el_fang

<p><i>I work for a newspaper that's having serious finiancial problems and will be going freelance soon... I

didn't want to get caught up in the MP race, but in a competitive market I didn't want my choice of equipment to

hurt my chances at getting assignments.</i></p>

<p>In that case, the M8 is the worst possible choice you can make next to a fixed-focal-length point-and-shoot.

If it's true that you have any real experience shooting for newspapers, you should already know that newspapers

expect you to be prepared for any type of assignment - and that could range from a community feature in which you

get full access and can get close with a 21mm lens, to a political event in which you are roped off in the "press

box" and need a 70-200/2.8 or even a 300 or 400 to get the shot.</p>

 

<p><i>No one cares what camera you use. It's the photographs that matter.</i></p>

<p>You got that part right. But if your photo editor was expecting a tight headshot of Obama and all you bring

back is a shot with him as an unrecognizable speck in the middle of the frame because you had the wrong gear,

then you will learn your first important lesson in today's world of freelance photojournalism:</p>

<p><b>There are a lot of other freelancers waiting to eat your lunch.</b></p>

 

<p>Photo editors, especially these days, don't have time for primadonnas. If you mess up on an assignment because

you weren't prepared, they'll just find somebody else next time.</p>

<i>Can you quantify "better"? Can you explain what "overall" means? Unless you've used an M8 - how can you make

that statement? Is this a fact or just your opinion?</i>

<p>How about "any iso higher than 640" better? People do take pictures in conditions other than bright daylight,

you know.</p>

This just in: <a href="http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=131391" target="_blank">CBS Gets a Rude Lesson in Citizen Journalism</a>

I'd say don't crop, if purely for technical reasons. Your crop makes it very obvious that her face isn't sharp.

<i>What the M8 offers is a small size (compared to DSLRs), great optics, and high quality image files. I can carry the M8 + 4 lenses in a bag that's physically not much larger than my Hasselblad 500cm with the PME finder and a 50mm lens.</i>

<p>This comes with a LOT of "if"s. The M8 is not much smaller or lighter than a digital Rebel, and its image files can only be called "high quality" if the ISO is kept reasonably low. This is the sad irony - that Leica used to be the "king" of low light. Now imagine the possibilities of the 5D-II and a 35/1.4L at ISO 25,600.</p>

 

<p><i>While expensive, there's no other rangefinder camera being made - if you want to work with a digital rangefinder you have a choice of the M8 and.....?</i></p>

<p>No argument from me on this point. But unless one has an infatuation with merging a little double-image in the focus patch, the new micro Four Thirds system seems to capitalize on the advantages of a mirrorless system while avoiding the problems of a separate and expensive rangefinder assembly. I'll suspend judgment until I see some files from ISO 800 and up, and until I can look through the EVF myself; but the concept looks good.</p>

<i>Tina Manley in Honduras</i>

<P>An anecdotal report of someone submerging an electronic camera (weathersealed or not) unscathed is not so much

indicative of the camera's reliability as it is a testament to that person's <u>pure dumb luck</u>. Don't get

confused.</p>

<i>Is posting on the forum considered a form of publication and therefore I would need consent from everyone in

the photo?</i>

<p>Publication does not itself require consent (model release) from everyone in the photo unless the photo is

being used to advertise a product, service or company. Of course, it can get a little more complicated than that,

but that's the general guideline.</p>

<p><i>Although the photo was taken on a military base, it was an entertainment event for all the troops, similar

to a USO event. Would it be safer to post in the News and Photojournalism Forum - so the posted photo would be

considered news?</i></p>

<p>If it's a news photo, it's a news photo regardless of where it's posted. Now, plaster a Coca-Cola logo onto

it, and that's where your problems begin.</p>

<i>I'm sure Al Kaplan would be amused to be called a collector rather than a user! You'll have to Google his site

to see what I mean, as direct links to him from here seem to be forbidden ('refs unpersons verging crimethink'?).</i>

