Grim times for Leica

[pics]

So where are the controls on this thing? I see 2 knobs. I hope it isn't too dependent on the LCD menu screen. I

really do hope this camera takes off running but I'm not sure. Pro photographers aren't exactly raking it in these

days and expecting them to either dump their tried and tested digital Mamiyas/H-Blads or splurge on the Leica as a

more portable secondary rig might be a little far-fethced. Outside of the devoted Leica fatithful I think the M8 debut

into the digital realm spooked a few people and its been a while since the idea of Leica durability and reliability

represented much more than a myth. I take everything with a grain of salt but the Kamber report posted by

Fang is an eye opener and the S2 represents and equally new leap into the unknown for Leica. Considering they

don't

do these "leaps" very well, many possible buyers may sit back at first to see if there are any serious unrealized

bugs

from the get-go. I'm sure there will be

takers, but no one knows on what scale Leica needs to move these things in order to be profitable and that will be

the interesting part.

[Brad_]

>>> I'll bet you'd by a Ford Pinto if Michael Kamber said he liked it.

 

That would be silly, as he doesn't represent himself as being knowledgeable about cars.

 

However, on issues of photojournalism and the level of performance and reliability needed for cameras in the field, and

especially war zones, his views are extremely relevant.

[doug herr]

Brad Evans wrote:"<I>>>> I'll bet you'd by a Ford Pinto if Michael Kamber said he liked it.

<P>

That would be silly, as he doesn't represent himself as being knowledgeable about cars.

<P>

However, on issues of photojournalism and the level of performance and reliability needed for cameras in the field,

and especially war zones, his views are extremely relevant.</I>"

<P>

Yes Brad my comment was silly. However Mr. Kamber's needs in a camera are his alone. I am confident enough of

my own needs that I don't need to rely on a celebrity's preferences to make my own choices. Evidently Fang is not

as confident of his own needs.

<P>

El Fang wrote: "<I>It's unbelievable, I know, but I kid you not. Look at the file for yourself, straight out of the camera,

unprocessed. Look at the EXIF data. D70, 1/90s, focal length 170mm (about 255 equivalent due to 1.5x crop), ISO

1600, white balance AUTO. It's all there. I'm not even going to embarrass you with a file from a 2008 digital Rebel or

a 5D.</I>"

<P>

Straight out of the camera is not un-processed. An unprocessed file is a RAW file, yours was processed by the

camera. If image quality is a priority you will process it yourself from the RAW file.

<P>

1/90 sec with 255mm (equivalent) hand-held is not remarkable, if that's the point you were trying to make. <BR>

hand-held 1/125 sec with a 400mm lens, film camera (slightly cropped):

<BR>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/laridae/blsk00.jpg">

<BR>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/parulidae/blwa00.jpg">

<BR>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/ardeidae/sneg01.jpg">

<P>

same shutter speed and lens, uncropped:

<BR>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/ardeidae/gbhe00.jpg">

<BR>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/ardeidae/lbhe01.jpg">

<P>

hand-held 1/60 sec, 400mm lens, film, moderate crop:

<BR>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/parulidae/prwa00.jpg">

<P>

hand-held 1/125 sec, 560mm lens, film camera:

<BR>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/podicipedidae/pbgr00.jpg">

<P>

1/125 sec, 560mm lens, 1.37 crop factor digital (DMR) with monopod:

<BR>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/mammals/artiodactyls/dash01.jpg">

<BR>

Having seen what the DMR and M8 can do the 5D or 2008 Rebel would not embarrass me.

[Brad_]

>>> Yes Brad my comment was silly. However Mr. Kamber's needs in a camera are his alone. I am confident enough of

my own needs that I don't need to rely on a celebrity's preferences to make my own choices.

 

He's not a celebrity. He's a working pj who has relevant experience with the M8 - with respect to image quality,

ergonomics, reliability, and service. And wrote extensively about in a clear and concise manner. Something that's missing

here.

