Unboxing of M8.2

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by tim_k|1, Nov 16, 2008.

  1. Elvis Kennedy posted a video on youtube of the unboxing of a Leica M8.2. Enjoy it here;
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rli9BX0JW0
     
  2. OK, but unboxing my iPhone was more fun.
     
  3. Why is this worth a youtube video?
     
  4. Unboxing a new M8.2 is abit upscale. Its more a classy wrap being opened. One has that new car excitement. Its fun to also open the Yak hair string and brown paper; on a Ukraine Zorki bought from Ebay too.
     
  5. Worth a youtube video? Free to upload, free to view. If you're not interested, simply move on.
     
  6. "If you're not interested, simply move on"
    An amazingly simple concept that many on this forum have failed to grasp.
     
  7. Like Chris Matthews talking to Obama, I get a thrill going up my leg waiting for the battery charge, strap
    attachment, CF card insertion, and lens mounting videos, coming next.
     
  8. And I've gotten a thrill reading your non-sequitur ;)

    It's a screaming great camera, all I got to say..
     
  9. Be a sport and drink the Kool-Aide Andy. I need Leica to be around for 20 or 30 years still..
     
  10. Great! The best part of buying a new camera is the unboxing. I especially liked the way you drew it out by spending WAY too
    much time on the manuals, etc while the M8 still sat in the box! Leica porn at its finest.
     
  11. Andy K.: "... CF card insertion, ..."
    I'd like to see this one, since it takes SD cards!
    What I'm really waiting for is the video titled: "How to wipe your arse the Leica way."
     
  12. You know Ray, I am sure that for the type of shooting you and I do, It IS a great camera. It's the fatuousness of the whole Leica "experience", like a guy wasting a small bit of his life making a video of a box-opening, not to mention the absurd price-to-value ratio, that just turns me off. Try as I might I can't get beyond the fact that my Olympus E-400, worth about $350, has exactly the same damn 10MP Kodak chip as the M8, and it's digital files, good until about 640 ISO (hmmm....) also look really good.
     
  13. Sorry Vic, mea culpa. Heck, they ought to do a tie in with San Disc and do a special "Leica red dot for a red card" deal. That ought to be good for another vid.
     
  14. Tim K, are you are Elvis Kennedy?

    Andy, maybe Elvis was taking the piss out of the fatuous segment of Leica owners!
     
  15. Andy K wrote: "...I can't get beyond the fact that my Olympus E-400, worth about $350, has exactly the same damn 10MP Kodak chip as the M8"
    How do you figure they're the exact same chip? If I'm not mistaken the Oly doesn't have a 1.33 crop factor or offset microlenses, and has an AA filter. A similar pixel count yet different crop factors itself suggests something is different.
     
  16. Tim, thanks for posting this video. I know you didn't mean to light any fires. Unless you lit the California ones, that is.
     
  17. Crop factor has nothing to do with the chip. The 10MP chip came out of Kodak at the same time for both cameras. The E-400
    was only sold in Europe, because, it was rumored, Oly only got a small batch of chips from Kodak. It doesn't have the
    microlenses, whatever they are because the Oly 4/3 lenses are designed to pass light straight on to the chip. It does have an
    AA filter.
     
  18. I don't know, with a Summicron in front of that sensor my pics are looking sweet. Sweeter than the 5D right out of the box,
    although yeah, it starts to fall apart at ISO 1250 if exposure isn't right. If night photography is big for somebody, that's a factor.

    What gets overlooked though is that it's legit to have a certain loyalty toward the camera you used early on that fit
    your style. I think I've heard you express the same with regard to Olympus, Andy. To others none of that matters.

    As for the video, it's an info video to show what's in the box and what's different about the new version. The guy is pretty no nonsense
    about it compared to some of
    the silly youtube camera reviews that have been done on just about every brand..
     
