neal_martin

CV 2.5 75. M8 DNG. Out of camera. Sized for posting.<div></div>

Welcome to all things digital! Consumers want a full frame (even if they're not so interested in paying for it). Marketing wants an ff (even if they can't guarantee how many they'll sell and at what price point). The CEO wants an ff (because he's a turn-around guy and wants to drive the company forward with his face on the marquee). The engineers will promise an ff in one year (if only the budget guys would cough up the resources.)

 

Everyone can promise an ff for the target date (except for the quality assurance guys who can't say anything until they can test prototypes that will actually work in photographers' hands.) Somebody must have had a conversation with QA.

"shameless self-promotion"

IMO, the best kind!

 

Another IMO: It doesn't count if you don't print it.

 

IMO #3 (of ll million): If you can afford Leica, you can afford LFI.

I've been an early adopter of several cameras and other consumer items (such as the new model of a car). In each case (B&H, for example) submitting a verified credit card # is sufficient good faith and intention to buy.

 

I've purchased other not-yet-released items by giving a deposit. It's not an economic issue for me; rather, it's Leica's departure from conventional business practice. A $300 dollar sign-up fee would accomplish the stated reasons (Leica's or others') for wanting full payment months in advance.

Drew,

Please say more about your 1A photo ---- maybe wax a little philosophical. I have the greatest respect for vintage photography -- even that which has been produced in the past week or so. I'm interested in the historical aspects of the camera/photo, but I just don't "get" the photographic values.

 

I've been scanning some scrapbooks of old family snapshot photos, running them through PS, some USM, even some serious noise filters (Noise Ninja). I use the "spot healing" tool to address pixel and abuse flaws in the original or scan. The goal is not to "cure" an old photo (believe me, the snapshot character remains), but to remove distractions.

 

I'd be inclined to do the same with your shoreline photo. Am I just a Philistine about these matters? What am I missing?

My situation is roughly comparable to yours. I shoot 2-3 "events" per month, some of which are quite wedding like. I try to capture the spirit of the event or venue, and represent participants in an interesting and respectful way.

 

It was never my intent to use my M8 for these events; instead, I wanted something for travel and family that wouldn't tempt me to reach for my Canon gear. And would give my back some relief.

 

But owning an M8 makes it hard to pass up. I've now done a 1/2-day meeting, a full-day site visit, and a two-day retreat with just my M8, 4 lenses, and a hefty Metz flash. Overall, a very light kit. These are not post-processed yet, and I'll post a link when I get caught up.

 

I don't know that I could recommend the M8 as a wedding camera: there's a lot to be said for high-quality zooms and snap-on autofocus if you don't want to intrude yourself into an event by bossing people around into formal poses.

 

OTOH, the M8 and I are still a work in progress, and there's a learning curve involved. There's a good chance the M8 plus will work for me as well or better for the small-sized print/brochures, institutional sharing, web posting, etc that my work requires.

 

Martin

"The 10mp M8 is nowhere near the resolution of the M lenses capabilities."

 

Well, that sounds like a pretty definitive and sweeping indictment of those "many M8 users" who overpay. Foolish are we. (And I can't even blame Erwin for my error.) OTOH, if maximizing the full capacity of my lenses were the metric for purchases, I'd still be shooting with my first Coolpix 990.

 

I've read nothing to indicate that Erwin isn't aware of the new paradigm and reasonably humble when expressing his opinion.

IMO, Erwin's and Marke's posts are equally non-nonsensical. Both make good points, both are overly wrought, both could use a good editor.

 

Fundamentally, Marke's own opinions are correct (which is to say, I agree with him). Equally correct is Philip's cliche one-liner. But try to read Erwin's opinion musings as written by a passionate and knowledgeable camera fan, and maybe overlook his pedantic style.

This question reminds me of the patient who goes to the doctor and first thing asks, "Doc, do I need an operation or a transfusion?"

 

Obviously, we need to know what hurts. Because your last post (listed on your profile--Jan '07) asked about price trends of the M7 and you still, evidently, don't have one, and you still did not "go digital," you've got to answer some of the questions that posters here have asked. No diagnosis, no cure.

 

In the meantime, so you don't expire entirely, I'd say to get your hands on a digi SLR or even P&S that shoots RAW (these can be pricey, but they are also enormously competent and handy tools to own----I recently bought a used 7mp Canon S7 for $150). Then, if you haven't already, invest (mostly time) in learning the digital workflow with a really good processing program.

 

Only then decide if you want an M8. I love mine and have it nearby 24/7, but I also admit to its limitations.

FWIW

 

I had a similar dilemma for my first Leica. Pretty confident of the most-used length and purpose to which I'd put my M8. (I'm coming from using 3 "L" Canon zooms covering 16-200 range.) But I talked myself out of that approach (based on many years of thinking I knew what I wanted and then changing my mind after actual experience).