[emraphoto]

kamber doesn't like the m8, harvey does. these are the opinions of folks who have spent time on the system and equally valid.

however to drone on and on about the perceived shortcomings of a system you haven't used is silly. i believe the m8 suffers from a

large, vocal group of folks who have never used the system and it is certainly influencing peoples "perception" of the system and the

company in a negative manner.

 

"the m8 is unreliable" - i, and a half dozen people i know, use one daily to shoot in a professional capacity and the camera has proven

extremely reliable. now ALL I AM SAYING is the "perception" doesn't fit with the "experience".

 

"the files need heavy post" - in my "experience", and my success depends on as little post as possible, this is totally false.

 

i could go on...

 

are comments from fella's like kamber valid? of course! however the constant parroting by folks like fang have taken on a life of their

own. based entirely on hearsay and largely conjecture. "the $500 digital rebel will produce a file equal to or better than an m8"?!? this is

NOT BASED ON ANY USER EXPERIENCE. yet on it rolls. copied and pasted at nauseum.

[Brad_]

>>> Straight out of the camera is not un-processed. An unprocessed file is a RAW file, yours was processed by the camera. If

image quality is a priority you will process it yourself from the RAW file.

 

I think you missed the point on that, as well. He posted a photo out of a camera. It's obvious to even a beginner that to get it to

display on a browser window *something* processed it - that's what jpeg is. Your original argument that it was a jpeg that displayed, and

therefore not valid

for making a point,is odd.

 

Are the above photos you just posted in RAW format? If not, by your original logic, one cannot make any points with respect to

image quality...

[Brad_]

>>> and the camera has proven extremely reliable. now ALL I AM SAYING is the "perception" doesn't fit with the

"experience".

 

Many M8 *owners* here on this forum have posted about problems with their cams. And the long delays (several months) to

get problems fixed and the cam back into their hands.

 

Are you suggesting that this is merely "perception" and somehow not based on real "experience?"

[emraphoto]

MY experience brad, MY experience. i have never contested a users opinion about the camera, what i do contest is

assertions by someone who obviously has never used one.

 

leica has pro service, it's quick as a rabbit for me thus making it a viable system.

 

leica's non-pro service sucks big, i have commented at length about it and feel it is leica's REAL ACHILLE'S HEEL.

[emraphoto]

ps you do good work brad

[el_fang]

<i>Fang, you seem to be star-struck by Famous Names. I'll bet you'd by a Ford Pinto if Michael Kamber said he

liked it.</i>

<p>I'm simply betting that guys like Michael Kamber, a trained photojournalist, have taken classes on bias,

slander and libel, and fair and accurate reporting (Journalism 101) and apply these principles to their everyday

work, whether photographic or written. Given Mr. Kamber's background, I find it very, very hard to discredit his

written experience with the M8, especially when that experience is supported by images taken nearly at the same

time with Canon gear. Now, if the review had been written by somebody like <a

href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/14/technology/14photoshop.html?ex=1313208000&en=40b6c1ca0fe922ff&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss"

target="_blank">Adnan Hajj or Brian Walski</a>, it would have the opposite effect: I'd find their words hard to

believe because, by their actions, they have shown their work to be untrustworthy.</p>

<p>But then who knows. Maybe Kamber is out to mislead us all, and one day I'll eat my words. However, until that

day comes, I consider his

review to be <b>the</b> most authoritative and trustworthy review of the Leica M8 with regards to its use

professionally in the field, published to date.</p>

 

<p><i>Straight out of the camera is not un-processed.</i></p>

<p>Brad's already addressed this. Suffice it to say that most normal people would understand what I was trying to

show rather than argue semantics. It's plain as day that even a bottom-of-the-line Japanese dSLR from 2004 could

handle tough lighting conditions (mixed tungsten stage lighting in this case) without forcing the photographer to

resort to massaging a RAW file. On the other hand it took Leica <b>two years</b> to finally come up with a

firmware update to address the M8's AWB issues, and the purported high-ISO noise reduction that was supposedly

included in the fix turned out to be nothing more than wishful thinking - by current M8 owners.</p>

 

 

<p><i>Having seen what the DMR and M8 can do the 5D or 2008 Rebel would not embarrass me.</i></p>

<p>Most people wouldn't be embarrassed by any camera if all they did was take pictures in broad daylight.

