Reichman M8 Review (Take 2)

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by paul hart, Dec 25, 2006.

  1. ...can now be read here
     
  2. > But in the end, as I wrote initially a couple of months ago ? the only way you'll take the M8 away from me is from my cold dead hands.

    well, at least until the M9 is announced!
     
  3. M9 maybe for me...
     
  4. Reichmann's very likely to desert the M8 when the M9 is here (as Daniel comments). More power to him that he can afford the latest and greatest, of course, but I can't see him wedded to the M8 for ever :)
     
  5. "..some of the most lovely image quality I've ever seen from any camera..." In it's self that sounds pretty unequivocal to me. And he's willing to put up with inconveniences, while he has to, for it. Isn't that fair enough ?
     
  6. After his first "review" of the M8, I am surprised that anyone here takes Michael Reichmann and his "reviews" at all seriously.
     
  7. the power switch (off/c/s/timer) is very loose, there is almost no click, it just glides through all the setting, that is my impression of the demo unit at the shop.
     
  8. I think the reviewer has come clean.
     
  9. After his first "review" of the M8, I am surprised that anyone here takes Michael Reichmann and his "reviews" at all seriously.I'm always surprised anyone takes any review seriously instead of for the entertainment value of watching the reviewer take himself seriously. But in fairness Reichmann is to date the only one of the M8 reviewers who has owned up to covering up the facts at Leica's behest. And, at least he doesn't have the egomania to ask people to pay a cover charge to read his hokum :wink:
     
  10. Isn't the infrared "problem" really a problem with our eyes? If we could se a little wider part of the spectrum we would see the same as the M8. Maybe we need a factory adjustment to become as good as an M8.
     
  11. Isn't the infrared "problem" really a problem with our eyes? If we could se a little wider part of the spectrum we would see the same as the M8. Maybe we need a factory adjustment to become as good as an M8.
    This is like saying that if your shoes are too tight, your feet need to be adjusted.
     
  12. But in fairness Reichmann is to date the only one of the M8 reviewers who has owned up to covering up the facts at Leica's behest. M
    Not quite...
    "The conspiracy theorists will continue to rudely complain that I and some other early testers hid the truth. Nonsense."
     
  13. Currently, I wear filters over my eyes. However, soon I might take them to a service center to get micro lenses over the sensors adjusted. Those filter are a huge problem with glare and ghosting especially at night. I might be able to sue my parents for not properly testing before releasing me into the world.


    That being said, my eyes produce some of the best quality images I have ever seen, and you could only take them from my cold dead eye sockets.
     
  14. Brad: I could swear he flat out said a while back Leica asked him not to publish the straight dope. Maybe I dreamed it?

    Stephen: Don't quit your day-job fella <wink>
     
  15. Jerry Kirkwood wrote:

    >I could swear he flat out said a while back Leica asked him not to publish the straight dope. Maybe I dreamed it?

    I'm not sure Reichmann himself admitted it, but I believe it was reported elsewhere that he was persuaded by Leica not to mention the "IR issue" in his first so-called "review" of the Leica M8.

    Now he *does* admit that he missed the "bright light streaking", the "green ghosts", the "banding issue" and a fault that he rather ineloquently terms "over the rainbow". As a self-styled "reviewer", if he misses all these important things (plus apparently chooses not to mention the "IR issue") then his "reviews" are clearly not worth the electrons that they are written with.

    But we should have known that already. The whole idea of the Luminous Landscape web site was to *prove* that digital was better than film, even when it wasn't. As with anyone who starts out with an agenda, you just know you can never reply on them for any semblance of objectivity.
     
  16. If someone is going to throw barbs, at least make them accurate.

    Fact: I saw the green ghost issue, didn't understand it, asked Leica what it was, they said
    they didn't know, and then asked me to hold off mentioning it until they had a few days to
    figure it out. They never got back to me. I published the review without mentioning it. My
    mistake. I should have. Mea culpa.

    Fact: I reported on the extended IR sensativity extensively problem in my first review. At
    the time I didn't know that a profile fix couldn't fix it, or what its eventual effects would
    be. No one did for a while afterward. I also didn't see it in more than a few frames out of
    some 2,000 taken with the first test camera, and didn't sufficiently appreciate its
    significance. Leica never made any request of me or anyone else that I know of ijn this
    regard.

    Fact: I didn't see the light streaking problem until I had shot close to 3,000 frames, then
    when I did reported on it in my second review.

    Fact: I didn't see the rainbow streaking problem until very recently. Few people did and
    didn't know how it was caused. I happened to be the first to figure out what caused it, and
    immediately described it in my second review.

    Fact. Digital has proven itself to be far superior to film, just as I predicted it would 6 years
    ago. Does anyone seriously doubt this anymore, or does that old tired debate need to be
    resuccitated once more.

    Anyone who wishes to intellegently discuss these matters is welcome to do so on the
    forums located on my site. I am reluctant to enter these debates on other people's sites,
    but when I am misquoted feel it appropriate to set the record straight.