<p>I know who he is; my comments were tongue-in-cheek as he was a bit of an old-timer when it came to discussions

of film vs. digital.</p>

 

<p><i>But times have indeed changed, and I'd agree it perhaps doesn't make all that much sense to wed an

exquisitely crafted and very expensive optical rangefinder assembly (that might last for many decades) to such

rapidly changing digital technology. It's rather a pity that the program of continuous upgrades that ousted CEO

Stephen Lee seemed to be suggesting presumably now won't be realised. Lenses may still be a good long term

investment, provided of course we can be sure that there'll still be compatible digital bodies in a decade or

two...</i></p>

 

<p>This is precisely why the new micro Four Thirds system is so intriguing to me. It gives a bunch of the

advantages of a mirrorless system (size, noise, and flexibility of lens design), eliminates some of the negatives

(the need for an adjustable, fragile and expensive optical rangefinder assembly) while giving SLR-like framing

accuracy along with live view. The only two "if"s for me in this deal are high-ISO performance (I don't expect

5D-II level, just a clean 1600 or even 3200 would be great) and the EVF. I have yet to be impressed by any EVF

I've seen to date on any camera, with lag, refresh and resolution being the main issues. I'd also like to see

more high- or super-high-grade prime lenses like a 35/2 or /1.4 equivalent (the 20/1.7 pancake is close) as well

as an 75-90/2-2.8. But if

this new system

is everything it's promised to be, it may very well find a place in many working photographers' bags, in the space

formerly occupied by Leica M gear.</p>

<i>Yes, it takes a little longer to change films (after 36 exposures, normally no great deal) and that is often

time well spent to slow down a little and think about what you are shooting, why and how.</i>

<p>You "slow down a little and

think about what you are shooting" by studying your subject either directly or through a viewfinder, not by

looking down at the camera while fumbling to get a half-case off.</p>

 

<p><i>Or does it simply make good sense to make sure you keep the camera out of expensive repair</i></p>

<p>I'm not sure what "expensive repairs" would be required should one decide not to use a stupid half-case,

although I suppose "Made in Germany" touch up paint can get pretty pricey. In

any event, chance failures are why professionals bring backups of essential gear to all assignments.</p>

 

<p><i>To me the effort is worthwhile, and my shooting style is only minimally affected.</i></p>

<p>This actually tells me a lot about your "shooting style"....</p>

 

<p><i>The sale of former cameras (an M6, M3, Makina 670, CL, Fuji GW690, Hexar RF) at different times all

recovered significantly more than their initial purchase prices, due to the time factor but mainly to their near

mint or excellent state.</i></p>

<p>...as well as your priorities in photography.</p>

<i>99.999% eh? Just another El Fandango confirmed and indisputable factoid... </i>

<p>Even figurative speech is lost on you. How many current Leica photographers do you know are willing to sink

$20,000 or more into an S2 system? The few people I know who even shoot Leica can barely afford

them as it is. I'm sure that Leica will sell a few dozen or so to high-end studios and rental houses (again,

making the bold assumptions that it's ever actually released and that the other manufacturers like Hasselblad

stay at a standstill for the next year), and maybe a unit to a dilettante here and there, but how is that

relevant to the other tens of thousands of their

customers who are still waiting for a viable digital solution to their existing (and in many cases, extensive)

35mm lens investments?</p>

<p>How many current Leica photographers do you know currently own $$$$ in lenses and would like a full frame

digital body on which to shoot them so that their precious 35/1.4-ASPH stays a 35? *All* of the few people I know

who even shoot Leica want this. If you are one of the few who for some retarded reason love having their $4,000

28/2-ASPH turned into a $2,800 35/2, then I guess my comments don't pertain to you.</p>

<p>Nobody asked for the S2. However, a lot of people have been anticipating a full frame digital body ever since the

Canon 5D

demonstrated that it could be done for a relatively reasonable price, and yet have been disappointed by Leica

time and time again, with last week's Photokina simply being the latest insult.</p>