However, the needs of the photojournalist (where Leica made its name) - as well as those of amateur snappers who

like to photograph their families (read: young, fast-moving children) in a variety of outdoor and indoor settings

- are not well addressed by Leica's

current offerings, and Leica's market share and financial reports reflect that better than anything I could say

myself.</p>

[doug herr]

Brad/Fang: what do the working conditions of a production photojournalist have to do with a craftsman photographer

or an artist photographer? When people take landscape photos do they need a camera that allows them to swap

memory cards in surreptitiously? How many of us are going to be in such gritty conditions that we'll need to replace

filters annually? What's the point of comparing in-camera jpg files if the craftsman photographer wants to take the

time to work each photo to its fullest from the RAW file? And as much as the two of you are in denial, the M8 is

nowhere near as troublesome now as it was initially. If you persist in believing it's a cranky POS you're living in the

past.

<P>

Brad - Fang was the one making a big deal of his photo being unprocessed, not me. And even after conversion

to .jpg for web display a photo processed individually by a skilled photographer will demonstrate the camera's

capabilities for image quality better than the in-camera jpg will, unless your goal is just production. In-camera jpg

files are for production (i.e., mass production), photos individually-procesessed from RAW files are the domain of the

craftsman. Different goals, different results.

<P>

As for the M cameras supposedly earning their reputation as a photojournalist's tool, you've got blinders on. It's

reputation stems from its many uses by many kinds of photographers, production, craftsman and artist. That some

(and not all) production photojournalists reject it means nothing to the users who have found if to be a valuable tool

for their chosen tasks.

[Brad_]

>>> Brad/Fang: what do the working conditions of a production photojournalist have to do with a craftsman photographer or an artist

photographer?

 

Well, this is the Leica RF forum. Where everybody talks about and aligns with great photogs of the past, in the field taking photos in

adverse

conditions. Coupled with the need for a reliable cam, and until recently, making a big deal about Ms being able to work without a battery in

case one

couldn't be found in Fallujah. It's the romanticization and leica mystique about shooters of the past that a lot of people latch onto here.

 

I don't think there are many people here doing product and fashion photography with their cams.

 

Fast forward to today, where you have an experienced pj, who has put the M8 through its paces, and writes incredibly well. Something no

one else

here has been able to approach either in photographic skill, shooting in adverse conditions (what leica is known for), and clear writing.

Sounds good

and extremely relevant to me...

 

 

>>> Brad - Fang was the one making a big deal of his photo being unprocessed, not me.

 

Not true. You made a big deal out when it was first posted of it being a jpeg, your point being that it was hardly worthy of discussion.

 

My counterpoint was, indeed it is a jpeg, like all photos posted here. And in spite of that limitation, it exhibited far better performance in

dim light

that what I've seen from an M8.

[Brad_]

Heh heh...

 

I wonder if people would be similarly dismissive of Kamber and the relevancy of his assessment if he instead, heaped

tons of praise on the M8 based on positive real-world experiences with the cam in the field...

 

Sure, no doubt....

[el_fang]

<i>Brad/Fang: what do the working conditions of a production photojournalist have to do with a craftsman

photographer or an artist photographer? When people take landscape photos do they need a camera that allows them

to swap memory cards in surreptitiously? How many of us are going to be in such gritty conditions that we'll need

to replace filters annually? What's the point of comparing in-camera jpg files if the craftsman photographer

wants to take the time to work each photo to its fullest from the RAW file? And as much as the two of you are in

denial, </i>

 

<p>OK, so the M8 is too good for the "production photojournalist" and its full potential is only realized by

"craftsmen" or "artists." Can we say, "elitist snobbery"? Hey, I've got news for you - the finest photographic

"craftsmen" and "artists" in the world aren't using M8s. They're using... everything else. If they've got $5k to

burn on a body and $3k to burn on a lens, they're spending that money on full-frame digital SLRs. If they're

looking to spend more, they're buying Hasselblad H cameras or MF/LF digital backs. I know you still don't believe

any of this. <b>Read the WSJ report linked by the original poster</b>. So just who is in denial, exactly?</p>