    Michael
    www.luminous-landscape,com
     
  17. <Isn't the infrared "problem" really a problem with our eyes? If we could se a little wider part of the spectrum we would see the same as the M8. Maybe we need a factory adjustment to become as good as an M8.
    >

    Meant as a joke no doubt, but there might be something to it.

    A few years ago I realized that I was seeing colors slightly differently from my right eye and my left eye, and so I went to an ophtalmologist for an examination. I was told that, within the limits of testing, my color vision was identical in both eyes.

    But regardless of the test result, sometimes colors would still look different to me from each eye. I wonder whether the difference might have been an increased IR sensitivity in one eye. I also wonder about the natural variation in IR sensitivity from individual to individual.

    If other animals can see IR, perhaps humans vary measurably in that ability. Perhaps forum members should begin experimenting on themselves...
     
  18. Saw an infrared<br>
    Rainbow over the horizon<br>
    Green ghost at its end<p>

    (my first attempt at haiku, inspired by a dream about shooting with an M8)
     
  19. Yes, yes, digital is better than film as predicted, the M8 included... right.
     
  20. Michael R: sorry for missing an 'n' off your surname. I get a great deal of help from your
    website, and the Lightroom Beta 3 tutuorial DVD I bought recently arrived in the UK far
    quicker than most internal UK mail does. Thanks!

    I was one of the first to get an M8 in the UK, and now have a replacement model. The
    'problems' are minor compared with the benefits, and several hundred shots down the line
    I'm satisfied that the limitations are with me rather than the camera.

    I want to make a special recommendation for DNG format downloaded into Adobe
    Lightroom and converted to greyscale using the Lightroom converter. It generates images
    that are better than anything I have achieved before. Try it.
     
  21. Digital far superior to film? Film superior to digital?

    I am finding this type of debate sillier by the day. It's like someone claiming a watercolor is
    superior to an oil painting; or an oil painting is superior to a charcoal drawing. Or that color
    photography is superior to black and white photography.

    Each medium has its strengths and weaknesses. Only the foolish would make a blanket
    statement that digital is superior film, or visa versa.
     
  22. Peter you're right of course. However Mr. Reichmann's statement:

    "Fact. Digital has proven itself to be far superior to film, just as I predicted it would 6 years ago."

    is the real problem here. I have a problem with testers who only do sufficient testing to prove themselves right!!
     
  23. I agree. A silly discussion. But, a few comments are in order.

    The vast majority of professional photographers have satisfied themselves on this matter, as have a great many advanced amateurs.

    Those that believe otherwise are of course free to pursue their own direction. But to maintain publicly that digital capture hasn't established its superiority in virtually very aspect of image reproduction is to deny the experience of literally tens of thousands of working pros round the world over many years.

    No point in debate, but why make statements that are at odds with verifiable evidence?

    Michael
     
  24. <...to maintain publicly that digital capture hasn't established its superiority in virtually very aspect of image reproduction is to deny the experience of literally tens of thousands of working pros...>

    Pros may be flocking to digital for its speed and convenience, but people who care most about the final printed image -- fine art photographers and serious amateurs -- constitute the group that is holding onto film most tenaciously. Why do you think that is, Michael? I'd be interested in your thoughts.
     
  25. Film vs digital? That horse was flogged to death, let it rest in peace. Those of us who used film as long as S.R. don't scorn it, and if we've gone digital we didn't do so on a whim. If you prefer silver-based photography, more power to you. Competition and variety are Good Things.

    Personally I admire Steve R. for having shown early on, when most pros were still skeptical, that even a 3mp DSLR (the Canon D30) was suitable for serious work. While others were guessing the number of pixels in a 'chrome to show how much better film is, he based his judgment on visible results. His field tests of equipment (patronized in previous comments as quote-unquote "reviews") are based on the same idea -- how does X work when you're actually using it to make photos? I've found those articles a useful complement to dpreview-style tech tests.

    If you feel otherwise, fine. It should be possible to disagree with S.R. or anybody else without accusing them of base motives. We're talking photography here, not religion or politics.
     
  26. Whoops -- sorry, not Steve R. but Michael R. At least I was consistently wrong. Feeble excuse: I have an old friend named Steve R.
     
  27. Pros have as strong a vested interest in image quality as they do in convenience and economics. I mentioned pros above simply because they are the first to explore new technologies, and adopt them, if they prove to have an advantage.

    I don't feel it necessary to belabor the point. When fine art photographers like Charles Cramer and Bill Atkinson, who have built their multi-decade reputations on the image quality of their fine art prints adopt digital capture as well as inkjet printing, for no other reason than image quality, then even the most died-in-the-wool silver lover has to pay attention.

    No need to switch, if you don't want to, just don't diss something that experienced and knowledgeable workers have proven to their satisfaction to produce superior image quality.

    Michael
     
  28. No question that digital is the way to go for the majority of working pro's. As to whether fine art is better done via digital I would say is a different story.

    If Ansel Adams was alive today, you can imagine him trying digital, he was quick to adopt new technology. However seeing as his legacy is gelatin silver prints of the highest quality regardless of when they were printed......some are closing in 90 eyars old now, I doubt that digital images will have the same appeal.

