andy_piper2

I actually USE an old 1980's bullnose 28 Elmarit - love the lower contrast for digital.

I've done a couple of comparisons with the new Leica ASPH f/2.8 - which is clearly a bit

crisper and cleaner across the frame into the corners at any aperture, but not much better,

and perhaps even a bit softer, in the center.

Which parallels my experience with all the ASPH wides compared to their predecessors

(except the 35 f/1.4, where the ASPH is in a whole different ballpark). Mandler usually

went for maximum center-frame resolution, whereas the Solms philosophy is better

overall performance.

The Leica ASPH f/2.8 definitely feels and handles like a 35 'cron, with that short build and

compact rectangular hood. I'd give it a definite edge over the Zeiss in that regard, but have

no data on imaging differences.

Might be worth hitting Sean Reid's subscription testing site, since he's used the Zeisses

and will likely get the Leica Elmarit ASPH if he hasn't already.

Actually, what should happen is that the pix will scroll quite fast (10 fps) using low res

(LCD resolution) thumbnails - IF you hold the buttons down.

If you pause on a picture, the camera will replace the thumbnail with a full res image so

that you can zoom in.

It takes about 3 secs for the high-res to "kick in". And if you happen to scroll on to the

next picture just as the 3 secs. are up, you'll get the new low-res image for a moment, and

then the old hi-res, and then the new high res, which makes the pix seem to skip around.

If you scroll the pictures slowly - say, 5 secs for each, you can see the image jump slightly

as the high-res image replaces the thumbnail on-screen.

You might want to look at Erwin Puts' Leica Lens Compendium - it has X-section optical

diagrams of all the lenses (except those introduced since 2004 - and I think he has a .pdf

version with updates to cover even those), background information on the lens designers

and the history/sequence/relative performance of lenses (e.g 50 f/1.5 Xenon to 50 f/1.5

Summarit to 50 f/1.4 Summilux; 21 Super-Angulons vs. the 21 Elmarit and 21 ASPH;

etc.).

He also has his own opinions about "drawing" and "fingerprints" of the various designs,

and discusses these changes over time in some detail.

About the only thing it lacks from your list are detailed internal/external dimensions and

specs for the glasses used. But the diagrams are to scale, so one could get some optical

measurements from them.

Leica system brochures give the weight and overall external dimensions of the lenses -

you might be able to track down some older brochures to get 1970s/80s stats.

I know that Walter Mandler, who designed many lenses for both R and M systems from the

1950s until around 1980, wrote several technical articles on optical design, which likely

discuss actual Leitz/Leica designs as examples.

I noticed there was one old thread on this little cutie dating from PhotoKina - when the camera was first

announced, without a direct optical finder (LCD only) or accesory shoe.

Looks like it might be of more interest now.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07030807sigmadp1.asp

Scale-set manual focusing available (little thumb-wheel on the back marked in meters, sort of like the

Contax G1)

At f/4 it's likely more of a street-photography daylight camera than challenging Noctilux territory - but

what the hey? How many Noctilux pictures did HCB or Winogrand shoot?

Technically it is neither a Leica nor a "rangefinder" - but then, neither was the original C/V Bessa-L that

brought us the 15mm Super-Heliar and 25mm Skopar (also f/4), nor is the current Zeiss-Ikon Superwide

camera.

It has a biggish sensor (1.68x crop as opposed to the ones measured in video fractions: 2/3rds, 1/1.8

etc.) and that focusing scale, so I'd count it as more than a P&S - even if most users will point and shoot

with it.

And it sure ain't an SLR. So it seems like it might be "worthy" of this forum is some respects.

Should have added that the rep quoted $1300 for the 18 and about $1000 for the 21 - don't

know what figures have been circulating before. That's MSRP - street may be lower.

At PMA yesterday (Friday) I stopped by the Zeiss booth. They had a real working 21 f/4.5 in

the flesh, but the 18mm f/4 was still a "dummy" - 1 fake element and none of the rings

moved. The rep said the 21 was about to ship but that the 18 would be a few months longer

(June, I believe he said - I was trying out their 15mm and was a bit...distracted).