 

<p><i>the M8 is nowhere near as troublesome now as it was initially. If you persist in believing it's a cranky

POS you're living in the past.</i></p>

 

<p>Last I checked, the M8 still needs to be shipped to Germany for even minor repairs, still requires $100 IR

blocking filters on the lenses, still has a baseplate to fumble with and drop, and still features the same

substandard high-ISO performance. The M8.2 hasn't fixed any of this. So what is in the past, exactly?</p>

 

<p><i>Brad - Fang was the one making a big deal of his photo being unprocessed, not me. And even after conversion

to .jpg for web display a photo processed individually by a skilled photographer will demonstrate the camera's

capabilities for image quality better than the in-camera jpg will, unless your goal is just production. In-camera

jpg files are for production (i.e., mass production), photos individually-procesessed from RAW files are the

domain of the craftsman. Different goals, different results.</i></p>

<p>All I did was post a simple out-of-camera jpg to show what a lowly 2004 entry-level dSLR is capable of, as a

reference to what the M8 should at least be able to do, even disregarding its price and the fact that the dSLR

predates it by no less than two years. You're the one making semantic arguments as to what constitutes

"processed" and what doesn't. So who is making a big deal, exactly?</p>

 

<p><i>As for the M cameras supposedly earning their reputation as a photojournalist's tool, you've got blinders

on. It's reputation stems from its many uses by many kinds of photographers, production, craftsman and

artist.</i></p>

 

<p>OK, maybe I'm wrong here. I was under the impression that the "quietness," "small size," "superb low-light

capabilities" and other traits made the M camera revolutionary for photojournalists who wanted to shoot as a "fly

on the wall" which is why guys like Henri Cartier-Bresson chose it, and that association in turn is how the Leica

name became "legendary" among the black-and-white photo literati of the 1950s-60s. In fact I can (or I thought I

could) safely say that most average non-photographers who have even heard of the Leica name, heard it mentioned

alongside Cartier-Bresson's. So who else am I missing, exactly?</p>

 

<p><i>That some (and not all) production photojournalists reject it means nothing to the users who have found if

to be a valuable tool for their chosen tasks.</i></p>

<p>What tasks? Because for every genre of photography I can think of, Leica no longer comes to my mind as being

the best tool. "Production" photojournalism? (I'd love to see you walk up to James Nachtwey and call his work

"production," LOL) AF digital SLRs. Family photography? Well, unless your only family is an arthritic 90-year old

who takes the entire afternoon to shuffle across the living room... for everyone else, AF digital SLRs. Sports

photography? Self explanatory. Studio photography? Hasselblad or MF/LF digital backs. Landscapes? Ditto. Movie

sets? AF digital SLRs in Jacobson sound blimps. Macro photography? AF digital SLRs. Wildlife photography? AF

digital SLRs. Portrait photography? Just try to touch a 5D and the 85/1.2L. So what is an M8 good for, exactly?</p>

<p>Or, I'll ask the question point-blank.</p>

<p><b>If you think Leica is so great and doing so well, what is your explanation for Leica's dire financial

status as described by the WSJ article that is the

topic of this thread?</b></p>

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Fang and Douglas,

 

I think in this recurrent debate you've - perhaps unintentionally - put the finger on the right problem and the source of all the dispute between unconditionnal Leicaphiles and what the formers consider as Leicaphobes...

 

In many earlier messages I've tried to explain the main reason I consider the M8 a "lemon" (and to a lesser extent the R8-9 + DMR combo)...

 

I think this everlasting dispute won't end until each party realize it is not talking about the same camera specs.

 

I (and I think most photographers with a certain experience in the now past film days) NEVER considered 35mm cameras (SLR's or rangefinders) as efficient tools for the "a craftsman photographer or an artist photographer" looking for the best possible imagery (on the technical side). There were (and there are in our digitalized world) far better tools for that kind of photography. May be the new S2 (price set aside) will conciliate both the medium format quality and the ease of use and reasonable size of a small format camera. May be it will be the forerunner of things to come... But neither the R8-9 + DMR (facing a Hasselblad for example) nor the M8 (or M8-2) are, facing a digital medium format camera.

