikon or Leica: from 0C to -50F.

 

I still use the M6 I purchased around 1980 (one of the Greenland cameras with water and condensation) as well as my 3-year-old MP daily.

 

Damn those torpedoes Michael. Full speed ahead Leica. Keep it coming!

 

Historically, the Leica was an amateur camera that was adopted by some photojournalists because it met their needs in some but not all situations.

 

Nowadays, both the supporters and detractors of the M8 seem to judge it, at least in this thread, by the standards of modern photojournalists. From a business perspective, I wonder if that is the right approach.

 

When Nikon regined supreme in the photojournalist market, it had professional models for the photojournalist and other models for the happy snapper and the advanced amateur. Canon, in its era of dominance, has done the same. But Leica has never had truly different models for the amateur and the professional. Even the old MP was basically just an off-the-shelf model modified to accept a winder. And, given the limiited production run of the old MP, I think it's a safe bet that many if not most of the pjs who used Leicas in that era used the standard models.

 

Some photojournalists will always use rangefinder cameras, but it is doubtful that any modification of the M8 would make it the standard camera of most pjs. I imagine that Leica could build a digital M camera to truly professional standards, but I question how many such cameras could be sold at the price that would be required by the production costs, especially to the amateurs who have always been Leica's bread-and-butter market.

 

The M8 may not be the camera for the rigors of a war zone but, in my experience, it is a very nice tool for the circumstances in which the vast majority of its most likely purchasers are most likely to use it.

Hello all,

 

>> Historically, the Leica was an amateur camera that was adopted by some photojournalists because it met their needs in some but not all situations. <<

 

What a strange affirmation !

 

How the Leica was invented and why is well known... The first step toward it was during WW-1 and it was in fact originally an "exposure tester" for the observer-photographer of observation balloon. Developping a large format test glass plate in thenacelle was considered a liability and the idea come to use a camera with a piece of 35mm movie film instead and get the final shot with the large format camera with a good exposure.

 

Then Barback realised under an enlarger the potential of 35mm film and all the story began, though at first without a rangefinder.

 

Nonetheless, the first shots published form a Leica were indeed P.J. work : the flood at Wetzlar to be precise.

 

In the late 20's and the 30's, mainly in Europe, as the American P.J.'s were still using almost systematically their large format Speed Graphics with the flash gun invariably attached, more and more P.J.'s looked for cameras which were less obtrusive and able to use available light as much as the films of this period allowed.

 

The main cmaeras to emerge from this demand were the Rolleiflex (notice that even in the 50's the Rolleiflex format was still sometimes depicted as being a "small format" like in Marcel Natkin's "Le Manuel du Rolleiflex" - the Rolleiflex Manual) and the Leica ltm camera. Though SLR's existed, noticeably Contax, they were not favoured by P.J. as their finder was deem, their were no instant return mirrors and no automatic closure of the aperture to the set value. To put it shortly they were not faster or more efficient to use than a Leica with the ancestor of the Visoflex).

 

But Leica cameras were dragged into dangerous, harsh conditions by the P.J.'s who adopted them and were considerd rugged and reliable...

 

Under Hitler's rule in Germany and throughout the econd World War, military photographers of the so-called Propaganda Companies were very frequently equipped with a Leica and a set of lenses as standard dotation.

 

Lots of these Leicas were "liberated" by allied troops and during WW2 many copies wer made to provide a replacement on the allied side.

 

In contemporary litterature, you will hardly find a complaint on Leica ruggdness or unreliability ...

 

In the 50's the situation didn't evolved until the M body, which was speedier to use than the so-called Barnack's appeared and the Leicas, alorng with the Rolleiflex's, remained the main P.J. cameras used the world over (if you include Leica copies).

 

It is only during the 60's that the situation began to change radically. The Nikon F was there from 1959 on and it changes a lot the capabilities of the SLR's for P.J. work. It had a good finder which will stay luminous even if you close the aperture on the lens, because it had an automatic closure to the selected value when triggering the shutter button, the mirror return was of the instant variety and an electric motor might be added to the body if required.

 

Like any SLR, it has the cpability to handle a large variety of lenses without the limitations proper to a rangefinder and - but for a few very wide angles - required no extra finders. Framing was of course almost accurate.

 

With all these features, it was as fast and easy to operate than a Leica M, faster than a Leica M with a Visoflex and as it was as robust and reliable, it openend the era of SLR's.

 

In the mid 60's as magazines began to use more and more color pics, nikon added an effcient TTL lightmeter system through a dedicated prism.

 

Unfortunarely, insted of trying to improve the M design, incorporating as many of these features in a rangefinder camera were they were relevant and to emphasize on the unobtrusiveness, silence and ability to focus very accurately their magnificient lenses wide open to continue to sell their M cameras to P.J.'s, even as a specialized complement to an SLR gear, Leica, so proud of its history began a long sleep... They mildly reacted with the M5 no less than 7 years later, and it was already too late.