1. I saw this behavior intermittently in a pre-production M8, but have not experienced it

myself in 2 months and 4300 exposures. The meter readout should come on in about a

second and the battery/frame-counter LCD in about 2.5 seconds after turning the camera

on.

The camera does a check of the SD card as a part of the start-up, so I suppose it could be

a funky SD card that hangs things up. But if it does this with various SD cards then it

sounds like a camera fault of some kind.

2. On review, the M8 displays first a low-res image, and then after a moment, the high-res

image that you can zoom into. If you just hold down the arrow key, all you will see is the

low-res images scrolling by really fast, but if you scroll by pressing the arrow to advance

the picture each time, and your timing happens to get in sync with the refresh lag, you'll

get that hop-and-skip as the camera gets around to showing high-res picture A just as

you scroll on to low-res picture B.

For some reason the WB and saturation is often slightly different between the low and

high-res images, so you may see a jump in color when the high-res image kicks in.

BTW the M8 "handles" jpegs MUCH more slowly than .dng files, so there is also more lag

before the high-res image shows up if you are shooting jpegs, and also a longer write

time (watch how much longer the red light is 'busy' storing a fine jpeg than a .dng by itself

- and longer yet when storing both at once).

3. I have no idea WHY Leica did not include a sync terminal - but I have a nice little hot-

shoe-to-PC adapter left over from my Nikon N8000 days that has allowed me to shoot

off-camera flash with the M8.

I use a Vivitar 2800 flash that has never fried a camera circuit in 20 years - M8, Digilux 2,

M6ttl, M6 classic, Hexar RF, Contax Gs/SLRs, various Nikons. Works both via a sync cord

or via the hot shoe. Does its own metering (not ttl).

Actually, Wikipedia gives nods to both Brad's and my sources for "drinking the Koolaid" -

"closely associated with Jonestown", and also with the Merry Pranksters', via the test of

Tom Wolfe's "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test".

In the Pranksters sense of joining the club of the hip by drinking the LSD-laced - uh,

flavored, colored water - well, sure! Buying into the M8 is absolute proof one is hip, cool,

and with it.

8^)

Unfortunately that has be usurped by the more perjorative use meaning "buying in to the

(corporate) cult(ure)'s values" - by among others, Enron execs when they got someone new

to participate in their phony deals.

A dangerous phrase used out of context.

Hey - I wish there were digital Contax Gs, digital Konica (oops, I mean Sony) Hexar RFs, a

digital Ikon, and even a resurgence of the R-D1(s). I like rangefinders, and the more the

merrier (since Merry is the theme for the day). Bring 'em on!

"I do find it amusingly funny though, reading some people's passionate fantasies that the

M8 is technologically superior to some other camera that has more megapixels, a full-

sized frame, and no problems with banding, streaking, moire or IR sensitivity...and costs

less than half."

Vinay, I assume you mean the Canon 5D, since you mention full-frame and more Mpixels:

"no problems with banding, streaking..."

Ri-ight!

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page25.asp

"cost less than half"

5D - $2999 with rebate, M8 - $4800. 4,800/2=2,400. Therefore 2,999 <= 2,400?

Interesting math.

Also, Vinay, weren't you one of those who claimed the M8 was being returned (or orders

cancelled) en masse? While Brad is referring to this guy as "one of the few" who returned

his. You two might want to get together off-line and get your stories straight before

continuing the anti-M8 "swift-boat" campaign.

There are plenty of rational arguments for buying or not buying an M8, which can be

rationally discussed. But the more one reveals one's "bozo" factor, the more one's opinions

become irrelevant.

BTW: Everytime Brad smarts off about "Koolaid" -THIS is what he considers a suitable

subject for giggles and grins:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19781204,00.html

Sure looks like a cute joke to me...not.

He's one of THE FEW who returned the cam after purchase...?

Geez, last time I looked in here at P.net, the claim was that EVERYONE was returning their

M8s and it was a disaster for Leica and so on. What happened?

Just joshin' ya, Brad. Of course he should have returned it if it didn't suit his needs - or at

least did not suit them any better than the less expensive R-D1.

Heck, I've returned quite a few items of photo equipment over the years - some of them

even Leica - because they didn't suit my needs.

I don't drink anyone's "Koolaid" (not that cute an expression when one actually watched

the Jonestown tragedy happen more or less "live"). Not Leica's. Not Epson's.

