Reichman M8 Review (Take 2)

[leslie hancock]

Whoops -- sorry, not Steve R. but Michael R. At least I was consistently wrong. Feeble excuse: I have an old friend named Steve R.

[michael_reichmann1]

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

[david k.]

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.

[hankg]

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 :)

[Brad_]

<I>...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.

</I><P>

 

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.<P>

 

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? <P>

 

Where do you draw these conclusions from, anyway? It certainly appears not from any

experience.

[nels]

To some of the illustrious names above, I'd like to add the one notable name of <a href="http://www.sjphoto.com/">Stephen Johnson</a>, one of the pioneers of digital photography.

<p>

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.

<p>

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.

[kelly_flanigan1]

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.

[malcolm_rains]

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.

[karl_keung]

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.