chip l.

Working for a dealer, we were in formed that further M* deliveries would not be till late

November, meaning it could be early December. Maybe later.

I look at many of the the negative posts as representing the power of the internet. Were

perhaps the problems of the few, become the problem of the many.

Given that the M8 was to be the flagship of Leica entering the digital age; I am bothered by

the comments of some suers on the problems the M8 is having.

Working in the photo retail market, I cannot see how Leica would have knowingly allowed

such a "flawed" camera to enter the marketplace. Given their "status"in the market place;

and how important the M8 was given the relative success of the R-D1 to Leica M users.

It is time for things to go through the process.Much like the dreaded flashing green light

of death for the Nikon D70 and D70s cameras.

Maybe I have blind faith, but I trust Leica to do the right thing in the end.

I am just back from a Caribbean cruise. When I went ashore, I took my LX-with me. I would

have liked having a viewfinder. Wearing polarized sun glasses made some shooting tough.

Indoors, the lack of view finder slowed me down.

I myself would love having a compact with a 28-100 FOV, and a 2.8-4.0 aperture - and an

APS-C sensor, with RAW format capability.

Quote from Michael:""When asked about the differences between the Leicas and the

Panasonics, the Leica product manager said that physically they were identical, but that

the firmware on the Leicas is more sophisticated. Also, the included software, which

includes Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0, is more robust and the Leica warranty is longer."

Above quote comes from this article."

Add to that Panasonic here is the US has a very different warranty than what most

consumers are used to: 1 year labor on everything other than the memory and battery. 90

days on parts, expect for the CCD which is 6 months. If I got all the restrictions right of

the Panasonic Warranty right. <g> The Leica in the US will have a 2 year warranty.

Given the hard line on warranties from Panasonic; I wonder how they would/did respond

to the CCD service advisory a couple years back. I have hopes that Leica would stand up as

many other companies did - Panasonic does not give me warm and fuzzies.

Add to that here in the US, the "general" price difference between the the LX-2 and the D-

Lux 3 is just $100. For some the Adobe software may be worth the price.

Quote from Nels: ""firmware on the Leicas is more sophisticated"

When I see the difference borne out in the form of either a more specific statement from

Leica describing exactly what those "sophisticated" differences are, and/or in the form of a

credible reviewer producing a compelling pictorial evidence of those differences, I will

believe it."

I am hoping that Sean Reid or DPR will do a comparison review, given the Leica claim. Even

if the reviews are the identical, then the value of the warranty and software come in to play

for some - depending on where you live.

I have the LX-1, myself. Even at ISO 200 and 400 I am generally happy with the results.

Very film like after using the likes of Noise Ninja. At ISO 200 I have two great shots printed

at 13x19 that hold up very well from my Iceland trip.

I went with the LX-1 over the D-Lux 2 because of the $200 price difference between the

two. Had it been just the $100 difference between these two new offerings - I would have

gone with the Leica.

I am hoping that in the coming months I will see some reviews that will make me want to

upgrade. Because of weather issues in Iceland, I did go out only with the LX-1 a couple of

times. It was one of the most liberating experiences in travel photography for myself.

That contrasted with my experience the next day as I touched down in London. There I had

my D50 with the 18-200VR and 10.5 fish-eye. I loved the range I had with the Nikon kit

(with good weather, compared to Iceland).

I know there seems to be a contradiction perhaps to some. But I think some here may

understand. Different tools for different jobs.

I am heading off for a Western Caribbean cruise this weekend. I toyed with the idea of

going only with my LX-1. But I have concerns that I will regret not having my Life Pixel

digital IR converted D50. As well as not having the range of 10.5 to 200, that my three

lenses can provide with my Nikon kit.

Some of the concern of over packing on my gear is made less of a concern in a small way.

The tour organizer mentioned that they had troubles finding a photographer dedicated to

the group he was representing.

In the end my bringing heavy kit MAY lead to the opportunity for some future paying/

comped work with the cruise agency. So I am packing heavy for the trip. In the end I hope

it works out personally and professionally.

In the best case, I get to do some travel. In the worst I find out that the LX-1 would have

been the only camera needed for the trip. And in the end that the new LX-2/D-Lux 3

would be a great addition.

I for one love the 16x9 format.

Loved my Tokina 12-24 on my Rebel XT. Looking forward to using my Tokina 12-24 Nikon

mount next week in the western Caribbean.