Nothing wrong with anyone expressing their opinions. These may even be "honest" ones -

but they are often inaccurate, and heavily "spun". One doesn't have to be a Leica user to

end up kidding oneself after one makes a purchase.

>>"The body feels much thicker than the MP, and is just as thick as the R-D1, in fact,

despite not having a flippable LCD like the R-D1."

So being identical is a reason to pick one over the other?

>>"The lightweight magnesium body does not have the same level of robustness as the

R-D1, let alone a MP, and feels more like a CM. It's not even to the same grade as the

original Digilux."

Yeah, and the lightweight shutter in my R-D1 blew up after 3500 exposures, whereas the

M8 has gone 3800 in 1.5 months without a hiccup. As to the exterior, my R-D1 was

shedding paint and the rubber gripping surface within 3 months (and see below regarding

the LCD) - so much for "robustness". But to be fair, it's too early to say the M8 will not

have similar cosmetic foobahs.

>>"The lens mount lock does not snap positively and reassuringly as it should, and the

release button feels cheap compared to my MP or M6TTL."

1. No true with MY M8 - and 2) sounds like fondler-fodder anyway. At least I can mount

my 90 Tele-Elmarit on the M8 - the R-D1 mount was so out-of-spec that that lens

wouldn't even go on it.

>>"The shutter release is mushy and unpleasant. The shutter sound itself is a loud thunk

followed by a noisy motorized re-cocking.

Setting ISO is buried in a menu and you need even more keystrokes to change it than on a

Rebel XT (the R-D1, in comparison, has a genuine knob to set it quickly with direct

feedback)."

Mostly fair criticisms. The M8 release is not the quite the same as film Ms (nor is the R-

D1's). Noise is less of an issue than the shock of all those blades coming to a sudden stop,

with either camera. Reduces the hand-holdability a bit.

>>"The rangefinder on mine was slightly misaligned vertically, something one can tolerate

in a $300 Bessa, but certainly not in a M (to be fair, rangefinder patch vertical alignment is

an endemic problem with the R-D1 as well)."

Semi-fair criticism - My M8 is out both vertically and horizontally (I'll get it fixed when I

send it in for the circuitry replacement) - but STILL focuses a 90 f/2 or my 135 far more

reliably than the R-D1 ever did.

>>"In another sign of sloppiness and poor quality control, the copy of Capture One LE

included in the box was missing the serial number required to activate the program."

Did happen with some apparently. Not with mine. Not that it mattered much anyway - C1

LE is so clunky compared with Adobe Camera RAW that I used it once - Gawd what a

kludge. I will agree "What was Leica thinking" on this one, though.

>>"After using the R-D1 for a few hours, the superiority of the design over the M8 is

readily apparent (with the sole exception of the taller body and short rangefinder base

length):"

Yes, indeedy. Inability to reliably focus or frame lenses longer than 50mm; inability to use

lenses wider than 21mm (effective 32mm) without severe vignetting; a 5-year-old 1.5x

crop 6.1 Mpixel retread of a DLSR image sensor (that showed as much troublesome IR

problems as the M8, albeit in a different way, and far more hot pixels); a shutter borrowed

from bargain-basement film SLRs (Nikon FM10, Vivitar 2000, etc.) These are the hallmarks

of "superior design ".

>>"The R-D1 has perfectly acceptable ISO 800 and 1600, unlike the M8, making suitable

for available light shooting."

If you like 20 or so hot red pixels per image, the R-D1 did OK at 800 and 1600. Assuming

you did no sharpening, and lived with the mush induced by the strong anti-moire filtering.

Pixel for pixel the M8 is noisier at 1250/1600 - in final prints of the same size the pixels

are smaller, though, and less noticeable. No hot pixels in the M8 yet - just the repairable

banding.

>>"The LCD screen pivots and can be turned around to protect it from scratches (or resist

the temptation of chimping)."

And a good thing, too, because Epson used the cheapest possible coating on the RD-1

screen - It showed more scratches in the first month than my Digilux 2 does after almost

3 years (or my Sony R1 after 15 months). My M8 is scratch-free after 2 months, but that's

not long enough to compare one way or another.