 

The M5 - you are entirely free to consider an aesthtical blunder - was nonetheless a remarkable camera of which the intial teething troubles were promptly corrected and a lot of Leica USERS still consider it the best M user's film camera ever. But within this 7 years of sleep, most active P.J.'s and mostly the younger ones had already transitioned to the Nikon F and other pro SLR's. the only remaining potential customers were... exactly like the ones you see today (except the rich snobs or collectors) : conservative people who don't want to change their habits and always obey to this rule : "if it was good enough for my grand'pa, it is good enough for me".

 

So the M5 was doomed form the beginning essentially because ti came too late... It was, by the way, the year Nikon issued the far more potent F2.

 

The answer from Wetzlar was ridiculous... Instead of trying to adjust the price of the M5 to make it more attractive or to improve it once again, they discarded the model and re-introduced an M4 BAD copy with cheaper elements : the M4-2 which in turn was replaced by the M4-P, both without any TTL metering at a time pro SLR's were beginning to have aperture priority and electronic shutters...

 

The M6 followed (the camera which should have been issued 15 years earlier). It didn't save Leitz to go bankrupt and Leica AG took the baby for better and for worse, but in fact for worse.

 

It was under their rule, after the mean improvement of introducing TTL-OTF flash (on a rangefinder camera which is essentially an available light camera) everything went wild... Unjustifiable prices, special series for collectors... culminating witht he entry of Vuitton in the capital of the company. Leica Ms were no more tools, but fancy fashion accessories.

 

Almost no attention was paid to really improve the model. The M still had the shutter of the 1950's model M3, the famous cloth shuitter some still defend (but accurate scientific measures of noise proved recently some metallic shutters emit less dB than this one !) limiting flash synch to 1/50th of a second and not exceeding 1/1000th of a second, when all pro cameras reached 1/250th as synch speed and 1:4000th to 1/8000th as top speed. They kept the complicated way to load the camera with the separate baseplate and with this, it was impossible to mount the motor or dismount it when a film was loaded...

 

Finally came the M7 with almost nothing more than an electronic control to the shutter allowing - at last - AE operations and the ridicoulous MP backward design... Leica, the only brand to dare to sell backward designs more expensive than the most up to date ones ! What a result ...

 

They also try a lot of tricks, like different finder magnification versions (instead of designing an eyepoint variable magnification finder, their unaltered optical capabilities would have rendered a child's play)...

 

Unfortunately for who knows what reason, rangefinder concept knew a rebirth just at the same time and for the firsdt time in many, many years theire were competitors and competitors using the M mount now in the public domain.

 

Bessas in entry level, Hexar RF (shortlived because of a campaign of lies about incompatibility with M lenses) and now and more seriously the Zeiss Ikon with a better finder, reliable and almost half the price of the M7...

 

Suddenly, they realized the world has changed and film was slowly but steadily fading away and they tried to produce a digital camera.

 

Instead of trying a partenrship with some big Japanese company with a lot of experience they go the Kodak way for the sensor (at the same time Kodak all but relinquished its own production of professional digital cameras) and they let Kodak officials tell them it is better to dispense with this or that filter for sharper images, filters which are present on ALL other sensors on the market... They chose an APS-C sensor (which will handicap their new camera users, forced to buy their new expensive wide angle Tri-Elmar new to maintain the all too important for a rangefinder wide angle capabilities) may be because technology forced this choice at that time, but they chose a sensor which - again for a rangefinder camera which is deemed to excel in low light - is unable to be noise free at high ISO and which need IR filters on the lens (somebody can explain to me why a filter above the frontal lens is less likely to alter the image quality than one directly on the sensor, please?)

And they got an unreliable camera which may produce excellent images (when it works) but under situations any pro DSLR can make even better, more defined and noiseless images... To crown the situation they even maintained the separate baseplate to load... an SD card !!!

 

Like ever, confident in their conservative, snob and collector's customer panel they thought it can be sold at a totally unrealistic price... They even created (or were obliged to) limit their production and simulate a demand exceeding the offer... (where are the reliable statisitics telling us how many M8 were actually sold ?).

 

Will it be the end ? I don't know. But one thing is sure, Leica cameras began their career as ideal P.J. tools, robust, fast, reliable, up to date for their time and realistically priced for their period. Now they are no more anything near that.

 

Who is responsible ? IMHO both the Leitz and Leica AG managers but the customers too... Anyone familiar with this board knows how conservative, pushing the boundaries of brand loyalty to the excess of considering shortcomings as "features" and ever prompt to jusifity the excessive retail prices of anything with a red dot some participants are to realize the problem.

 

To survive Leica management has to breath fresh air and consider the potential customers more important than the traditional ones... If it is not to late.

 

>> Nowadays, both the supporters and detractors of the M8 seem to judge it, at least in this thread, by the standards of modern photojournalists. From a business perspective, I wonder if that is the right approach. <<

 

It should have been, at Leica AG management level... before issuing the M8. See Zeiss, they officially declare they will produced a digital Ikon, when they'll judge the technology allows it (I suppose at a reasonable price)... translated in clear, with so many M mount lenses in the world, when full format will be possible as to drag without problems to digital photography those who doesn't want to lose the potential of their M mount lenses and may not accept to buy mandatorily another costly new lens to add to an already overpriced body.