 

Based on EXISTING cameras (not prototypes), a small format digital camera is still something which is a compromise between the image quality of a medium format and a reduction in size and weight when compared to an MF, even if the image quality of small format cameras is ever improving (it was already the case in film times). To put it in simpler terms, you trade a part of the image quality potential to get a smaller, faster, to use camera.

 

For me, trading the low light capabilities, the high ISO performance and anything which compromises the fast action recording of an image specific to the small format camera for a better IQ though not good enough to compete with a medium format is a sheer nonsense, moreover when as far as the cost is concerned the difference is so small. I know Douglas, your mileage differs, I respect your point of view, but I fundamentally disagree with you.

 

My opinion on the M8 is based on the fundamental assumption a small format rangefinder is CONCEPTUALLY a press and street photographers' camera, not a "fine art" tool.

 

In film times I've worked most of the time with multiple systems : SLR's (for their ability to use long tele-lenses and be portable macro-photographic tools) and appreciated their ability (increasing with each generation) to work faster and capture action ; small format rangefinder cameras, I used for their unobtrusivness, silence and their unequalled abilities in low light ; medium format cameras which gave me the ability to reach a far superior IQ when compared to my small format cameras (I'd whish my Hasselblad system was never stolen !) and even large format view cameras for their unequalled IQ and their movements.

 

I never expected from one of these systems to perform something as well as what the prime advantages of another authorized. I never envisaged them as competitors but as tools complementary to each other.

 

A universal system never existed and even if with digital times it may lay in a near future it doesn't exist today.

 

I think El Fang position is perfectly realistic *when you consider the kind of photographic tool he expects to find with a digital rangefinder camera*.

 

As is your position *when one considers what you are trying to get from your gear*.

 

Let's use an example which doesn't imply Leica...

 

Unless proven otherwise if you consider the present strategy of Nikon vs the one of Canon in the small format DSLR world, you see Nikon trying to maximalize the advantages related to a small format camera with the D700 and the D3, while Canon issues as a flagship the 1Ds Mk.III which is more oriented toward definition at the expense of speed, high ISO capabilities and fast AF. These opposed strategies perfectly illustrate the debate between you and El Fang. And, between some other reasons (related to the extended retro-compatibility of the Nikons regarding the lenses), I have chosen to buy a Nikon because their main highlights are just what I expect from a small format DSLR.

 

Unfortunately, Leica (nor for all intent and purpose any other manufacturer) offers me the Digital small format rangefinder I'm dreaming of as a perfect tool for the kind of work I practice now... Even if the M8-2 proves more reliable in extreme conditions than the M8, Leica succeeds in providing a reliable and fast service and has a remarkable IQ at low and even medium ISO levels, there are still problems Leica has not addressed which are for ME and MY kind of work and budget definitely deal breakers :

 

1 - Format : One of the reason why I don't want an M8 is the fact I can't use my M mount lenses at their nominal FOV (and one of them, the 135mm cannot be used at all) and I would have to buy a wide Tri-Elmar to have my wide angle capabilities back. This last point (as this lens is almost unavailable at a reasonable price second hand) would affect my budget to an unbearable level.

 

2 - I.R. filters : At $ 100 each this is something I'm not ready to pay to correct a major flaw, presented as a feature destined to get sharper images. I'm still extremely astonished by the ease with which some Leica diehards which once in film era swore they'll never put a filter which was supposed to diminish the quality of their precious Leica lenses accepted to put such a filter to use their M8 !!!

 

3 - The separate baseplate : already obsolete in film times (the last Nikon with a separate baseplate for loading - the F - was discontinued around 1972 with the introduction of the F2 and neither my Hexar RF or the new Zeiss Ikon are affected by this "antique" feature). Some people can arguably defend the loading procedure of a film in an M (I disagree with them but admit this baseplate had an economical reason to be maintained) with a digital M using an SD card this is ridiculous (the fact this M8 baseplate seems unable to allow the use of a tripod notwithstanding).

