Leica users & collectors: are we REALLY going to buy the DM8?

Dear Leica pals and photo.net community fellows, while having my late afternoon coffee I am browsing

through the various photo.net Leica forum posts and I am noticing that many Leica users seem to be

anxiously waiting for the release on the market of this highly anticipated new Leica Digital M, or M8, or

whatever is going to be called.

What's sure, according to the figures cited so far, is that's going to be another expensive toy, in perfect

Leica fashion. And that's fine, if we can afford it and if we really wish so.

But all this hype makes me wonder...I have first bought a Leica not long ago, less than three years now,

and before that I had never really been fascinated so much by an object the way I felt with a Leica (except

perhaps by my records, my hi-fi equipment, and my first motorbike...).

I never had a proper camera before, only toys, including some digital ones, and for me photography was

something nice to do but never a great deal.

The Leica changed my way of doing and looking at photography.

When I handle my MP (or any M cameras for that matter...) I really feel I am "taking" a photograph.

Finally, I spot a subject, I concentrate on it, I focus it, I shoot, I really enjoy the act...

I actually enjoy the Leica M so much that I now use my little Digital Camera only for "commercial" shots

(eBay listings etc). I thought many Leica users felt the same way. Of course I am not a pro, and I don't

know what a pro would think of the new Leica DM, but I would like to know...

Anyway, my question again: are we really going to replace our beloved M film cameras with the new Leica

Digital M when it finally comes out ?

Were you not in love with your M film cameras and saying that film gives you more pleasure and probably

more quality than when shooting in digital?

Are we really going to buy probably the very first Leica M that will depreciate in value within a short period

of time (that should be certain, look at the digital cameras world and what price those cameras fetch after

just a couple of years, but I'd also like to hear your comments on the matter...).

So, if you are going to buy the new Digital M, then why?

Why would using a digital M be any different that the experience you just described? You didn't mention enjoying processing film and scanning, so how will the digital process interfere with your joy of "'taking' a photograph?"

 

Personally, i'm not interested in the M8d (or whatever) in its first generation. It seems contrary to the reasons i like Leica. I like Leica because i like b+w film. If/when i need the immediacy of digital, i use a 5D. I love the 5D, but for different reasons. I don't think i need to mix the two purposes at this point. Aside from that, i won't be buying any more cameras 'featuring' a crop-factor. I'm just not interested in buying more lenses to compensate for it, and i enjoy the shallow DOF effects of a 24x36 or larger format. As well, the Leica will certainly be expensive. While my M7 wasn't 'cheap,' i already have my digital bases covered and can't justify spending 4k on a redundant system.

 

As for (image) "quality," i have always, consistently achieved better 'quality' with digital, as far as sharpness and color accuracy are concerned. But, i still prefer film (when i get it right). To me, digital is a 'recording.' Film is a 'rendering,' closer to a painting. Digital is overly 'real,' until it's manipulated, and i'm still paranoid that my manipulations don't appear to be 'genuine' enough. I haven't reached the stage where i can simply appreciate digital for its own aesthetic merits. You'll have to weigh those factors for yourself and determine what "quality" means.

 

I wish i felt the same "love" you experience with your "beloved" cameras. I do seem to 'love' cameras, but somehow it doesn't seem like the same kind of 'passion' you (and others) seem to describe....

<br><br>

<center><img src=" http://www.clickmagazine.net/cm/emoticons/headonwall.gif"></center><br><br>

"What's sure, according to the figures cited so far, is that's going to be another expensive

toy, in perfect Leica fashion." <P><P>

 

<P>A 10 megapixel sensor without an AA filter and with great lenses in front of it is not

the recipe for a toy. If you have seen the photos out of the DMR you will understand that

they are supremely capable. I will not say it is better than film or worse, but I will say that

they can do things that film cannot, just like film can do things that digital cannot. The M8

will be welcome by many people because it will bring professional quality digital into a

much smaller and lighter package. If you have handled the 1DsMk II or the DMR, you will

understand why this is an issue. The M8 will have similar imaging characteristics, but in

the size of an M camera. After lugging the DMR and a bunch of lenses around Iceland for a

few weeks, I can tell you that an M8 would have been a welcome change. And as you say,

the shooting experience of using a rangefinder is quite nice, and it will be carried over into

the M8. But I think you are mistaken if you think everyone interested in the M8 is

interested in it to "replace" their other M cameras. If I were to buy one, it would not be to

replace the M cameras, but to add to their capabilities.

Should I give up all the film bodies, both M and R, render the lenses impotent for their intended purpose, just to spend some obscene abount of money on a digi cam that does not even give me neg I can take into my darkroom. Then they will obsolete it in a few years because they will find a way to overcome the crop and vignetting problems and then you first digi cam will be worthless.

 

PS is nice, but I can scan any neg I have up to 8x10 and make a digi file.

 

I am sure photojournalists will use them if they are not already commited to DSLRs as it gets them out of the darkroom and pics can be readied for press in a few sec, even sent bounced off a satellite from another continent. They need it and have the budgets to chase the digi comet.

 

It is not even in the realm of possibility to buy one and dump what I have to get into the planned obsolesence computer/printer/digi cam game.

 

Film may be dead, but I`m freezing a 20 year supply and after that I will not care.

 

My $200 Cannon P&S does a great job if I need a quick pic for the net or to e-mail someone. If you go to Canon`s site, The $8000 full frame model looks no better on a computer screen than the $200 one.

If I had the site address with me, I would share it so you could look for yourself.

"Leica users & collectors: are we REALLY going to buy the DM8?"

 

Some of us are and some of us aren't.

 

"So, if you are going to buy the new Digital M, then why?"

 

Because I want one and I can afford it.