 

<p><i>He sees into the future too! Gotta love it!</i></p>

<p>Actually, those who are familiar with my posting history will see that I am uncannily accurate at seeing the

future. I saw what was coming with digital even as Leica and their fanboys denied it, and I see where Leica is

headed if they

stay on their present course. Not that it was hard to figure out - plenty of other people did, because I'm not

the only one in the world with more than

half a brain cell. To the rest, I can see how simple common sense can appear to be clairvoyance.</p>

There's also the question of limited and finite resources. The S2, considering its cost (and assuming it's ever released), is irrelevant to 99.999% of current Leica photographers who own 35mm format lenses and are waiting for a viable digital body with which to use those lenses. With all the time, effort and money Leica sank into developing the S2 prototype, I can't help but wonder if they'd have a working full frame M9 or R10 by now if they were paying attention to what their customers actually wanted instead of working on stuff nobody asked for.

<i>Al Kaplan has convincingly argued on some thread somewhere here that Leicas are free. I believe his reasoning

was that if you're 30 years old and you buy a Leica today for say, $2,000, you can easily expect it to last until

you're 80 -- that's fifty years. Divide monthly ·payments by 600 months and you get a really cheap camera that

doesn't lose value. A digital slr is expensive by that measure because in three years, it's worth jack and you

want a better one.</i>

<p>Al Kaplan must have been a camera collector. Photographers would actually use these things to take pictures,

find that the cost of digital goes down the more pictures they take. This old film-vs-digital cost argument is

just as dumb now because even an M8 bought today wouldn't last fifty years. Even if the M8 could theoretically

last that long from a reliability standpoint (snicker), the succession of battery technology and memory card

formats would obsolete it in about 10 years. This is the reason why it's retarded for Leica to make a digital

camera as expensive as it is for what little it offers, and why people are fools to buy into it. You can't look

at digital cameras from the same viewpoint as, say, an M2 bought in the 60s. The right approach for Leica would

be to keep producing top-grade optics that will indeed last fifty years, while keeping the technology side of it

(the body) as economical as possible as technology changes so rapidly. They have, or had, a great partnership

with Panasonic but failed to capitalize on it.</p>

<p>Cameras are, in this digital age, more tools than ever. With digital cameras coming out now that allow us to

shoot in situations we only dreamed of a few short years ago (ISO 25,600), it's a great time to be a

photographer, and a horrible

time to be a collector.</p>

Oh, and Ray, lest I forget: the company that makes my sports car <a href="http://www.canon.com/ir/annual/2007/report2007.pdf" target="_blank">reported a net sales of USD $39,310,053,000 with a net income of USD $4,283,614,000 in the 2007 fiscal year</a>, representing a gain of more than 7 percentage points over the previous year's earnings. The company that makes your sports car, however, is expecting a loss of $10 million Euros for the fiscal year ending March 2009.

<i>El Fang, point missed. I want a sports car, it has flaws, but it's the only one on the market with some of the features I want. You're offering a truck that is more reliable, but I don't want a truck. I want a sports car. Get it?</i>

<p>Pointed missed again. I'm (I'm?) offering a sports car that does the exact same things as the sports car you want, but is 1/10th the price, performs better on the racetrack, doesn't need to be shipped back to its home country for an oil change, and doesn't come with a horse harness welded to the front bumper as a "cute" artifact from one of transportation's bygone eras. On top of that, my sports car is made in a country that currently produces the most reliable and innovative sports car technology in the world; while your sports car is from a country that once prided itself on the finest horse-drawn carriages ever made, but is now dabbling in sports cars. Get it?</p>

<p>To the OP: I'd really recommend against getting another M8 for the time being, at least until Leica's sinking ship miraculously rights itself (assuming that ever happens). Being that Leica Germany is the only place an M8 can be serviced, with Leica's uncertain future, you could be looking at re-investing in a very expensive paperweight.</p>