 

4 - The lack of certain modern features regarding auto-exposure which have proven their value for fast "decisive moment" shots : namely some kind of matrix metering light evaluation system and, conversly,the lack of a true spot metering system in manual mode.

 

5 - Last but not least, the poor high ISO performance of the M8, which as El Fang put it makes the throne of the M camera as the king of low light fall apart.

 

All the Leica legend used to be based on Press photography, this is the legacy of their past. When I judge the M8, I judge it from this point of view. I really don't care if the RAW files are a tad better at low and medium ISO (before post processing) than with a Japanese DSLR, just because this Japanese DSLR (and moreover when it goes to a Nikon D3 or D700) has already reached the threshold of IQ which I consider sufficient for the work I do, the kind of image I take and what I expect from a small format camera. I don't care if I had to loose some potential of Leica glass by using a built on the sensor IR filter, because I did exactly the same in film times, when I pushed the ISOs of my film and when the actual superiority in definiton of these lenses manifested itself only when using the camera on a rock steady tripod when I used my M handheld. To have clean, almost noise free and publishable image at ISO 6400, looking even better than a film image taken at ISO 800 is far more important for my kind of work. And this, the M8 can't do.

 

Let's try to talk about the same tool or recongnize we are not talking about the same kind of photography hence we need different tools.

 

let's recognize the M8 whatever we may think about it intrinsically is not on par with the old M's of film era as a tool for Press photography.

 

And please try to end a dispute which has become meaningless.

 

FPW

 

 

 

[jay_moynihan]

François P. Weill, I feel your post is very thoughtful, and pretty much on point.

If I must quibble, it would be about this line:

 

"My opinion on the M8 is based on the fundamental assumption a small format rangefinder is CONCEPTUALLY a

press and street photographers' camera, not a "fine art" tool. "

 

I would assume you mean landscape and the like. But "fine art" photography can have many subjects. Gary

Wingogrand, and Cartier-Bresson to name two Leica rangefinder users generally now called artists, not to mention

the likes of Sebastiao Salgado.

 

I myself love rangefinders. But I did not get a used M2 that i could afford, simply because of that darned base plate

thing :)

 

But the Voightlanders still calls my name, and I hope that they (actually, Cosina), if they do not feel too burned by

the fate of the RD1 (which they made for Epson), will produce the first more widely affordable DRF. Perhaps they are

waiting for so-called FF sensors to drop in price as part? I have found that like you, many rangefinder folk do not

appreciate the whole crop factor thing :)

 

Your statement "Let's try to talk about the same tool or recongnize we are not talking about the same kind of

photography hence we need different tools. ", is so true. Some cameras can do alot, but no camera can do

everything "best", for everybody.

[doug herr]

Francois, how do you propose I get a 6-degree angle of view lens on a medium-format camera, and then climb

mountains with it? How much medium-format equipment are you willing to carry on your back for a backpacking trip, and

how "essential" is high-ISO capability when you're using the camera on a tripod and especially when there is not just a

slight but substantial difference in the raw files? Did you ever seen Galen Rowell hanging from a rope on the side of the

mountain with a medium-format camera, or while he was running to catch the light at the top of a mountain? If one must

define the uses for small-format cameras as narrowly as you have then Fang is right, we should just dump our 1Ds, D3

and DMR systems, get a digiReb and be happy, but uses for cameras of all sizes are limited only buy the imaginations

of those who use them. Recall that Barnack's original concept for the camera was "small camera, big picture",

something he could carry hiking and still get high-quality pictures.

<P>

Regarding Kamber's review of the M8, its flaws are not in credibility (though my experience with journalists suggest this

is a widespread issue) but with applicability. The review as written applies to a very limited set of circumstances,

Kamber's. A good review tests the camera in a wider scope of conditions and it also specifies the test conditions.