Quote: "15mm f3.5 24mm f2.0 28mm f2.0 35mm f1.4 50mm f1.2"

The 15/3.5 would be nice, but I am not sure an EX rating at $800US, that this lens would be

any better than dealing with AF with the likes of the Nikkor 12-24 or the Tokina 12-24. My

shop has a Nikkor 12-24 for just $600US used.It seems pretty clean from what I remember.

Kind of surprised that you left out the 85/2.0 and the 135/2.0......

Quote: "While focussing with the original D200 screen is doable, it's far from ideal &

reliable. Of course I heard of the Katz screen but find its price a bit steep."

Given that Nikon has not decided offering a split-image RF screen for the D200 is worth

while, I can see how you might feel the $99US price a bit high for the basic Katz screen.

The Opti-Bright option is another matter.

I just got my D200, and have no AI lenses at this point, so some of my comments are

based on using other Nikon AF cameras and having grown up with the split RF screens on

MF cameras of old.

My choice of going with the D200 vs the D80 swung in small part to the Katz screen and

being able to save some money by buying some used AI/AIS lenses. But in the Nikon AF

bodies, I found the screens not quite right for my aging eyes, and the electronic RF "dot"

not sure enough for my use and experience.

The basic $95US price IMO is not bad for a camera that sells for $1700US. YMMV. The

options of having the screen etched for the proper 5x7 or 8x10 cropping will appeal to

many event and wedding photographer. I personally would like to have screen that shows

both the 5x7 and 8x10 crop marks (will have to see what that will end up costing when I

am ready to place my order).

I am not quite as ready as Sean Reid (http://www.reidreviews.com/reidreviews/) to

abandon my fixed focal length AF Nikkors; but am looking forward to saving some money

perhaps on my "missing" lenses (like the 24/2.0, the 85/2.0, perhaps the 50/1.2 for the

Bokeh of that lens wide-open - at the right price, the 135/2.0, the 180/2.8, and some of

the longer and faster single focal length telephoto Nikkors). Decently priced 24's, 85's,

and 135's are very much "must buys" for me.The others are on my wish list. But Sean Reid

seems to like the D200, and prefers single focal length lenses for this camera over the AF

versions.

I can understand why as a Leica RF user. I haven't measured it -but the focus "throw" on

my 18-200VR seems to be about 60 degrees.Not much room for fine focusing. While some

of my Leica lenses have a "throw" of 100+ degrees. This amounts to greater focusing

accuracy.

Add to this that if the Katz screen is accurate, then the focus accuracy will be much better

than what the AF system can provide in theory. As long as the "throw", the amount that the

focus ring is needed to turn in order to go from infinity to its closest focus point. To be

honest, even Leica has shorten the "throw" distance over the years.

Hope all of this helps with the Katz screen and it costs, verses what some AI/AIS lenses

can provide.

Like Skip I have the LX-1. One of the main reasons at the time the delta between the LX-1

and the D-Lux 2 was like $200. At the time I did not realize that the Panasonic had a 90

parts/ 1 year labor warranty. I did not see the value at the time for the 2 year Leica

warranty and Photoshop Elements being bundled (I have CS2, and have been doing the

Lightroom beta).

With the LX-2/D-Lux 3, I hope that the likes of DPR will do a side-by-side comparison test

of these new cameras. I would like to see what these Leica tweaks are. What would have

been great is for all digital Leica cameras to have used the DNG RAW format.

In the end the $100US "official" difference between these two cameras, I would go the

Leica D-Lux 3.

Regards,

Chip

Quote: "Don't know what the Bill of Materials looks like for the M8, but suspect the RF is

still the most costly part (and it is a new one). Add to that the sensor, and the LCD screen

which are new parts to any M (the purchaser always bought his own film before), and then

the price is not surprising. Don't forget they have to amoratize some completely new

tooling also.

To the central question of why are any Ms so expensive? Because they are crafted and

assembled in a country where skilled (very) labor combined with a social system make it

so."

When one looks at the cost on the M7 at $3500US; the additional $1300US does not look

as bad IMO.

The issue is that Leica users have the luxury of the gear holding value to some degree. I

bought my M6TTL .58 for about $1400US, and sold it for the same price some five years

later. Same thing with a used T-E bought at the same time, just sold it for $2000US.