 

>> When Nikon regined supreme in the photojournalist market, it had professional models for the photojournalist and other models for the happy snapper and the advanced amateur. <<

 

Again, I have to disagree... In the pre-AF world where Nikon reigned supreme there was never more than three levels of cameras at Nikon's and under normal circumstances, they should have performed equally well in terms of image quality. And the price of intermediate and entry level cameras was never equal or superior to the price of other brands pro or advanced amateur's bodies... Just because someone can read "Nikon" on the camera.

 

>> Canon, in its era of dominance, has done the same. <<

 

No Sir, after the end of FD system and the birth of EOS cameras, they have always priced reasonably their cameras (silver halide or digital) according to their technological level and the rest of the market... You may pay a small premium to get the name Canon on your body, but you don't pay the price of a less famous brand flagship for a middle of the range body.

 

Only Leica dare to do that... Unfortunately.

 

>> But Leica has never had truly different models for the amateur and the professional. <<

 

Leica CL (with Minolta) and M5 is the example. Earlier M2 vs M3.

 

>> Even the old MP was basically just an off-the-shelf model modified to accept a winder. And, given the limiited production run of the old MP, I think it's a safe bet that many if not most of the pjs who used Leicas in that era used the standard models. <<

 

MP is a rather recent release... But see upper why Leica share of the P.J. market constantly dwindled since the mid 60's.

 

>> Some photojournalists will always use rangefinder cameras, but it is doubtful that any modification of the M8 would make it the standard camera of most pjs. <<

 

Just because it is NOT the pro rangefinder digital camera they may accept to pay for. Specs are not conform to what can convince them and price is to high for something which will remain a complement to an SLR equipment.

 

>> I imagine that Leica could build a digital M camera to truly professional standards, but I question how many such cameras could be sold at the price that would be required by the production costs, especially to the amateurs who have always been Leica's bread-and-butter market. <<

 

If they were a bit realistic this camera will be produced as a joint venture with someone more capable in the realm of digital photography, full format, and sold at a realistic price : hence a tad over the price of a Nikon D300 and largely under the price of a Nikon D3, while it will have the same low light capabilities the D3 has.

 

They will concentrate on the optical part of the system, where they are not swimming in backward waters and can justifiy the prices they practice.

 

>> The M8 may not be the camera for the rigors of a war zone but, in my experience, it is a very nice tool for the circumstances in which the vast majority of its most likely purchasers are most likely to use it. <<

 

Who are this " vast majority of its most likely purchasers are most likely to use it" ? And how many are they ? Versus how many pros and advanced amateurs who would be interested by a reasonably priced, really performing where it counts, full format digital rangefinder in M mount able to withstand anything and built like a tank ?

 

It is all the problem.

 

FPW

Rangefinder addict, forced into "digitalization" and soon to be the owner of a D300 (or D3, should budget allow) camera.

Awesome thread! Leica has a rich history!

Lou Sapienza wrote <i>"I give Michael extreme credit for his war zone coverage but expecting the first gen M8 digital to perform exactly like an M with Canon digital experience is not reality. It sounds like although a long time M user you had certain expectations and just weren't up to speed on the M8."</i><p>

 

Yes- he expected the $5500 camera to function normally, but instead got wacky metering, half-frames, and slow & ineffective repair support.

The corporate lawyer in me reads Lou's screed and sees the soul of a spinmeister at work. Among other things Kamber criticized the image quality of the output: (a) the 4-5 stop disadvantage in low light performance due to both a lack of fast wide lenses and unusable performance above 640ASA and (b) the unacceptable color casts in many if not most of the pictures he took. I have no dog in this race, since I don't have and don't plan to get an M8, but it seems if Lou takes the review to task he ought to actually address the objective quality issues that Kamber takes to task.

Hmm. Lou's post makes me see one of the faithful, trying to circle his little wagon. Where are the rest of them?

Hmm..you actually read all the stuff, Dan?! :)

Vivek, this is all very interesting. Not to denigrate Leica's products, past or present, but it seems to me that Leica nuts have found many different ways to deal with cognitive dissonance. As a sometimes rationalizer, I find their rationalizations very instructive.

No, no, Dan, that was not cognitive dissonance at all. That screed is deep in the bowels American-style corporate-speak. Notice the 'blame the victim' card ("Michael, if you have a problem with the M8, it should be a quiet constructive intelligent collaboration between you and Leica and possibly the public"). Or the 'I'll answer a question no one asked' card ("The M8 is still a marvel to me in that they've been able to cram all that they did into such a compact body..."). And of course associative name-dropping ("as my friend and National Geographic photographer Sam Abell once said..."). Best of all, the aw-shucks tone ("Computers, (read - digital cameras) are notorious for all their foibles..."). Really, the whole thing is hilarious.

Andy, I'm glad that we both laugh -- no, guffaw -- when appropriate.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

From the report it seems that there has been little forethought to prepare this very expensive camera for working reliably in the field. Having battons for changing controls placed so that they can be so easily nudged and altered seems like lunacy.

 

I'd love a reliable, well configured, fast, responsive digital M, but it seems the M8 fails miserably in this respect.

 

Who made the decision to release this camera with so many faults? Did they not test it? Sack em!