  19. Agreed, Ray. If it was in the same ballpark as even a 5D I'd probably take a flyer myself. Actually now I've gone back to using
    a Contax G, which I used in the late 90's for a while. I've actually shot with pretty much everything, because I enjoy
    acclimating to different lenses and viewfinders and controls. Of course another way of looking at it, I've shot with exactly the
    same stuff forever: 35mm film and short, prime lenses, or its digital analogue. It's all good.
     
  20. A Leica M3 in the 1950's cost more than a new 95 buck Signet 35; or new 195 buck Retina IIIc and all three shot fine images; but the Leica cost a hell of alot more. Its interesting to read how folks new to photography think that Leica is SO expensive; when they have always been; for 7 decades . Maybe folks here will also discover a BMW costs more than a VW too?
     
  21. Hey Andy, why did you return to the Contax G? I had a G2 and did not like the focusing at night or for low contrast subjects. I
    thought it had some of the best lensees I'd ever used, though. Gave them up very reluctantly. Actually the next owner had
    some of my skin to peel off them.
     
  22. Andy K. wrote: "Crop factor has nothing to do with the chip"
    Huh? the same pixel count on a smaller chip means higher pixel density. Not a chance these are the same sensors.
     
  23. Huh? The crop factor on any given camera has nothing to do with the actual size of a sensor. It's a ratio. If you were to say
    that a 4/3 sensor is smaller than an APS-C you would be correct, though the difference is pretty marginal. No need to get
    immediately defensive, Douglas. Im not attacking your faith in all things Leica.
     
  24. Hope no one minds my jumping in here with a different question, but it is related to the discussion.
    I started looking seriously at the M8 last week.
    I was in a camera store on Saturday and spoke to a sales person who claimed that the Leica sensor has MUCH BETTER color rendition
    than any other digital camera. He did not say more accurate, or better saturation, just "better".
    Can any one tell me if the sensor is superior to others? Is is a difference that would be visual?
    Thanks for any and all opinions.
     
  25. Anyone trying to make fun of Leica fans for the concept of an "unboxing" video is a couple of years too late. These type of videos have been around for a while now. Most often focusing on any new electronic/computer/digital toy. It's not a "leica" thing.
     
  26. I like this one more.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kC2eClcrUQ&feature=related
     
  27. FYI - according to my Imac spell checker "unboxing" is no a real word - yet.
     
  28. Nothing defensive Andy, just an engineer's passion for accuracy.
     
  29. Re FYI - according to my Imac spell checker "unboxing" is no a real word - yet. Thats because turtle neck Steve is at Apple; and C Sharp is Microsoft's Anders Hejlsberg's baby; with boxing and unboxing in software lingo for about 7 years now .:)
     
  30. I don't like "unbox" either, (why not "unpack"?!) but at least 13 online dictionaries say it's a real word: http://www.onelook.com/?w=unbox&ls=a
     
  31. Should you question the quality of a Leica simply play the video back and listen to the sound of the click of the battery
    going into the charger. A thing of beauty.

    -Owen
     
  32. OK so the M8 is NOT better than the 5D. I like 'em both. Camera addiction in full swing..
     
  33. Lot of Leicas in Italy as in "I Leica de pizza"
    And they come in boxes also. For instance "you leica de pizza indy box?"
    They have really nice pizza boxes there - a certain glow to them.
     
  34. The reason I began using the G again was kind of roundabout. Earlier this year I got a pro pack of Kodak Portra 160 and
    shot a weekend full of stuff with my SLR. I loved the look of the film after scanning. So I began shooting more of it. Then I
    got new glasses and my eyes got tired using manual focus, or at least I thought they did. So I poked around eBay. There
    was a green label G1 with a 35/2 for about $300. I bought it, never having used a G1 before, always a G2. I found that I
    preferred it to the G2, a surprise to me. The AF never bothered me before and it doesn't bother me now. It focuses exactly
    where I want it to focus. The 35/2 turned out top be a great lens except at f/2, where it is OK. I don't care about that,
    because I don't really like shallow depth photography all that much. <p>So all in all, I found myself using the G1 more and
    more this summer. If you haven't used it before, you will find it much smaller-feeling than the G2, even though the
    dimensions are only a few millimeters different. It is dirt cheap now. A 45/2, one of the great lenses of all time, costs about
    $120. The 28/2.8, another all-timer costs about $225. Unless you break them, you will be able to sell the bodies and lenses
    for what you paid for them, so the entire experience is essentially free. It's a great time to shoot film these days.
     