What will be interesting to watch is how the M8 fairs 2 to 6 years down the road. Looking

at a respected online used dealer, the Leica M7 is going for between $2000US and

$2700US.

Even for those that may have bought the M7 at the $3000 3500US mark, this is much

better rate of return than the likes of Canon or Nikon IMO.

To your last comment. I agree, if Leica had taken the production of the M8 to the shores of

China or Thailand; we might be looking at a $3000US body perhaps.

Maybe Leica is gun shy after their working with Minolta on the CL. They sold, by some

accounts, a ton of the CL's;but according to Leica it almost bankrupt them. I am sure that

M-B could produce and sell a car for $15kUS; but what would that do to the brand.

Quote: "Anyone who has shot digital for any period of time will know that ISO is just

another exposure variable like aperture and shutter speed. Hence the ablity to quickly

change the ISO in an intuitive manner - without taking your eye off the viewfinder - is of

paramount importance. To change ISO on M8 you apparently need 5 clicks, and you need

to look at the LCD in the back - taking your eye away from the viewfinder. Compare this

with a click and a turn of the wheel on 5D - without taking your eye off the viewfinder.

To swap SD cards, you need to remove the baseplate on M8 - a precarious move that

could result in dropping the plate, and most certainly a more time consuming affair than

swapping cards in 5D."

The problem I see is for those that have enjoyed the digital advantage in the SLR

marketplace are trying to place those same values on the RF marketplace.

For myself, the small additional time to change ISO's on the M8 is a great time savings

over having to switch films on my M6TTL. Same can be said about the placement of the SD

card. Leica M cameras have never been known for "speed".

I am surprised that there is not massive wailing that the M8 won't do 5fps!

Quote: "The M8 is overpriced because of the same reason that the panasonic carbon copy

cameras such as the digilux 3 and the V-LUX are far more expensive then their panasonic

brothers. Because Leica can get away with it and there are people who are willing to open

their cheque book and sign away $1000s without even questioning where that money is

going. Charging $5000 for a cameras has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of the

sensor or the fact it's got some brass in the construction. If it did they should sack their

procurement team. Face up to it, they wack on $2000+ for the Leica name and because

they know that there are enough people in the world that can convince themselves that

paying $9000 for a manual focus digicam with one lens is a worthwhile investment."

A bit trollish IMO.

With the newer Pani/Leica cameras they are a bit closer. The LX2 vs. the D-Lux 3 the price

delta is only $100US. For that camera it will be up to the consumer to decide whether a full

2 years parts and labor warranty is worth it for the Leica; over the 90 days parts and one

year labor warranty that Panasonic offers here in the US. Add to that, that the Leica

cameras ship with Adobe Elements. Along with the "tweaks" Leica talks about.

I doubt that we will see Big Box stores selling the Leica brand. Most likely not the M8. The

M8 and the other new digitals will find regular camera shops as their home. Places that

can talk about the differences in the warranty, perhaps the advantages of the "tweaks" - if

they are real enough, and those that prefer a premium brand name over the consumer

name.

Heck it has worked for Toyota and Nissan with the Lexua and Infinity brands.

Al, here I agree with you again. The 15CV is a great lens. Attached is an image from the

15CV. I will also add that the 21CV is another awesome lens IMO.<div></div>

Given some of the comments here so far, maybe I was wrong in feeling that the Leica Forum

description was a bit harsh.

Yes, Leica has placed an embargo on images being posted till the final firmware is ready. But

this does seems to support some reviewers comments on the pre-release M8.

This new body sounds fantastic.

Now only to hear about new lenses.

From Al:

<I would suspect that there are a lot of pros out there shooting DSLR's because the market

demands digital output, but they still have their film Leica M bodies along with a set of

lenses for personal work. There never was a good reason to sell them because those

Leicas looked like mine, beat to crap, brass showing through chrome, with lenses to

match. Fondlers and collectors don't tend to buy them, even for cheap. They're already

paid for and written off as a business expense. When you already have the glass suddenly

the body doesn't look all that pricey>

Al, can always count on you.

Even some of us wanna be pros were bitten by the M8 bug. I have a M6TTL kit that sees

little use since moving towards digital. I do try and take it from time to time. The M8 gave

me hope on a new life for this kit.