 

Instead, I bought 4 CV lenses (21, 28, 40, & 75) for under $1500. Turns out that most used are the 75 (portraits) and the 21 (confined spaces,a little street, landscapes). The more "classic" lengths (close to 35 & 50 on the M8) are less used.

 

In the meantime----until I can settle on my "first" Leica or Zeiss glass---I like having this range of CVs to use, learn, and eventually complement future Leica purchases.

Not at all a regret, but a revised expectation (or a fantasy----whatever.) It's not a camera that matches the functionality of an SLR with a very high quality wide, mid, and tele zoom. So, although I use it occasionally for my work, the SLR is what I usually rely on. OTOH, it is in every respect my most preferred photographic tool (for all the reasons that I needn't repeat here).

I'm still new to RF and the M8, but my experiences/preferences are running counter to more conventional wisdom: Except for the unreasonable weight of my SLR, I prefer it for street and candid. Big pro-looking cameras (these days, anything that's not p&s) no longer intimidate and attract attention as they used to, and the newest AFs are pretty incredible.

 

OTOH, the M8 is my choice for portraits and landscapes. I like the combination of size profile and weight, portrait subjects are easier to put at ease, I'm inclined to take more time with DOF, and Leica images really are different and more pleasing to me (even when using CV lenses).

"Didn't we cover this 3-4 months ago?"

 

A few points:

First, learning photography is not a linear matter of starting with basics and adding info in a nice orderly way. Complex learning spirals. We learn, revisit what we know, and approach the same old questions with new perspectives--looking at them from, perhaps, a higher plane. My small "library" of PS books repeat essentially the same info, but it's useful to see different explanations and approaches to problems.

 

Second, the price of admission to forums should not be to read every prior thread to make sure that one's posts do not revisit "old" topics or ask questions that have been "covered."

 

Third, a nuance I'd add to the article is that although different RAW programs can offer more or less control, for most photographers the real issue is familiarity and understanding of whatever program they are using. Sure, there's a threshold of experience when the photographer might call up one or another program for some specialized purpose, quality, or effect. But IMO, few ever need or accomplish that degree of subtlety, and their time and resources are best spent sticking with (and learning over a lifetime!) a full program such as PS or one of the other excellent and constantly improved offerings.

I've been using CV's----21 and 28. IMO it's not a matter of choose one or the other, since they simply do different things. The 21 is slower and more specialized, but great fun. The 28 is a 1.9 and works as an all-around middle wide with the M8. Given your choices mentioned, I'd go for the 28 Summicron and add now or later the much more economical CV 21.

Fun. I especially like the magazine's tag, "Yesterday's tomorrow today." Uh, OK. Hope nobody confuses it with "Tomorrow's yesterday" which would also be today but not quite so forward looking.

I've dealt with pretty much the same issues, and at least conditionally, I have to continue with my EOS system: 16-35, 24-105, 70-200. When faced with using my L glass or my M8 I go SLR. Two points: 1)The M8 is more fun and satisfies more of the photographer's sensibilities. 2)If there is a designated audience expecting the output (the bride and her mother, the news editor, the non-profit wanting to document its work, and so forth, I can't risk NOT having my SLR and zooms.

 

By the way, I was recently at an event (as a sort of house photographer) in which about 15 pro print media photogs were present. All SLRs, one shooting film. Press cred's from major metro papers, locals, and foreign press. Couple of names that I recognized for admiring their work.

 

I love the M8, appreciate how it fits in with my SLR workflow, and it has revitalized the joy I have in walking around with a camera, for daily use, travel, and keeping at arm's reach.

I have some thoughts but first, what lens(es) do you rely on most for your wedding work?

M

"They aren't great photographers aesthetically"

 

What's the point of that?

 

Yes, Outback is a good site. I'd also recommend LuminousLandscape. And there are some really good Pro-Forums. However, if your favorite pics are muddy, ill-focused BWs, you won't find too many there.

 

'Nuff snarkyness. The M8's a terrific camera. I hate it when I'm compelled to use my SLR and zooms because there are some things that RF can't do as well.

"If you got the cookie jar money for an M8, fine."

 

As long as we're allowing ourselves to drift a bit from the topic, I'd say that one person's "cookie jar" is another's "reasonable debt," and another's "actual need," and still another's "lifelong dream," and I'm sure there are more.

 

I've been an "early adopter" (as in 'on the waiting list') of 3 digital cameras before the M8. Did OK with each (Nikon CP 990, Canons D60 and 1DII). My wait on the M8 was due to my personal reservation about shooting RF, not the camera's usable lifespan.

 

Each of the prior digi's has been supplanted with a better model more features and mp's. But the D60 is the only one I've sold and the others have lost none of their usefulness (the 990 is still an astonishingly competitive hand-held macro camera).

 

For my purposes, I suspect that the M8 will be as good an RF as I will ever need or buy, but who knows? More than likely, my next camera will occupy a different niche that I can't even speculate about at present.

 

In the meantime, I have a delightful camera whose flaws are unlikely ever to exceed my own.