<i>The absurdity of the comments above have reached their limit: the $80 Olympus Stylus Epic (film camera) that

survived an hour of sloshing around in 3" of salt water (and so should an M8 then?)</i>

<p>Point missed. Nobody suggested that an M8 should survive a sloshing in salt water. The point was, if an $80

camera can survive that, how come a $5,000 one can't even handle a bit of condensation? It's a valid question,

especially when you can get a 5D-II and D700 for half the cost, both of which are dust- and weather-sealed.</p>

 

<p><i>It speaks much more about the commentators than the Company who still is making a great effort to invest in

some amazing new M lenses, a new R digital camera (with some new lenses) and the exciting new S camera with 9

lenses!</i></p>

<p>Nobody asked for these "<i>amazing new M lenses</i>." By and large, Leica photographers wanted a full frame

dRF that can match a $600 digital Rebel's performance at ISO 800-1600, not a $10,000 f/0.95 collector's item.

The "<i>new R digital camera (with some new lenses)</i>" are, as of this writing, still vaporware. As for "<i>the

exciting new S camera with 9 lenses</i>," I find it a little hard to describe something as "exciting" when 1)

nobody's seen a file from it yet and 2) it won't be released until summer 2009 (and that's barring any unforeseen

problems), and nobody knows what the competition will look like by that time.</p>

 

<p>The S2 is interesting, but at this point it's nothing more than a "<i>Don't jump ship! We're not finished

milking you for all you've got yet!</i>" red herring that Leica is dangling in front

of its congregation to distract them from the company's REAL problems (as pointed out by the WSJ article I linked

earlier).</p>

<i>It's really getting thick..</i>

<p>Isn't it? But this is yet another dimension to the phenomenon. A few threads ago, I surmised that Leica needed

to do something drastic to improve their market visibility to the younger generation of photographers who are

accustomed to the kind of service and quality that can be had for as little as $600 for a digital Rebel (and,

having never shot film, to whom a removable baseplate would seem an especially idiotic "feature"). However, now it

seems like attracting <i>new</i> customers may in fact be the least of Leica's worries when they're pissing off

the few customers they <i>already have</i>.</p>

<i>Now what is going on here. Does Leica need money fast?</i>

<p>Yes. The likely culprit is Leica's slumping sales, reported in <a

href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122152103387739231.html" target="_blank">this Wall Street Journal

article</a>, which in turn was discussed in <a href="http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00Qrw5"

target="_blank">this thread</a>. The most relevant text from the article is as follows:</p>

<p><i>Leica reported in August that revenue for its fiscal first quarter ended June 30 fell by nearly half to

€26.999 million from the year-earlier quarter, and reported a net loss of €3.85 million. It reiterated that it

expects a loss approaching €10 million for the fiscal year ending March 2009, and break-even or slightly positive

earnings in the following fiscal year if sales of new products take off. Mr. Kaufmann estimates that annual sales

have to climb by about two-thirds to at least €250 million to finance the R&D spending for Leica to survive in an

industry that rolls out improved digital cameras every few months.</i></p>

<i>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.</i>

<p>I *am* a Leica customer, and have been for a long time. I've owned several M6's, an M2, two R6.2's, two R7's,

an R8; and 35/2, 35/1.4, 50/2, 50/1.4 and 90/2.8 lenses, all in both M and R versions. My current Panasonic

compact's lens says "Leica" on it. With the exception of the constantly breaking M6's, dead-out-of-the-box R6.2's

and an erratic meter in one of the R7's, I've been relatively satisfied with Leica film products. The difference

between me and a fanboy is a) I don't call top-of-the-line gear being used by 99% of the world's professionals

"junk", and b) I'm willing to recognize when a company whose products I own has done something stupid, and call

them on it. Leica in my opinion has had its head up its ass since the digital revolution started. This Wall