I have given up on the idea of going towards the M8. I will keep the M6TTL kit for when I

want to travel "light". Why one might ask would I compromise by staying with the Nikon

DSLR kit over a Leica kit.

In the end guilt and common sense. To cover a 21 to close to 135 range in the M8, and to

benefit from the new T-E Wide (with the likes of original T-E, a 35/2, 50/2, and 90/2.8 , I

would be looking at a replacement cost of almost $20KUS +.

This can be compared to a similar range with my Nikons costing under $5kUS. I just

remember the hoops I had to jump through when I had $7kUS worth of gear stolen back in

2001.

I know that some will scoff at my comments. But for some of us that are not true pros, the

added costs of going Leica add up.

To the OP's comments. The M8 is gaining some interest from new users. I have had a

couple of customers express interest in the M8, only because of the lack luster support of

the Epson R-D1 here in the US by Epson.

They are waiting to see what the M8 can deliver with the lower cost CV lenses, before

making the jump.

To a certain degree I might agree with you. Just look at the Panasonic L-1. $2000US. This

compares to the Olympus E-330 with the 14-54/2.8-3.5 kit being $1400US. Yes, the

Panasonic/Leica lens offers MOIS, but is it worth $600US? We will have to wait to also see

how the Leica lens performs over the Olympus lens in the end.

In the end we need to look at cameras being tools. There are times that my Nikon kit is the

right choice. Other times my Leica kit.

For myself at this time I can not make the justification to go with the M8. Maybe down the

road.

IMO it also has to do with the sinking value of the US$. IIRC the original T-E was like

$2500US like 5 years ago. Today it is $3500US. Inflation during that time should make the

cost more like $2800US.

>>Take a look at Rob Galbraiths's memory tests. Here is the link for the Canion EOS 1D

Mk II N (rg reference). You will see that the 2gb Sandisk Ultra did better in SD than CF.

Yes, it reports SanDisk CF Ultra II 2Gb as 5.9/7.1 R/W Mbps while SD Ultra II _Plus_ is

6.3/7.3 (whatever "plus" means, but different).

>>If I just compare the best that company has to offer for a given capacity, CF vs SD, I

think I still conclude CF faster than SD.

To be honest I took the first camera that came to mind that took both the CF and SD

card.It was only an example that the SD cards might be up to the challenge of the CF card.

> It's $3,500 U.S. I fold...

I believe that price is for the "kit" with the new wide angle finder. If so, then not a bad deal

IMO. Also with the US$ being in the tank, we might not be paying some of these high

prices.

> So far of the reviews of the M8 only one has had the lack of judgment to post images

from the admittedly pre-production firmware and comment on the bad noise at ISO 1200

and 2500. But if the production firmware doesn't look much better then the wide Tri-

Elmar is probably going to be saddled with the same objections to the f/4 as the current

Tri-Elmar, plus the lack of depth control made worse by the cropped sensor. Nonetheless

it will sell well, I predict, because it fills a need with the M8 like no other LEICA lens can,

and offers M film users 2 wide focal lenths also unavailable in a LEICA lens.

Hopefully noise will not be as bad as we have been hearing in the end.

But lets face it, the T-E and the T-E Wide are not meant to be low light lenses.They make

great travel and PJ lenses IMO.

For DOF work, we can only hope for a Leica or CV 24/2.0 and an 18/2.8. But in the end we

are faced with what photography has faced since the beginning - the cry of change. I am

sure that there were those that moaned about the loss of quality of moving from 8x10 to

4x5 to MF and to 35mm. Each with its own thoughts about FOV and perspective and

quality of the final image.

This is made harder today by the sheer numbers of photographers that grew up knowing

35mm as the "only" format of choice. Most of us know how our choice of lenses work in

35mm - increased DOF and perspective changes challenge us.

If the new Kodak sensor is the Holy Grail for decent sharpness and vignetting control at it

seems; we may see 35mm FF sensor cameras in the near future that will allow the "faithful"

everything they want.

>Actually - when dpreview tested the Canon 1D Mk. II (which has both SD and CF slots),

they clocked the SD as FASTER in most regards than the CF.

>>YEs, thanks for pointing this out. I'm surprised by that, and my remark about CF being

"faster" than SD seem to have been wrong.