 

Dealing with [Thinly disguised] digital vs film trolls is like clamping off a bleeder. Perfunctory, once you find it.

Well the DMR is out already and I still have my R4s mod.P.

Eric, That wall could be used to do resolution/frame line/crop factor/distortion tests for the upcoming, what is that now, "DM8"?!

...of course a bacteremia could set in and then all hell can break loose.

I don't intend to "collect" ANY digital cameras! The day I ordered my MP, the store salesman was showing a Canon D10 to a potential buyer, at $1100 with no lens. Since that day, Canon has issued the D20 and D30. The MP is still being sold as it was the day I bought it. Thus, I tend to consider digital gear to be planned obsolescence "throw away" gear, regardless of price, and certainly not collectible. I also prefer using film and though I do own digital cameras for snapshots, I spend as little as possible for them.

Digital is to photography as photocopies are to painting.

 

FILM RULES - keep your film cameras and keep buying B&W film!

Absolutely no interest in the M8, but I'm hoping for a nice cheap 0.85 mag M7 that someone wants to dump for an M8. I'm all set with my digital - I have a great little Sony with a "Zeiss" lens ;-) that makes cracking pics :-)

haha,

 

film is to cameras what gasoline is to automobiles.

This camera might be worthwhile for photojournalists and other photographers who want

a small high quality digital camera. But it's not for me. I have my own color darkroom, and

won't give it up unless I have too.

 

While many people have raved each advance of digital cameras, film and paper have

quietly been improving too (though choice is becoming more limited, quality has made a

great leap in color negative films like Kodak UC 100 and UC400, also Fuji Pro 160S and

Pro 160C).

 

If I were a PJ shooting on deadlines I would probably get one, and then replace it with the

next full frame digi-M, etc. If I were a skilled digital printer I'd think about it, but I'm not.

I'm a skilled RA4 printer, so any digital M makes no sense for me.

Ben . , aug 02, 2006; 01:34 p.m.

"Digital is to photography as photocopies are to painting.

 

FILM RULES - keep your film cameras and keep buying B&W film!"

 

LOL.

 

Eric got it spot on.

Derek, I agree with you even if I don't print my own negatives and nowadays most of the

times I only scan them: but definitively digital is a 'recording.' Film is a 'rendering,' closer to a

painting...

And Vinay, this was no way was meant to be another digital vs film troll, absolutely.

I just wanted to know why so many of us are so tempted in getting a digital camera. And

Stuart reply was already very satisfactory...

May be I am just afraid that my collection of toys will become obsolete too and quickly

depreciate in value...?

Stuart and Derek, thanks for your comments, they are spot on.

Off I go to my dinner, friends around, time for some B&W portraits with my APO 75.........

Eric, I love your emoticon...how can I get one to use?

Well, i love shooting with my Leica, like you say, "'taking' a photograph... enjoy[ing] the act". But I also really really prefer the digital workflow. So a camera that gives me both sounds pretty good to me.

 

So, yes, I'll seriously consider the M8.

 

Obsolesence and decline in value are both non-issues (for me), since I oddly enough buy cameras to use, not re-sell.

 

j

You are right Trevor, Eric is spot on. I just wanted to point that out but also highlight the digital process eliminates the distiction between the craft and the product. It also suffers from an inherent lack of credibility. What I mean is that photographers who use digital workflow will always need to express what type and extent of digital manipulation has taken place. The traditional printer need never do this - the finished product is inherently reliable.

 

By the way, I just bought a Leica CM at least partially based upon your feedback on the camera and I really like it. Thanks. Got rid of my Leica rangefinders and kept the Hasselblad and Rolleicord for medium format work in beautiful B&W film and FB paper. The Leica CM is fantastic except for the lack of filter or hood mounting capabilities (I know about the S.K. Grimes doo-hickey).

no desire for m8 whatsoever, but will be getting another m4p and m6 classic.....

<I>I just wanted to point that out but also highlight the digital process eliminates the

distiction between the craft and the product. It also suffers from an inherent lack of

credibility. What I mean is that photographers who use digital workflow will always need to

express what type and extent of digital manipulation has taken place. The traditional printer

need never do this - the finished product is inherently reliable.</I><P>

 

Nonsense on all counts... Amazing someone really believes that.

"The traditional printer need never do this - the finished product is inherently reliable."

 

Ben, you said a lot of slightly odd things in your posting but I'll restrict myself to the

above.

 

'Inherently reliable'? This really is an old canard that I thought we'd moved on from years

ago.

 

Was there anything remotely reliable about, for example, Soviet era re-touching of

photographs when generals who fell out of favour were removed from May Day parade

pictures?

 

Do you think that Hollywood studio photos of movie stars were inherently reliable?

 

If you don't like digital that's absolutely fine but I don't think there's any need to make

such spurious claims as to why you don't.

 

BTW, I am inherently unreliable in film and digital.

How do all those who have poked their eyes out so they don't have to look at anything that

has to do with technology continue to hit all of the right keys on their keyboards after they've

stumbled out of their darkrooms?

Comrad Trotsky in...<p>

 

<img src="http://members.shaw.ca/jamie_jenkins/7.jpg"><p><p>

 

Comrad Trotsky out...<p>

 

<img src="http://members.shaw.ca/jamie_jenkins/8.jpg"><p>

 

Comrad Yezhov here today...<p>

 

<img src="http://members.shaw.ca/jamie_jenkins/1.jpg"><p>

 

Comrad Yezhov gone tomorrow...<p>

 

 

 

<img src="http://members.shaw.ca/jamie_jenkins/2.jpg"><p>

Due to the ever increasing price of gasoline, hookers, and whiskey I may be forced to sell my Leica equipment and take up sketching like old Henri Bersson.