andy_piper2

"Any pretense of stealth goes right out the window. "

Hmm. The 135 TE adds 2 inches of length over a 50 f/2 (with the same sized "eye" -

39mm), but allows one to stand at 2.7x the distance for the same framing. Which

measurement contributes more to "stealth"? On average I get far more people noticing me

and the camera when I'm shooting close with a short lens than standing back with the

135.

I'm "jest funnin'" with what seems like an illogical argument - there are plenty of logical

reasons for avoiding 135s, depending.

I've never, for example, had any urge for the f/2.8 lens. If I wanted lenses that were

physically that big I'd have happily stayed with SLRs.

I can appreciate those who don't need or want the "reach" - but I find it a lot of fun

sometimes.

Framing the ungoggled 135s on an M8 is pretty easy once one has practiced a bit with

some chimping. The image area is about 2.5x the dimensions of the RF patch for over 3

meters, and 2x the size of the patch for closer than 3 meters. And unlike the Epson R-D1,

the M8 RF patch moves down and right for reasonable parallax correction.

In terms of absolute performance, the 135 APO currently made is contrastiest, and

microscopically sharpest. The 135 Tele-Elmar made from 1964-1995 comes next,

extremely close in sharpness, a bit further behind in contrast (not a bad thing for digital).

Then the f/2.8 or the Elmar (no "Tele" in the name) - don't know which, since I've only

tried the 2.8 myself.

But the Tele-Elmar, usually well under $500 these days, could double in price and still

have the best resolution per buck.<div></div>

MP3 has an internal light meter (and the usual battery compartment for it) and M3-style 3D

mouldings around the RF windows - this has NO meter and NO M3-style mouldings.

Yeah, as the item says, this is a an UNMETERED MP (thus no battery compartment). 500 were

made special-order for Leica's Asia distributor, and had the 60's style engraving instead of

the simpler standard MP "Leica" script, in addition to not having any battery or meter.

At around the same time there was a smaller batch of military green cameras made for

Japanese distribution, I believe.

Without commenting one way or the other on this particular sale - there were indeed 500

such cameras made and sold by Leica.

Jeff: Not sure which picture you are counting as the "second" one, since I posted 4, but two

are "large images" and thus hidden.

However, if you mean the vertical shot, then, yes it's a bit soft from motion blur, even at

1/1500th sec. The ground at 4 feet and the power lines at 1000 feet are all sharp, so I

don't think there's a focus issue for the bike at 7-8 feet.

Roger: about 6 feet below and 3 feet to the side of the bike in the "Hi, there" shot.

In the 15mm shot of the biker silhouetted against the sun (#4), I wasn't even close to

looking the the finder, since the camera was actually sitting in the dirt. I just watched the

camera and shot when the biker's shadow passed directly over it (if his shadow passed

over the camera, he must be right between the camera and the sun, right?)

Says something about M8 shutter lag time or lack thereof.

Hi, Vivek:

MOST of the "dust" in these shots is real dirt flying off the spinning wheels, but there are a

couple of very fuzzy dustbunnies on the sensor in the "Hi, there" shot.

The 15mm shot is cropped only top-to-bottom - the width is the full captured image. (Same

for the horizontal 21 shot).

"...just really funny to watch people go on and on about glow and other things, yet appear

to take no pictures."

Out of touch, as usual...

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00KlSY

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Kl3H

"Honestly, I think I could really get into making a few $millions per year doing wildlife

photography. Which camera should I buy that would let me do that? I'm looking for an

edge..."

That's an easy one...

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00KlSZ

Oh - and yes, you probably can just use the entire M8 window (ignoring the framelines) to

frame with the 25. It will be as accurate as framelines are anyway - i.e. not very except in the

close range.

Zeiss made a tactical error. The Leica 24 has been around for a decade, and it was obvious

what frameline group Leica planned to use for that focal length if they ever DID provide

24mm framelines in a camera (whether in the M8 or a wider-angle film M)....24-35-135.

Kudos, though, to Zeiss for backtracking and providing a fix.

Without coding, the Zeiss 25 and an IR-blocking filter will get some greenish/cyan tinge in

the corners. It will likely be somewhat different than the exact pattern produced by a Leica

24 (might even be less visible due to the longer optical path in the Zeiss).