AS with all "faster/slower/better/worse" statements, the whole story is not easily

describeable with just a few words, as you say "most" regards. For example, the same

review above stating SD faster than CF shows it's only about writing to card (i.e. flush the

photos and come back to shooting); it however shows the CF being faster than the SD

when transferring the photos from card to PC (firewire reader benchmark).

Also, the compared cards (SD and CF), although both are SanDisk Ultra II, have different

capacities: SD is 512Mb CF is 2Gb. So which one is faster at transfering 1Gb? Two SD cards

or one CF.

I still assume overall performance of best CF cards to be better than best SD cards', simply

because they have much more I/O pins and because they are larger in size. (a combination

of capacity, read/write transfer, reliability).

SD is good too, and probably more than enough necessary for M8's other parameters.

Take a look at Rob Galbraiths's memory tests. Here is the link for the Canion EOS 1D Mk II

N (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-8200). You will see that

the 2gb Sandisk Ultra did better in SD than CF.

So it seems for some cameras SD may have a better performance future, IF the specs are

not a moving target. As an example the Epson P-2000 and P-4000 viewers need a

firmware upgrade to even read the 2gb SD cards. Not to mention problems that they might

have with the 4gb and 8gb cards.

OT of sorts, does using a SD to CF adapter eliminate the SD compatibility issues?

>> Right... Could you please name the fast quality primes that would cover the

24-300mm (in 35mm equivalent focal lengths) that two f/2.8 zooms would easily cover in

another system? (for example 17-55mm and 70-200mm in Nikon's 1.5 factor).

>just to clarify, this is made with reference to TRAVEL photography (and street

photography to a certain degree). which is why I think it would be near perfect. Wide

angles are a strong point in the leica lens lineup. The longest FL for the M is 135mm, but

for travel the FL's from 21mm to 90mm suffuce 90% of the time. The fast quality primes

are the 21 ASPH, 28/2.8 ELMARIT, 28/2.0 APSH, 35/2.0 APSH, 35/2.0 PRE-ASPH, 35/1.4

ASPH, 50/1.4 & 1.4 ASPH, 70/1.4, 70/2.0 ASPH, 90/2.8 Elmarit, 90 pre ASPH, 90/2.0

ASPH. and i might have missed out a couple. these lenses are usually half the size and

weight of SLR lenses

Decent points Tommy, this is why I am thinking that the M8 will be perfect for my style of

shooting. I prefer wide angle lenses when shooting. On my D70s the 12-24 Tokina is used

about 30% of the time. I would say that less than 10% of my shots are beyond 100mm on

my 18-200VR.

IMO the M8 will breath new life for shooting with film for the Leica M class.

I know that for myself I am leaning towards the M8 and the new T-E Wide to compliment my

M6TTL and T-E, along with my 35/2.0, 50/2.0, and 90/2.8.

Shame on me for not using my M6TTL more often, but I like the ease of digital. But I see my

M6TTL getting more use because of the T-E Wide. Sure as time goes on film will be more

expensive, with fewer choices. And there may be a time that only a handful of labs in the US

will still process film. But film will still live on for a decent number of years.

Even at $4750US, I can see the new M8 fitting in for those of us that are shooting with our

film M6's and the such. Maybe even "forcing" us to shoot more film.

I can see a "perfect" travel kit of the M8, a M6/5/4/3, both Tri Elmars, a 90mm, and

depending on ones needs a fast 24, 28, and/or 35. I can see the film body being used to get

those really wide shots with the new T-E Wide.

Dan has a point. Those using the Canon FF sensor cameras are stating that the best glass

should be used. The difference is the retro-focus design of wide angles. I just don't see

the current and past series of wide-angle lenses for the Leica M being able to meet our

demands for quality images. Hence the need for now to go to 1.3x focal factor. Just happy

that it is not to be a 1,5x factor.

I could live with my Tri-Elmar giving me a 36-45-65 FOV. And with my Voightlander 15,

21, and 25 lenses, I would still have a 19, 27, and 32 FOV.

The key point is that we are at a cross road of new formats. It has happened before. 11x14

and 8x10 LF photographers had many of the same issues and cries that we do when 4x5

came about. Same when MF started to replace the 4x5. And then when 35mm started to

replace MF. But some how photography has survived.

Keith, I have to second the Broadway Gallery. Some really stunning images.

Curious as to whether you shot in RAW or JPEG? Also would like to learn more about your

technique.