". . .I am trying to figure out why someone would want to spend US $5000 on a camera that obviously has ongoing problems, and whose reviews (dpreview.com) have tended to be lukewarm. . ."

 

I've been following this thread because I own the camera and I'm interested in what others say about it. More critique and review helps to inform about the total package.

 

Many have commented on the dpreview review, and as I read the review (and "reviews of the review") most people find it fair and accurate. Someone reading the review carefully might well conclude that the M8 is not the tool for them to use, or that it's too expensive per value-added to include in their current kit; but it shouldn't be so baffling why others might buy it.

 

Dpreview concluded with a "Recommended." Call that lukewarm if you like, but the overall conclusions are pretty specific about the deficiencies and "point loss" that keep it from being "Highly Recommended." (a designation given to point and shoots as well, if they meet the criteria for their camera niche). Some of the camera's ranking is due to items such as fewer "features"----not such a big deal for many Leica owners, and the jpeg in-camera processing---no matter at all for someone who shoots primarily RAW. The IR issues have been talked to death; I find that they do not get in the way.

 

As far as why spending $5000 on this camera makes more or less sense than treatment for a dog, medical care for the needy, or paying more taxes to repair the country's infrastructure----these comparisons are not only outside the range of this forum and mostly non sequiturs, they easily become disrespectful.

The M8 is a very good camera. I have one. I had nothing "invested" in M lenses; in fact, I never owned an RF until the several fixed-lens Yashicas and Canonets I bought to give RF a try. However, I have many years "invested" in the digital workflow. Even with others developing my film, I'm out of the habit of not having instant access to my images, and even though I've got a primo scanner (Epson V700), scanning negs is extra work, more time, and the scanner software offers nothing I can't do better in PhotoShop.

 

In case some haven't noticed, Epson no longer makes RDs. Only available used. Buy a used camera from someone who doesn't like it, hates digi, or really wants an M8? It's all a matter of how you want to spend your time and take your risks.

 

A wise contractor advised me (after my house burned down and I was building another), "Martin, think about the Delta (he was also an engineer---'delta' for 'difference'---"You have to buy a toilet," he said. "Your only decision is whether you will spend the money to get toilet you really want instead of settling for the toilet you must have."

 

So when I decided that I "must have" a lightweight, high quality alternative to my Canon EOS D system, I spent the $3k delta to get a Leica and the tradition and quality that it embodies. Possibly, I'll need to toss it in 6 years (unlikely, I still use on occasion my Coolpix 990); but if that's the case, I'm looking at $500 per year of wonderful ultrawealthy ownership. (And on my vacations and jobs I'll be able to distinguish myself from all the unwealthy).

 

Nice dog. My basset hound is way more beautiful, though I'll concede that she's not much good at herding (or doing anything else that's useful.) I understand that sheepdogs have grimy, slobbery mouths and they smell. OK, Bassets are slobbery and smell . . .but according to a review I read, they smell less bad. I understand the sentiment of getting a few more years for your sheepdog, but you could also take that $3k and buy a used Basset----if not for practical reasons, for your improved status among your neighbors. Check my ebay listing. :o)

Thanks Carl,

I've since gotten on the Metz site. Evidently the GNC is kind of a problem under any circumstances due to a longish delay between the pre-flash and flash. I suppose I'll spring for the $95 and then let the flash sit in the drawer with the correct module. :o)

Ronald and others,

A couple of days ago I asked about the functionality of my Metz MZ-3. Because there's a designated module for Leica M8 ($95),I'm not so concerned about "damage." I would like to know, though, about which of the flash's many features work, and how well. It's a bigger (heavier) and more powerful flash than I'd otherwise be inclined to get for the M8, but I do have it sitting in the drawer.

Martin

I have the flash in perfect condition. Trying to decide whether to get the

module for M8. Anybody have experience or info about this combo other than the

fact that Metz and vendors say it'll work?

 

Thanks,

Martin

Like you, I wanted a smaller alternative to DSLR (monster gear that I still use at work)----but did not want to give up quality, and had a stronger "want" for a Leica than I foresaw.

 

Questions: Did I like the RF size, feel, focusing? I collected and used a CAnonetQLIII; Yashica Lynx, and a GSN. Very nice. Also got a Bessa L and CV 21. Did I like film? Not really. I appreciate the vintage BW (Tri-X) look, but it's hard enough for me to avoid photo cliches without the medium speaking so loudly through each shot.

 

I scanned color negs and worked with these a while and saw no appreciable difference between the digital images that came from my scanner and those that came out of my 1DMkII (except my Canon glass was better than my fixed-lens RFs).

 

Besides, I have a large "investment" (speaking of experience as well) in digital post processing PS/CS3. Why give that up?

 

Answer: M8. All that I hoped for. I'd guess that my film RF "phase" cost about $5-600. Of that I might recoup 75%. Not bad for a few months of learning and experimenting to gain peace of mind in making the Leica M8 leap.

Martin