I have a wonderful device to keep me from chimping - it's called "will-power". Comes free

with every digital camera I buy.

>>"The viewfinder has an honest to goodness magnification of 1.0x like the original M3,

not one that panders to jaded wide-angle junkies (I never shoot wider than 50mm and my

MP is a 0.85x mag, so yes, I am biased)"

So if he never shoots wider than 50mm, and the RD-1 never frames longer than 50mm

(which it doesn't) - that's a fairly limited range of lenses. Me - I like having an f/2

equivalent to 35mm (rather than 42mm), and using the Cosina 15mm without vignetting.

Pays the bills better than the dark orange corners of the R-D1.

BUT - I did like the 1:1 sometimes. Just not enough.

>>"The power supply is a manageable size and even has a cord, unlike the bloated wall-

wart type Leica supplies with the M8."

And this affects the images - how? Personally, I much prefer the "wall-wart" chargers -

much more compact for travel and less waste of tabletop space.

>>"The shutter speed dial goes in the traditional direction, not the M6TTL/M7 direction..."

Oh, dear...

Anyway - we'll see how he's doing after a year or so...

Ooops! My mistake - Rico et al are right. The pre-M4-P/postM3 90 frame comes CLOSER to

the corners, thanks to the three segments, but doesn't include the corners.

Pico: I take it you have a very early 75 - since only the early production had a separate lens

hood. Most have a built-in sliding hood after the first year or so of production. (Or do you

just find the built-in hood too short to be useful?)

The size SHOULD be 60mm.

Possibility: a slight ding in the threads or barrel that causes the lens to pinch the filter?

The corners of the 90mm frame were dropped with the transition from the M4-2 to the

M4-P - when the 75 and 28 frames were added. So I'm not sure I understand the

references to the M4 and M5 - they still have frame corners.

The original 75 framelines were just corner tick marks. I suspect Leica was playing it safe

structurally by eliminating two sets of corner mark cutouts in close proximity in the thin

metal mask(s) that form and reveal the framelines - 90 and 75. The 75 got the corners,

the 90 got the sides.

It's also possible that the 90 framelines got "nudged" in a bit (as did the 50 and 35 frames

in that same transition) - making them a bit less accurate, but again providing more

separation of the cutouts to ensure the mask wouldn't develop cracks between slits that

were too close together.

I definitely like the older, more complete 90 frame more.

Sorry to hear about the loss, of course.

If you are comparing NEW prices - an M7 or MP these days is $3500, not $2000. So the

price difference, as Henry alludes to, is $1300, not 1300 rolls of film. Even if you can find

a used M7/MP for $2000, the body-to-body difference is $2700, not $5000 - you still

need a lens in addition.

An M7/MP can shoot Tech Pan or K25 until the supplies of refrigerated film available on

*bay run out - they aren't made anymore. As someone who shot Velvia 50 and Pan F for

years, and shoots an M8 now, I can tell you that the M8 files are easily as sharp (acuity),

and less grainy, than films half as fast, at any ISO.

Tonality has so many variables, including whether one scans film or prints analog, how the

film (or digital file) is shot and processed, WHICH film or digital is used, etc, that I doubt

you can support the claim that film has "much better tonality" (nor would I claim the M8 is

"much better").

If someone wants to sit in a dark room viewing slides, or work in a dark room making

prints, as a specific activity, film is fun.

It's also expensive - in addition to the film itself there is: processing, gas to/from the lab,

personal time to and from the lab or for home processing.

My estimate for a roll of film - including ALL the attached expenses, is $20 per roll just to

get to a slide or negative. Printing of any kind is extra.

So the raw body-to-body difference between the M8 and the M7 is $1300/20 - or 65 rolls

of film. 3 months worth for your friend @ 5 rolls per week.

The quality issue doesn't fly. The cost issue doesn't fly. Debt as an issue is between him,

his family, and his banker (although as a friend you can offer your thoughts). Which may

be why you're not having much luck.

But - there is a "fun" factor to both digital and film. If you really want to persuade him to

stick with film - take him into the darkroom to paddle around in the trays and such. Or

take him to a Circuit City and show him how dismal projected digital still is.

If he is just no longer interested in projected images (whether on a wall or through an

enlarger) - you've done all you can.

