Kamber's M8 Extensive Field Test

[vic_.]

David Bowens: <i>" ...I hate leica. Completely. ... [snip] ... So, I hate leica. And i've

never used a leica camera ..."</i>

<p>Congratulations! You have all the qualifications possessed by the rabid anti-Leica

experts on this forum, most of whom have never used the cameras they so despise.

[larrybc]

Donald Bryant wrote:

<br>

<br>> > I'll probably be severely taunted for this but some form of live <br>

> > view would also be a good feature to add. <br>

<br>

>

That's what the viewfinder is for! Chimping with a RF camera doesn't <br>> make sense.

<p>What, it doesn't make sense to have a 100% viewfinder for those times when you're using odd lenses like a 12mm on a 135 format sensor? Why does it make more sense to use an external finder with its attendant parallax error?</p>

<p>

Or being able to frame from unusual angles when you're trying to shoot discretely? Why doesn't it make sense?

</p>

<p>larsbc</p>

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Dear Vic,

 

You too must be congratulated...

 

Trying to prove the quality of a BODY (moreover under harsh conditions) by demonstrating its quality through what a LENS (nobody said Leica doesn't produce superior optics) can do in terms of absence of ghosting and parasite reflections on an archtectural picture taken in a quiet environement (anyone using a Hasselblad or other medium format will obtain even better and any expert or pro DSLR in town will equal) is really a kind of summit in the difficult art of defending the undefendable...

 

Someone said those things are hilarious in another message... I France, we have a saying which can be translated as that : "Better to laugh about it than to cry".

 

An art extremely prized by those Leica zealots who believe helping Leica is to defend all the blunders they accumulated since the mid 60's... And which, in the end will finally destroy the old brand of Barnack.

 

What David Bowens, a professionnal express is completely coherent with what we already knew for years,: Leica is still a master in optics but is good to nothing else, even in the field of service to the customers which used to be first class and their products are grossly overpriced.

 

Encouraging Leica to continue on this path is in fact finishing them off.

 

FPW

[correct_exposure]

Is there really any digital camera at this time that this pj can use for this assignment?

 

This is a case when film is his best option.

[jose_angel]

Vic, your lens is really crappy... there is a lot of "distortion" in your image... 8-P

[travis1]

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/locations/m8-marrakech.shtml">not bad></a>

[s_j_goffredi]

First - any replacement to the M8 has GOT to be full format (something Leica themselves seem to recognise if you read any of their recent press releases).

Second, it has to be producing photos that compare equaly in quality to a Canon EOS 1D, 5D or similar with 10 - 12mp (lens etc being equal).

Third, It has to produce high quality noise-free images in low light high ISO settings.

Fourth, it must be fully dust and weather sealed and "bomb-proof" in design with excellent erganomics that are not based on 1950's technology, but on what uses need TODAY on a digital RF.

Only then might we see leagues of pj's buying up the M9 or whatever it will be called (and with them all those that follow the pro's by getting the same gear) and in so doing ensure Leica remain the weapon of choice for discreat, high quality photography in available light.

Personally, if Zeiss do it first then good on them. I don't want to see Leica disapear, but they have to think hard about what they are producing and for whom and then base the design on field tests and research with their target buyers. That is partly how they created the following with pj's in the past. Until they can (or Zeiss or anyone else) creates a camera that fulfils those critea I for one will stick to film or DSLR's from the likes of Canon, Nikon and Pentax.

[doug herr]

David Bowens wrote:"<I> ... I hate leica. And i've never used a leica camera, and

based on my experience with them over the last 4 years, I never will. Sure they are

different branches of the company, but the point is that its the same company.</I>"

<P>

They used to be the same company, many years ago. Now they only share the name.

Leica sport optics (binocs, spotting scopes, gun sights) are part of the company that

produces Leica cameras, the surveying equipment was split off many years ago.