Kamber did not specify the file format he was using (jpg) nor did he specify the firmware revision, which by now is at

least two steps removed from current firmware. He didn't work with RAW file output at all. Not only was his review of

limited applicability when he wrote it, it's now of a camera which, by virtue of updated firmware, to a large degree is of a camera which no

longer exists.

[Spearhead]

<i>leica has pro service, it's quick as a rabbit for me thus making it a viable system.

<p>

leica's non-pro service sucks big, i have commented at length about it and feel it is leica's REAL ACHILLE'S HEEL.</i><P>I'm not going into the camera debate. Neither Mamiya nor Canon ever asked if I was a pro, although I may have signed up for Mamiya's pro program many years before I had any problems. But both turned around the cameras overnight on receipt (with Mamiya it was on receipt of my insurance company's commitment, which added a day), they don't ask, they assume that you need the camera. Interestingly enough, even Konica turned around my Hexar in three days.<P>It's ridiculous that a $5000 camera doesn't have overnight service.

[Brad_]

>>> Not only was his review of limited applicability when he wrote it, it's now of a camera which, by virtue of updated

firmware, to a large degree is of a camera which no longer exists.

 

 

Are you suggesting he'd come to a totally different conclusion with "todays" M8?

[ray .]

Brad, I'm quite surprised that you would go on at such length about a camera you have never used yourself. And that you

would pick a fight with a fine craftsman like Douglas Herr. Doesn't make any sense at all.

[marc_bergman1]

From Doug:

 

"The review as written applies to a very limited set of circumstances, Kamber's. A good review tests the camera in a wider scope of conditions and it also specifies the test conditions."

 

"His report fails on several important principles of the scientific method to discerning the truth. Specifically, he does not explain his test conditions accurately enough that anyone else can reproduce his results,"

 

So Doug, can you point us to a test of the Leica M8 that meets both criteria, a wider scope and an accurate explanation of the test criteria?

[ray .]

<i>So Doug, can you point us to a test of the Leica M8 that meets both criteria, a wider scope and an accurate explanation

of the test criteria?</i><p>It's called get the camera yourself, use it and evaluate it over a period of time, then if you like it

keep it, if you don't get rid of it and move on. Very simple.

<p>This discussion is like arguing that blondes are better than brunettes. <b>Way way out there.</b><p>I think we can

safely conclude

that neither Brad or Fang will ever in their life buy an M8 or any other Leica for that matter. Once we've uncovered that mystery it all gets

very boring.

[Brad_]

>>> And that you would pick a fight with a fine craftsman like Douglas Herr. Doesn't make any sense at all.

 

What fight? Are you suggesting things he says that don't make sense should go undiscussed? Ray, are you free to interpret Kamber's

report as you see fit? Or do you feel compelled to automatically agree with Doug on everything due to his craftsmanship?

 

My interpretation of what Kamber reported matches the conclusions of many others. Doug may have different M8 experiences in the field.

[michael schub]

A major problem is that Leica is no longer a professional camera - price was part of it but changes in technology

was most of it.- and is now irrelevant. Please don't rattle off a list of pro Leica users as the Canon and

Nikon list would put it to shame.

 

From SLR to digital Leitz was behind the curve and their late entrees in both fields weren't as good as the

competition for professional use (and the competition established a user base and grabbed market share,before

Leica even tried to catchup).

 

Without pros and wannabes Leica became a collectors camera and is now not even an object of desire for young

photographers who really know nothing of this antique..Leitz is now trying to push more aggressively into digital

but they are alas just a small company and electronics has not been their strong suit. Time will tell but time

has not been kind to Leitz..

[al_smith9]

I have looked at this site on occasion over the past few years. Have a couple of M4's that see use still. One bought new and one used, both working well.

I have considered a newer one but never pulled the wallet out as the two I have work fine.

Digital sounds nice but in seeing problems friends have with it I have held off. Then another friend wrote a piece about his personal experience with the M8.

 

http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.htm

 

He is a long time Leica user and found the camera way below the standard he is used to. Glad I held off.

 

If the folks in charge now cannot get it right on a $5000 body I am not buying in. Especially when what I have still works well. I will photograph, develop and scan if I ever get tired of darkroom work.