I can't speak to the best and the brightest for certain - Nikon made an f/1.1 50 and Canon

made an f/0.95, but I don't know if they ever came in Leica mount. I suspect there will be

a lot of votes for the Cosina/Voigtlander 50 f/1.5 Nokton, which gets good reviews.

As to lens flair (actually FLARE) - it means light reflecting off the various internal glass and

metal surfaces of the lens and then getting onto your film, usually degrading the image

since it amounts to random "noise" rather than useful image.

Sometimes it appears as semi-focused spots, such as the strings of hexagons that run

across some wide-angle shots if the sun is in or just outside the frame. Sometimes it is

just a general foggieness and softening of contrast (veiling flare - because it looks as

though you shot through a white veil). Sometimes it picks up color tints from the purple/

blue/gold/green coatings on the lens (the coatings are there to reduce reflections and

flare, but like most things in this world, they are not perfect).

Its a big deal insofar as it interferes with the clear and correct rendition of what you are

trying to capture (like someone coughing during a recording session) - if your subject

ends up with a blue blob over his/her face, for example, or if the landscape you shoot

ends up muddy, colorless and full of blue haze because of veiling flare.

Hi, Stephen

Maybe this should be a thread of its own, but...

"Color shots at iso 1250 with the M8 seem unusable." I guess I have to ask, compared to

what? ISO 1250 color film (slides or negs)? Canon 5D? Canon 1D? Nikon D2x? JPEG or

DNG? Under full spectrum light (daylight)? Or light very limited in blue wavelengths

(sodium, tungsten, etc.)?

Personally, I have not seen ANY capture method, digital or film, above ISO 1000 that

handles color well, especially if the light is short on blue wavelengths. I wouldn't call them

"unuseable" since obviously some people use them. I certainly find that the M8 at 1250

delivers more manageable color and grain/noise than, say, 400 slide film pushed 2 stops.

But at some point there is just no technological substitute for putting real photons onto

the sensor (i.e. lower isos, larger apertures, longer exposures).

"More light" as Goethe said on his death-bed.

"Is there software upgrades planned to address that issue?" Not sure software will solve

anything - especially for RAW shooting. At best one could crank up the detail-robbing

noise-reduction in jpeg captures.

Hi, again, Jerry. At least you got me off my behind to try a little low-light work tonight!

HAP-pee New Year!<div></div>

Hi, Jerry!

I wouldn't expect you to see much of anything from these tiny web images (or any web

images) - which is precisely why I want to send around real prints of significant size.

These are just teasers.

But you do raise a fair point regarding capabilities, which is why I may substitute some

shots to increase the percentage of low-light, large aperture, high ISO shots.

OTOH - the little girl with the purple swirl costume was shot in tungsten light at night - at

1/30 sec. and f/2 @ iso 640. The dusk snow shot was 1/30 @ iso 320 and f/2 with zero

noise visible. The 15mm shots take in a 95-degree angle of view with superb detail right

to the corners. (All of which require a print in the hand to really appreciate - 100% crops

of little bits and pieces won't do the same job).

I'd be interested to know which $500 P&S offers noiseless iso 320 and very low-noise iso

640 (without detail-blurring noise suppression processing), f/2.0 lenses out to "120mm"

equivalent, and a super-wide-angle (20mm equivalent) field of view.

---

The suggestion has been made off-forum that folks who are interested include a

telephone number with their mailing address when they email me, to help coordinate

deliveries as the "package" makes its way along the mailing list. Seems like a good idea.

Keep the ideas coming - if it turns out many folks are happy with just some image files on

disk, we can do it it that way instead, or in addition.

I'm on dialup - so it would take 40 minutes to email one .dng file. Let's stick to snail-mail

delivery in any case.

Yep - for whatever reason, Leica has not produced 28mm lenses in chrome since the screw-

mount Summaron went out of production in 1963. Even in the hot eras for chrome M lenses

(60s and 90s) when one could get chrome 21s, 35s and practically everything else, the 28s

were always stubbornly black-only.

Ron: send me an email to be on the mailing list and you can see ACTUAL PRINTS instead of

bigger web jpegs. No cost, except for the postage to pass the prints along to the next in line.