Next step of Leica?

[marc_bergman1]

"As an aside, great innovation comes from being able to drive technology, rather than accept what others have done - and then appropriate into your own products."

 

That sure sounds like the M3.

[warren_lafever]

the M8 is like no other camera in the world (well except for the epson one) so why is it being compared to other cameras?

when i say bargain in relation to the film cameras i mean that its only a few hundy more and they are at least in the same ballpark. most of the film to digital costs are not even playing the same sport. the nikon f6 is 2000$ and the nikon d3 is 5000$ this is a much more significant change in price. if leica used those ratios the M8 would be around 9,000-10,000+ body only. none if this really matters though because there is nothing it compares to. it is the finest DRF in existance. you can please some of the people some of the time but not all the people all the time. no camera that can ever be made will be cheered and relished 100%. i dont own a leica, i cant afford one. i use an olympus e-520 (until recently i used an oly e-500) my photos arent spectacular or breathtaking but, if i was in the market for a DRF and had the dinero i certainly would have to consider the M8 (or subsequent models). consider it the bentley of cameras. bentleys have issues but, those who have them dont dare say so, its an insult to those who cant afford one. its flaunting and unnecessary. if you have an M8 and dont like it sell it to me. i will give you what you think its worth (according to your complaints i would say about $10).

[tina_manley]

"For the pros, they don't need that particular niche and are much happier with a 1DsMKIII or II or 5D or D3 or whatever and it serves them better. But psychology is a powerful thing. Maybe you really do take better pictures with the M8. That wouldn't really mean it's a better camera, just better for you."

 

I have a 1DMII and a 5D. I've compared the photos from corner to corner at 100% and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the M8 produces vastly superior results. (Not to mention even being able to get the photos I want in the first place.) Psychology has absolutely nothing to do with it; however, as I said, that is strictly my opinion based on my experience. YMMV.

 

Tina Manley,

[travis1]

M8 pix better than the 5D?? I gotta check it out..

[ray .]

<center>For Bob and others, and for purposes of comparison, the following image was shot with 5D and 28mm f/2.8 lens at

2.8, 1/20 sec handheld @ ISO 3200. RAW file processed in Canon's RAW software with no post-camera adjustments,

noise reduction or sharpening, except for image size reduction to a little less than 25% of the full file dimensions. Tiff

converted to save for web jpg quality 80 in photoshop.</center><p><center><img

src="http://chaospress.com/other_pics/truckdogweb.jpg"></center>

[ray .]

With all due resect Tina, and my photography wouldn't be much different- your photos (at least the ones I looked at) don't

appear to have been made in a high stress, rushed, or environmentally challenging environment. And while absolutely

superior corner to corner sharpness may be of value, I doubt it's something most professional photographers, publishers,

readers, or even those attending gallery shows are concerned about to the extent you appear to be. If there were enough of

a difference I'm pretty sure that photographers of the stature of James Nachtwey would use a Leica instead of Canon.

But you're right~ individual preferences vary.

[tina_manley]

"your photos (at least the ones I looked at) don't appear to have been made in a high stress, rushed, or environmentally challenging environment."

 

Which photos did you look at? Iraq? http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/faces_of_iraq

Central America? http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/portfolio&page=all

or even South Carolina? http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/image/73285000

 

"And while absolutely superior corner to corner sharpness may be of value, I doubt it's something most professional photographers, publishers, readers, or even those attending gallery shows are concerned about to the extent you appear to be."

 

Any professional photographer who submits photos to stock agencies, knows that they are examined corner to corner at 100% and rejected if not absolutely sharp with no fringing or CA. I have had photos rejected when using Canon's, even with prilme L lenses. My Leica photos are always accepted.

 

Again, just my experience, but my experience is what I have to go on.

 

Tina.

[tina_manley]

"your photos (at least the ones I looked at) don't appear to have been made in a high stress, rushed, or

environmentally challenging environment."

 

Which photos did you look at? Iraq? http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/faces_of_iraq

Central America? http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/portfolio&page=all

or even South Carolina? http://www.pbase.com/tinamanley/image/73285000

 

"And while absolutely superior corner to corner sharpness may be of value, I doubt it's something most

professional photographers, publishers, readers, or even those attending gallery shows are concerned about to the

extent you appear to be."

 

Any professional photographer who submits photos to stock agencies, knows that they are examined corner to corner

at 100% and rejected if not absolutely sharp with no fringing or CA. I have had photos rejected when using

Canon's, even with prilme L lenses. My Leica photos are always accepted.

 

Again, just my experience, but my experience is what I have to go on.

 

Tina.

[travis1]

Tina, those linked pbase photos were shot with the m8? Have you shot with the summaron+m8 combo ever?

[ray .]

nice pics, and some damn good looking Canon shots...

[tina_manley]

Hi, Travis - all of them were shot with Leica M's - some before the M8 came out though, with everything from an

M3 to an M7. The Summaron and M8 combination is one of my favorites, when I have enough light. It's the one I

keep on one camera when I'm traveling because it's so small and light.