  35. I am looking forward to seeing your photography with the M8. Being comfortable with your camera is important to seeing what
    there is to be seen. I never subscribed to that it's not the camera it's the photographer dogma that always gets tossed around.
    You're an M-man, no doubt.
     
  36. Oh yeah baby! That's what it's all about. ;) Now he's gotta figure-out how to get it all back in the box. haha
     
  37. Andy, the couple pix I posted on 'Into the Light' on Street forum were shot with it.. I have a few more from the past
    weekend I'll post soon. Color looks good too, a little more contrast from the 5D.
     
  38. Now I have my honeymoon and the Leica M8 confused and conflated.
     
  39. FWIW, the battery charger is different on the M8.2 compared to the M8, but it's still large compared to the Japanese brands.
     
  40. I killed it about 1 second after "it's a very nice box." God, I miss Marv Albert.
     
  41. Unboxing? Unpacking? The term of art is The Reveal.
     
  42. Orville, thanks.

    Sheesh, a guy posts a video that costs absolutely nothing to view and gets chopped at the knees for doing it. Maybe some of us like being able to see what's in the box, or even how it's packaged. For me, it was the first time being able to get a clear idea of what size the new charger is. That alone was worth a couple of minutes vs. the 2 hours I would have to invest driving down to the dealer and back. Much more time for those not near a Leica dealer. It seems to me that these videos serve a purpose for many. If it's not your cup of tea there is no need to be rude about it.

    It's so nice to know that some here are ABOVE viewing such videos. (Although you just know that they simply couldn't turn away, statements to the contrary notwithstanding).
     
  43. Eh, you got jostled a bit. No one meant any harm. No killers here. Hey Andy, you've got me tempted to check out G1. For some
    reason I'm burning to get another camera. Just not sure what to get. Considering another digital point-and-shoot, an SL2,
    another M5, an Alpa (I always wanted to buy an Alpa but can never justify the cost for what they deliver in terms of modern
    conveniences), another Konika S2, or a Nikon rangefinder S2 (used to own one then gave it away to a friend with the 50/ƒ1.4;
    sweet combination). Wish I could afford them all!
     
  44. Didn't look at the video. Seems like a dumb idea that has absolutely nothing to do w/ photography (I thought this was a photography site. Maybe I am wrong), and just illustrates why people think Leica people are, to put it gently, a bunch of pretentious nuts. Thank goodness for the Classic Manual Camera Forum. These type of postings are what finally drove me out of RFF and it's been great avoiding that type of "photographer".
     
  45. Fang, rather than insulting others for their choices, you can ignore the thread. It's a simple concept.
     
  46. Leicanuts are a strange bunch? Not as strange as non-Leica users feeling the need to constantly criticize Leica users over anything and everything. It mystifies me that those types of people even come to the Leica forum.

    And who said that the size of the battery charger was a critical component of any buying decision? Maybe I was simply interested in seeing what changes were made. I'll say it again - Sheesh!
     
  47. Graham Thompson , Nov 18, 2008; 05:48 a.m. Lot of Leicas in Italy as in "I Leica de pizza" And they come in boxes also. For instance "you leica de pizza indy box?" They have really nice pizza boxes there - a certain glow to them.
    Graham - good stuff there. Funny.
    But, this is a serious topic. Hey - anybody know why they don't pack the charger and battery at the TOP of the box so you can open the freaking box and get the battery charging? Or, have I been drinking too much herbal tea this morning?
     