Street Journal article tends to support that opinion.</p>

<i>Some people may buy an M8 because they use it as a landscape camera and don't want to bother with a more

obtrusive gear. But it is clear in so doing, they use the M camera a far different way this camera was originally

designed for.</i>

<p>Very true, especially if said landscape photographers are foolish enough to - *gasp* - <a

href="http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU" target="_blank">attempt a vertical composition</a>,

resulting in a broken $5,000 camera bouncing down a cliff. Sorry Francois, I couldn't resist! :)</p>

 

<p><i>For the record. I think Erwin Putz has far more credibility than Fangio.</i></p>

 

<p>Just where does my credibility play into all of this? Are you saying that the <a

href=" target="_blank">D70 picture</a> I posted was

doctored? Are you suggesting that I impersonated Michael Kamber in order to write a <a

href="http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.html" target="_blank">disparaging M8

review</a>? Or are you suggesting that I somehow planted that <a

href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122152103387739231.html" target="_blank">Wall Street Journal article</a>?

There is a name for this problem: it's called <a

href="http://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder" target="_blank">delusional disorder</a> and

yes, there is treatment.</p>

 

<p><i>... but so called high end CaNikon junk ... gimme a break CaNikon is JUNK ... Canon plastic colour ruin the

look ... Ughhh their colour is JUNK ... the over photoshopped look...</i></p>

 

<p>Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case.</p>

<i>about as credible as Erwin Puts.</i>

<p>Good one, btw. I lol'ed. :)</p>

<i>Fang, how about you post some of your pictures before you continue any further down the road with your theoretical ramblings?</i>

<p>I'm not entirely certain of the relevance my pictures have to the discussion at hand, which happens to be a Wall Street Journal article in which Leica's own CEO has admitted they need to nearly double their current sales to survive past 2009. If you want to call such discussion "theoretical ramblings" then be my guest.</p>

<i>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</i>

<p>Mountaineering with a camera (along with a 6-degree angle of view lens, no less) is itself a very, very, VERY

narrow and specialized pursuit. Most of the camera buying public (and even most professionals) aren't planning to

rappel down the side of Mt. Everest in the singular pursuit of a fisheye photo. As for the few who are, I suspect

most of them are still opting for weather-and dust-resistant digital SLRs, not Leica M8s

or DMRs. The original question remains: Aside from satisfying one's own egotistical desire to own the most

expensive gear money can buy, what compelling reason is there to buy a Leica nowadays? This is the question that is

raised by the WSJ report.</p>

<p><i>Leica reported in August that revenue for its fiscal first quarter ended June 30 fell by nearly half to

€26.999 million from the year-earlier quarter, and reported a net loss of €3.85 million. It reiterated that it

expects a loss approaching €10 million for the fiscal year ending March 2009, and break-even or slightly positive

earnings in the following fiscal year <b>IF</b> sales of new products take off.</i></p>

 

<p>(Bold emphasis mine.) That is a very, very big "if."</p>

 

<p><i>Mr. Kaufmann estimates that annual sales have to climb by about two-thirds to at least €250 million to

finance the R&D spending for Leica to survive</i></p>

 

<p>This last statement above is really the most alarming. Does Kaufmann really think that a $10,000 Noctilux and

an S2-which-won't-be-released-until-summer-2009 will increase Leica's annual sales by two thirds?</p>

That's great, Doug. Now here's the million dollar question: Can this multimedia producer be persuaded to PUBLISH his test report, with HIS NAME ON IT, with his side by side results from ISO 100 to 1600? If he has conclusive proof that Canon is pulling the biggest con the photographic world has ever seen with their blockbuster 5D, I'll permanently remove myself from the Leica forum, squat over on the Canon forum and laugh at them instead. Deal?

<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>

<i>Presumably, modern dual-shutter cameras like the Leica S2 make this mistake impossible.</i>

<p>Actually, even without a fail-safe mechanism, the fact that the S2 is digital makes this mistake impossible. I mean, there <i>is</i> an LCD on the back, and you'd have to chimp at some point, right?</p>