    I guess the only way we will know is with the passing of time, one thing that is evident right now, is that silver prints are becoming very valuable, the jury's still out on digital.
     
  29. Melvin Sokoslky, one of the top tier of fashion photographers used view cameras for years to get the image quality he wanted. He switched to Canon 1 series digital a while back and for output to CMYK offset 2 page spreads he is getting images that meet his very high standards, while working with a DSLR rather then a view camera on a tripod has transformed his ability to interact with the models. This from a guy who wasn't satisfied with medium format film.

    Film is great, (especially B+W)and good for you if you prefer it to digital for what ever reason but to dismiss digital as inferior in image quality to film is at this point is just plain ignorant. Some people prefer 35mm, some 8x10, yes 8x10 (on a tripod) can resolve a hell of a lot more then 35 but that doesn't mean its better for your application. Digital has arrived at the point where it can replace 35mm, medium format and even large format for most applications -that doesn't mean you should be using it though. Use whatever tools/medium make you happy. If you need to convince youself that only true artists use film and digital is trash to justify your choice of tools, well whatever makes you happy :)
     
  30. ...but people who care most about the final printed image -- fine art photographers and serious amateurs -- constitute the group that is holding onto film most tenaciously.
    Not true. Could go on and on from the two fine art photogs M.R. mentioned. It's more like people who are uncomfortable with and resist change, and it's benefits.
    As to "serious amateurs" being a large part of the film camp, you're kidding, right? As to the "people who care most about the final printed image," that's even more laughable. You're suggesting those that are fully in the digital capture camp and using image processing tools don't care?
    Where do you draw these conclusions from, anyway? It certainly appears not from any experience.
     
  31. To some of the illustrious names above, I'd like to add the one notable name of Stephen Johnson, one of the pioneers of digital photography.
    If anyone gets a chance, I highly recommend a visit to his studio in Pacifica, CA, to see some of the finest examples of digital print making at 40" x 50" and some even larger. A few minutes of conversations with Steve would give any serious photographer and fan of prints a whole new perspective on appreciating the beauty of a well made digital print.
    Film has a different look, but that doesn't necessarily make digital/inkjet prints any worse. Not everyone is inclined to continue to use the film look as a crutch to measure everything against. Open your eyes to embrace and appreciate a new world and feel better for it, or keep using the same old crutch.
     
  32. In printing large prints say 36x48" often folks who view them cannot tell whether the input was film or digital. One the source is revealed then all the UGLY prejudice gets preached by so called experts. Folks like to stroke their egos and do preaching. There is alot of agendas at hand in these debates, and a radially less subset of folks who have really done any large printing at all. Its like if a girl wins the spelling bee, math contest, sports event and her county, age or looks are not known. Once country, age, looks are revealed some prejudiced folks will start up their dogma to fit their narrow mindset.<BR><BR>With the M8 its abit lame that Leica didnt understand IR problems and spool up with having IR filters already available for lenses at the cameras launch. IR response and material problems show up on a 10 year old Phase One scan back when one doesnt use an IR filter. It even goes back decades with older cameras and vision devices used for process controls. UV and IR problems with materials were even a problem with early Television broadcasting, early wedding Photographers with xenon strobes. Kodak books of the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's mention color problems with man made materials. <BR><BR>One can take a TV remote control and use it as a flashlight when using a Russian IR surplus low light vision device thats older than photoshop. IR responding sensors are ancient in the world of engineering and astronomy, many decades old. The "weirdness" of man made materials to visible light film/sensors with some UV and IR response is ancient too.<BR><BR> Its abit odd that the M8 was designed and released without any plan for IR filters, since these weird effects are many many decades old.<BR><BR>Not having available IR filters for popular filter sizes at the products launch means a wedding photographer cannot use the M8, and most folks will goof around with trying to reduce these weird IR effects with photoshop, which cannot magically deconvolve the IR response.
     
  33. The first half of this thread, with all of its bitchy, snide comments makes me realize why I
    spend so little time on this forum anymore. I notice that it wasn't until Michael Reichmann
    actually stepped into the conversation that the tone actually started to become somewhat
    civil.

    You guys remind me of those losers one sees in bars, huddled over their drinks and
    complaining about everything in the world.

    I'd like to publicly thank Michael Reichmann and Sean Reid for their contributions to the
    photographic community. I personally have learned a lot from their sites.
     
  34. just glanced through the lastest edition of LFI, there you will find all the recent reported
    problems on M8, and I think it is the most comprehensive one so far. some of problems
    are attributed to the poor circuit board, just wondering how much of the contents come
    from user reports and how much from Leica's own lab...


    life is very tough on all the camera manufacturers, now they have to produce the "film" as
    well, it could be a nightmare for those who don't have the power to design and produce
    their own chips, because if they invest unwisely into products and its toolings etc, they run
    the risks of having a redundant products over night. Look at Contax, Konica, Minolta and
    Pentax etc, they produced fine cameras in their own right in the film days, and see what
    has happened to them?

    if seen in this light, I would praise Leica for its braveness, despite the many shortcomings
    of M8.
     

Share This Page