  48. We've all drunk the tea. Every last one of us.
     
  49. whatcha get Ray, the 8 or the 8.2?
     
  50. got an 8 used looks new
     
  51. Wish I had a video of me picking up my M2 from the police evidence locker. After living with a sophisticated Japanese SLR for six months (theft insurance payoff) it was shocking to see how simple the old Leica was...
     
  52. It has nothing to do with this german brand name, but anyway, all those unboxing videos look the same:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQlzX7EyIwU
     
  53. Andy, not to flog a dead horse but the sensor in the Olympus E-400 is nothing like the sensor in the M8 except
    for the fact that they're both CCD technology based and developed by Kodak. <br><br>

    The sensor in the M8 is the Kodak KAF-10500 with a 6.8µm pixel pitch. <br><br>

    The sensor in the E-400 is a Kodak KAI-10100 with a 4.7µm pixel pitch.<br><br>

    Also, the KAF-10500 is an APS-H sized sensor, whereas the KAI-10100 is a four thirds system sized sensor (roughly
    half the surface area). Contrary to your earlier statement, crop factor is a direct derivative of sensor size.
    Here is a chart to help you:<br><br>

    <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/SensorSizes.png/431px-SensorSizes.png"
    border="0" alt="SensorSizes">
    <br><br>
    Sorry but I can't stand the perpetuation of misinformation.
     
  54. Daniel - your forgot to include the 617 chip just announced by RED ...
    yes a 617 sized chip mine is on order.
     
  55. Daniel, you may be completely correct, though copying the sensor size chart from a Wikipedia article doesn't strike me as the
    greatest proof in the universe. Whatever. My original point, regardless whether the Kodak chip is identical or not, is that the
    quality of photos from any 10MP digital with an APS-size chip is more alike than not. I just came back from a meeting with a
    curator for a show I am doing, looking at prints roughly 16x22, shot by an Oly DSLR, a Nikon D200, a Nikon D300, and film,
    and the only thing I know for sure is we all preferred the film, the rest was of optically indistinguishable quality.
     
  56. You make your choices. I like small cameras. Have always liked them. They were invented because they were easier
    to maneuver to get a shot than twin lens reflexes or view cameras. It was not difficult for me many years ago
    to come to the realization that I would probably never use large or medium format if the point was fun, because the
    cameras were
    just too much of a pain in the ass to haul around and didn't suit what I wanted to do anyway. One of the best street
    cameras going today has a tiny sensor. It's called a GRD. It's optimum performance is ISO 100- anything past that
    runs the risk of
    looking 'rustic.' So sure, it has limitations. But it's a whiz of a machine for catching fleeting expressions and gesture. In
    the motion of
    an arm and the blink of an eye it does its work.<p>

    As for film? Film's great, love it. It limits how much I can edit through though, and that's important to me at this
    stage.<p> This pursuit of
    technical perfection- it's a thing we have, never to be attained. We all know it's the light, the content, the technique of
    the photographer
    that makes 98% of the work. Would you really think about a difference once you don't have the prints side by side and
    get caught up in
    the content of what the photograph is saying? OK maybe, depends. I've still never seen prints like Atget's.. If you want
    to see the
    sublime in photography there's no better ticket.
     
  57. In all truthfulness though I indeed do need to get back to printing. No doubt too much of the monitor..
     
  58. Ray, agreed again. Small is good. And yes, the truth really is in the print. I've got 10 prints in a group show next week and
    have been printing a bunch. Those blown or almost blown highlights from digi look like crap printed up even when you move
    the exposure down to compensate. You know I do just about all color, but I find it easier by far to get a realistic-looking black
    and white print from a digital file than a color one. I've used Alien Skin and have fiddled a whole lot with some files, but printed
    up relatively big color digis and the film scans are immediately distinguishable.
     
  59. A link to your 10 shots AK - dont be shy...
     

Share This Page