[._._z]

"First - any replacement to the M8 has GOT to be full format... Second, it has to be producing photos that compare equaly in quality to a Canon EOS 1D, 5D...Third, It has to produce high quality noise-free images in low light high ISO settings. Fourth, it must be fully dust and weather sealed and "bomb-proof" in design with excellent erganomics that are not based on 1950's technology"

 

I don't think there is a sufficiently large/profitable market for this camera, not at the price-point that Leica would deliver it at, not given Leica's costs and pricing, not given the increasingly small number of people who use or prefer rangefinders.

[paulo_cortez]

"it is quieter and smaller than an SLR. It is less noticeable in dangerous situations where this unobtrusiveness may mean the difference between getting the picture or not, or even getting home safely or not."

 

 

Based on those advantages, why not buy several $200 P&S?

 

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist ;)

[watts]

<i>Sure they are different branches of the company, but the point is that its the same company.</i><p>

 

But the point is that they are <b>not</b> the same company and haven't had any association for years.

Leica Camera AG (who make the cameras and binoculars) licence the use of the Leica brand (and

associated logotype) from Leica Microsystems. The other (also unconnected) company

which has a licence to use the brand is Leica Geosystems. Apart from the use of the

name/brand there is no legal or financial relation between the three companies.

[paulo_cortez]

There's still long path for Leica until building a digital M body to match its lenses and "mystic", whatever that means...

[photo_dark]

:) I was wondering what kind of a response my post would get.

 

Yes they are different 'branches', but everything i've seen, experienced, read, followed up on, and been told points to the fact that both 'braches' of leica share the EXACT same business model....

 

...That is to provide overpriced, overhyped optical equipment that often WELL underperforms it's price range, coupled with poor support... if your lucky enough to even get any. Anything branded leica costs 4-5x as much as equivalent non-leica equipment.

 

If I were to right a full review of some of the survey instruments made by leica that ive used, it would read pretty much exactly the same as Kamber's field test.

[doug herr]

David Bowens wrote:"<I>:) I was wondering what kind of a response my post

would get. </I>"

<P>

So your posts in this thread are little more than trolling.

<P>

"<I> Anything branded leica costs 4-5x as much as equivalent non-leica

equipment. </I>"

<P>

For the Leica equipment I've used there is no equivalent non-Leica equipment. For

example the 280mm f/4 APO-Telyt. There are other makes of lenses in the

280mm to 300mm f/4-ish range but none anywhere near equivalent image quality.

Here's a snippet from an e-mail I received recently: "<I>I purchased the apo telyt

280/4. After testing it against Nikon 300/4,5 IFED, and Canon 300/4 L IS, It is

obvious that those lenses are a bad joke compared with this divine lens.

Bottomless sharpness, no CA, And no mater you shot at F:4, 5,6 8.... A nirvana

lens.</I>". Or the DMR on the R8 or R9. For anything approaching the image

quality from this camera you have to spend <I>more</I> for a top-of-the-line

Canon. I could go on with many more examples but it's clear you've made up your

mind and will not allow reality to intrude on your prejudices.

[waltflanagan]

In case you didn't know the Epson RD-1 and the Zeiss film rangefinders are both based off the Cosina/Voightlander bodies. The Zeiss has a different rangefinder but it was still codeveloped with Cosina. For various reasons the CEO of Cosina does not like digital so it's doubtful that they'll ever make a Voightlander branded digital rangefinder.

 

One name I haven't read in this thread is Panasonic. Panasonic uses Leica lenses. The Leica digital point and shoots are basically rebranded Panasonics.

I wonder if Panasonic would buy the company, at least its lens division.

 

The problem with non-telecentric non-retrofocal rangefinder lenses and digital sensors is just an engineering problem to be solved. Whether it's even more offset microlenses or software lens correction I don't care. The Germans helped put a man on the moon, they should be able to solve this problem :)

[paulo_cortez]

Walt, if we could convince that Cosina's CEO to build a M42 DSLR with a full frame sensor, the equivalent to a Voigtländer Bessaflex TM that he built some years ago - I've a black one along with many cheap and wonderful lenses waiting for that miracle...