 

Hi, Ray - Thanks. I only used Canons after I switched to digital and before M8s came out. They are now gathering

dust on my shelves and will probably be passed down to my daughter. My favorite Canon lens was the 85/1.2, but

that lens on the 1DMII requires weight lifting exercises. It's not one I would travel with and is certainly not a

subtle camera/lens combination!

 

Tina

[carbon_dragon]

"the M8 is like no other camera in the world (well except for the epson one) so why is it being compared to other

cameras? "

 

I'm not sure how you conclude this. Every camera is unique in some way. It's true the M8 is the only DRF as

opposed to DSLRs, but it's still a camera -- and still a digital camera. If it were true that rangefinders and SLRs

occupied totally different niches, then the vast majority of photographers couldn't have converted over to SLRs so

quickly. Rangefinders died out because most photographers prefered SLRs. I happen to like rangefinders if I have a

reasonable choice, but for most roles, you can use either. Therefore it's perfectly reasonable to compare them.

 

"I have a 1DMII and a 5D. I've compared the photos from corner to corner at 100% and there is absolutely no doubt in

my mind that the M8 produces vastly superior results. (Not to mention even being able to get the photos I want in

the first place.) Psychology has absolutely nothing to do with it; however, as I said, that is strictly my opinion based

on my experience. YMMV. "

 

With all due respect, it only means that it produces superior results for YOU. Others can and do disagree. Of course

if you actually use all those cameras for identical shots maybe you should post those photo sets and show us what

it is about the M8's photos that you like better.

 

You will want to publish your assumptions. Leica lenses bias toward full aperture, where other lenses do not.

Likewise, pretty much all the Leica lenses are "pro" lenses with premium prices, so you would want to compare

them against pro lenses in Canon. But I suspect you don't do that, you just use the camera you have with you (the

M8 presumably) and then you convince yourself that had you used a different camera you wouldn't have ended up

with as good a shot. Psychology. But as I said, whatever camera gives you the confidence to do your best work is

the right camera for YOU, but not necessarily for others.

 

And even if you convinced me that the M8 was better for me, it would STILL be out of the question -- just as a

1DsMkIII would be. Were I a professional, it might be different, but as a hobbiest, $5000 (or is it $5500 now) is too

much for me. If it makes you feel any better, I won't be buying a Canon 1DsMk II or III or a Nikon D3 either.

 

I'm glad you are so committed to the M8. If there are enough of you, there will still be a Leica to service my M2s if

they ever break down. But it's probably the rare amateur (even the rare advanced amateur) who considers the M8 as

a viable choice in a market with 5Ds, D300s, and so on. Those amateurs are probably also not considering the new

Hasselblad at $30,000 either.

[michael s.]

Glad you pointed out those folders, Tina. Some outstanding photos there.<p>

 

I don't doubt for a second that you and other <i>very demanding</i> photographers are indeed using M8's on a

daily basis to make excellent pictures. Nor do I doubt that a combination of factors, including both personal

preferences (for size, weight, feel, viewfinder, lenses, etc.) and resulting image quality are reinforcing the

correctness of those choices for you.<p>

 

And I would not conclude, as David appears to where he refers to "psychology" above, that all of you are somehow

"convincing yourselves" of something -- something that likely isn't true. On the contrary, I believe you're using

what you've chosen to use because, on balance, the gear is enabling you to do your best.<p>

 

Due to price and technology (manual focus only and no 'real' zoom lenses) the M8 is just not a camera that's in

tune with where the mass market, both amateur and pro, is at this time. But it surely wasn't designed and isn't

being marketed as a mass market camera, or even a high volume camera. The botched intro was regrettable, and

very likely dissuaded a number of would-be buyers from making a purchase.<p>

 

But it's here, and I hope it (or a successor) is around for the long haul, because more choice is a good thing.<p>

 

Finally, I've got a hunch that your answer to Travis' question about the Summaron, way down here after 200 +

posts (nope, haven't

read them all), will likely cause another M8 to "fly off the shelves" one day soon <a

href=http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QIQZ>... in Travis' direction</a>. :-)<p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

IMO, the only trump card the M8 holds is the fact that it's a RF camera. And it's only a trump card because some buyers think it is. Call it the phantom trump card.

 

Leica is in way over its head in the digital realm. They're like Harley Davidson and the V-Rod. The V-Rod has been marketed to young Japanese bike riders, trying to bring them into the fold, but no Harley guy even gives the V-Rod passing notice. To them, it's just not a Harley, like a digital M camera is just not a Leica.

[carbon_dragon]

"And I would not conclude, as David appears to where he refers to "psychology" above, that all of you are

somehow "convincing yourselves" of something -- something that likely isn't true. On the contrary, I believe you're

using what you've chosen to use because, on balance, the gear is enabling you to do your best."

 

I don't think this is inconsistent with what I'm saying. I firmly believe that if you think you do your best work with a

specific kind of camera, if it suits you in some fundamental way, then you probably really will do your best work with

the camera. Sometimes the reasons why are "objective" and revolve around the camera and the way you work.

