Reichman M8 Review (Take 2)

...can now be read <A HREF="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/leica-M8-

take2.shtml">here</A>

> 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!

M9 maybe for me...

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 <i>him</i> wedded to the M8 for ever :)

"..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 ?

After his first "review" of the M8, I am surprised that anyone here takes Michael Reichmann and his "reviews" at all seriously.

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.

I think the reviewer has come clean.

<i><b>After his first "review" of the M8, I am surprised that anyone here takes Michael Reichmann and his "reviews" at all seriously.</i></b></p>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:

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.

<I>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.</i><P>

 

This is like saying that if your shoes are too tight, your feet need to be adjusted.

<I>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</I><P>

 

Not quite...<P>

 

"The conspiracy theorists will continue to rudely complain that I and some other early testers

hid the truth. Nonsense."

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.

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>

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.

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

<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...

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)

Yes, yes, digital is better than film as predicted, the M8 included... right.

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.

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.

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!!

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

<...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.

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.