[vic_.]

One variable underlies all these rabid arguments against the M8, and that is the price of the camera. OK, point taken.

 

Yet, if these same Bolsheviks examine the cars they drive, they will find the price difference between their car and that of a Toyota Corolla (as a point of reference, being a basic reliable auto that will get you from A to B) will often be many times more than the difference between the M8 and it's nearest equivalent (there is none, but just for argument's sake).

 

Where is the logic?

[dan_fromm2]

Vic, in over 1,000,000 miles my four Honda Civics and Acura Integras (the Integra was a dressed-up Civic) never stranded me. My present Civic is 220k miles and going strong.

 

Mr. Kamber's M8s stranded him, and more than once. Bad analogy.

 

I got what I paid for. And I paid more for each of my cars than an M8 and a couple of lenses would cost. Mr. Kamber didn't really get what he paid for.

 

Wanting value for money isn't bolshevism. Even reactionaries -- I've been characterized as one by a Nobel laureate [L. R. Klein, economics, 1980] -- want value for money.

 

Come to think of it, my humble Nikkormats and descendants never stranded me either, nor have my equally humble Graphics. Speed Graphic, now there's a camera made for professional use even though not particularly, um, stealthy.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[._._z]

"One variable underlies all these rabid arguments against the M8, and that is the price of the camera. "

 

What underlay Kamber's review has NOTHING to do with price, everything to do with unreliability, unependability, image quality, overall sluggishness, exposure and color balance problems, etc... -- in other words results, not price.

 

Bringing up additional arguments about price and dismissing them as "rabid" while IGNORING the results by a working pro -- the subject of this thread -- appears as defensive fanboyism.

[Spearhead]

I don't think Vic has the foggiest idea what a Bolshevik is. Here is a definition:<p><i>The Bolsheviks, originally[1] Bolshevists[2] (Russian: Большевик, Большевист (singular) Russian pronunciation: [bəlʲʂɨˈvʲik], derived from bolshe, "more") were a faction of the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party</i><p>I don't see anything in there about choice of cars or cameras. It takes some incredible suspension of logic to get there.<p>If we do suspend logic and accept Vic's rules on who can comment, since my primary ride is a city bus, my opinion must count for more, right?

[graham john miles]

Interesting review from an experienced photographer. I can understand his frustration with a tool that just doesn't seem to have user friendly ergonomics. Kinda like reading to the bottom of a long web page then having to scroll all the way back to the top to select the next screen.

[robert_clark]

"Can you provide some data that justifies this statement?"

 

Jeff, it's an opinion, ever heard of that? I've argued with you before on this and I realise your totally unsubstantiated opinions differ.

 

My opinion about this is based on hearing many photographers complain about the bulk, weight and size of profesional offerings. Just the same as they did in SLR days, except now they are even bigger.

 

Since many professional photographers carried and used M6's for their quiet and unobtrusive qualities and their excellent lenses, it seems pretty obvious to me that a modern digital version, as I've described, could also fulfil that role.

 

If your just going to drag out your uninteresting counterpoint ad nauseum, please don't bother.

[Spearhead]

<i>I realise your totally unsubstantiated opinions differ. </i><P>I don't have an opinion on this. Opinions are good when someone thinks something is better, or more efficient, or something like that. Opinions are useless for determining what quantities an imaginary camera might sell. FWIW, shooting professionally with other pro sports photogs and with PJs, I've never heard anyone complain. If you're going to carry a 24-70 and 70-200, a big flash and a battery pack, the camera body weight isn't going to be an issue.

[marc_bergman1]

"Here's a snippet from an e-mail I received recently"

 

"will not allow reality to intrude on your prejudices."

 

Not to jump into the middle of a private spat, but how is an email reality?

[vivek iyer]

For a while, I thought this is going to be a massive thread with massive posts.

 

Hmm.. it is petering out to be one of the usuals.. :(