Sometimes the reasons are more "subjective" and you really have difficultly explaining why it works so well for you.

But you feel like you have to have objective reasons -- picture quality, sharpness, etc. and so you retroactively

rationalize reasons you think will convince others (and yourself) that you made the right decision.

 

Tina says she doesn't have to justify her choice to anyone (and she doesn't of course). But it seems to me that she

may feel she does. Maybe it's because she would like Leica to sell more M8s. Or maybe she's not completely sure

deep down that her reasons are as objective as she would like to believe. For some reason, photographers want to

believe that their decisions are all based on rational analyses of the cameras (as though they were a professional

camera testers). But actually for most people the subjective has a major role in the decisions, which is why

emotions run so high in situations like this.

 

The end result is that she might find her reasoning compelling, but since she's presented no real evidence, just

opinion (and we all have an opinion -- shaped by our own preconceptions), she's not likely to convince anyone of the

superiority of the M8 who does already believe this.

[warren_lafever]

the responses have migrated away from the original topic. a digital R system along with the digilux 3 and the M8 would cover the gamut of consumers. there would be something for everyone. cars are the same way, you can get a barebones civic or a souped up prelude or you could go to the next level and get an acura. in a market where the numbers are small prices are high. when it comes down to it, its what we as individuals like and how the camera feels and responds. if a system fits your needs cost is eliminated as a deciding factor.

[don_e]

"I firmly believe that if you think you do your best work with a specific kind of camera, if it suits you in some fundamental way, then you probably really will do your best work with the camera. Sometimes the reasons why are "objective" and revolve around the camera and the way you work. Sometimes the reasons are more "subjective" and you really have difficultly explaining why it works so well for you. But you feel like you have to have objective reasons..."

 

I wouldn't generalize for a pro and the cameras they choose. In my case, a hobbiest, who never used a rangefinder in nearly 40 years until two years ago, I have no objective explanation why I like them except that I like the photos I take with them. So, now I've got 8 rf (the Leica is a IIIf) in three formats and will likely buy an M (or something I can mount M lenses on).

 

If I get back into digital photography, I'd buy an M8 or a used RD1 and there would not be any reason to consider a dslr despite the rationales of cost benefit analysis, feature sets, or appreciation of swank engineering 'solutions'. Rangefinders work out for me and I do not look gift horses in the mouth or turn away from a gift of the gods.

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

I just feel compelled to respond to the luxury car analogy and Leicas.

 

The problem I see with that is that with fine automobiles, like Bentleys and Jaguars, is that you truly do get more for your money, more comfort, more performance, more luxury. With digital Leica, you'd be hard-pressed to distinguish between an image taken with an M8 or a humble Nikon D300. And the build quality of Leica digital is dubious at best, with the exception of the terrific M lenses which are mostly neutralized by the very nature of the digital medium. Up and down the Leica digital lineup, you're paying a premium without 0-60 times under 6 seconds, without a premium sound system, without fine plush leather seats. You're paying a premium for a Volkswagen with a Mercedes-Benz hood ornament.

 

The car analogy worked well when Leica crafted exceptional mechanical film cameras, but to try to carry that analogy over to Leica digital is a like car wreck.

[warren_lafever]

maybe the car analogy was not perfect. but, compared to other manufacturers first digital offerings for a series, the M8 is at a really good starting point. there are tons of lenses and it can only get better with software updates and next generation releases. what exactly about the build quality is dubious? i dont own one and have never actually seen one in person so i am at a disadvantage. what is it not doing as advertised? should i be more discerning about my gear?

[doug herr]

Jeffrey Prokopowicz wrote: "<I>with fine automobiles, like Bentleys and Jaguars, is that you truly do get more for your

money, more comfort, more performance, more luxury</I>"

<P>

They all get you from point A to point B.

<P>

"<I>you'd be hard-pressed to distinguish between an image taken with an M8 or a humble Nikon D300</I>"

<P>

Care to revisit your point?

[garrison_k.]

"you'd be hard-pressed to distinguish between an image taken with an M8 or a humble Nikon D300"

 

i think you mean only at low iso's?

[peteradownunder]

Well said Tina. <p>You must be aware though that you have committed a cardinal sin on this forum. Not only can you make a decent pic - you also like the M8!!! -:) LOL

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

You're right Garrison K., with so many speeding tickets, I'm still brazenly using my poetic license.

 

The D300 wins at Autobahn speeds.

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

Warren, futher up this thread, there's a really snooty car metaphor employed to explain Leica's reason for being. Your car analogy was pretty reasonable.

 

Unless money is no object, and even then, I would be "more discerning" about how I spend my money.

 

The build quality thing refers to the M8's reliability problems in the field. I know that expensive automobiles break down, definitely more than Toyota Corollas, but at least while waiting for the tow truck, you'll have a smirk on your face that just won't go away. Leica will leave you wondering "Why"!?

[doug herr]

Jeffrey, do you have access to current M8 reliability data?