Assuming you can "hand-code" the 25 to match a 24 (with a "Sharpie" pen) - the

correction for the green tinge that Leica writes into the M8 firmware may, for the same

reason, still not be a perfect match. Reports are that Leica's 21mm correction is not

perfect for the Zeiss 21 - but the firmware has only been out a few days, so we'll see in the

long run.

There are workarounds for the finder problem, already detailed here. I'm sure users will

find workarounds for coding/filters/corrections issues as well, once they become clearer.

Cameraquest.com has Epson "D" viewfinders, BTW.

Frederick:

1) You are quite right in pointing out that most Epsons seem to do just fine. Sean Reid did a

"R-D1 problem survey" and no one else in the survey had shutter locks but me.

2) You are right that there are many possible reasons for a shutter lock. In my case it was

obviously a mechanical linkage problem, because the "thump" technique fixed the Epson

temporarily just as it did the all-mechanical Bessa shutter.

I've had both an Epson R-D1 and Cosina Bessa-L experience shutter lockup problems.

Basically it boiled down to something in the winding chain getting out of adjustment such

that the shutter does not quite reach the fully cocked stage (thus will not fire), but is close

enough to being fully cocked that an interlock locks the wind lever.

Try thumping the camera bottom onto a firm but resilient surface (I used the fleshy part of

my palm under my thumb). If that releases the shutter, then the good news is that it may

start working again IF you are careful to a) wind slowly and carefully. making sure that you

have fully moved the wind lever all the way, and b) leave the camera UNCOCKED when it's

off and not in use (because if left cocked the shutter may "slip" a bit back into that in-

between place where both the release and the wind lever are locked).

The BAD news is that once those Cosina shutters start doing this, they will eventually do it

more and more often until a permanent lock occurs, requiring service or replacement.

My R-D1 went 6 months and 3500 exposures before it began locking. Epson replaced the

whole body (which was nice). But I sold the minty new one and moved on...

...although now I look at the link he using a 28 for the "35" field of view - guess after all

these years he got hooked on it.

Actually, the M8 crop factor is likely a boon for DAH. We were discussing his work and

techniques at a workshop several years ago, and he said that ideally he'd shoot only 50mm,

but that he needed f/1.4 for low light, and that a 50 @ f/1.4 did not give him enough DOF.

Now he can use his beloved 35 'Lux ASPH and get the "normal" field of view with the DOF he

wants.

Don't know what car he drives - but he shoots some commercial stuff for Ford.

Larry: This firmware version incorporates corrections for the UV/IR filters with coded

lenses, but it is OPTIONAL - one does not HAVE to have either coded lenses or the filters

to use it. It is a 3-way menu choice: Lens detection OFF, lens detection ON, Lens detection

ON with filters.

Early reports note that it seems to speed startup time a bit. And there may be other

internal optimizations. So I wouldn't say it is BETTER to stick with an older version of the

firmware.

OTOH I am waiting myself simply because I have no filters for my wide lenses yet (the ones

that need the firmware corrections the most) and there may be further upgrades by the

time my filters arrive - plus I may as well see if any bugs show up.

No reported bugs yet, but it's only day 1.

Jonathan: Leica ceased shipping M8s for about a month in Nov. 06 once the banding issue

reared its head. Once the fix for that was found, production restarted in Dec. with the fix

incorporated in all subsequent cameras. So to that extent the "second production run" is

and has been underway ever since.

As far as hardware is concerned, there is just continuous production going on, with some

(but not all) capacity diverted to the upgrades of the early cameras.

Unless another major hardware flaw turns up, an M8 will be an M8 from here on out until a

hypothetical M9 design appears - and I expect that will be at least a couple of years.

Leica's next main product intro (not counting cooperatives with Panasonic) will be related

to the R-system and replacing the DMR back.

As to financial reports, I expect the M8 has produced such a sea change that the figures

from Oct. 2006 are already mostly irrelevant. But fresh numbers through Dec. 2006 should

be due any day.

The "thin" TE 90 had a specific problem with lens etching (not fungus), especially in the

first ones made in the mid 70's. Compunded by the fact that it was the inside of the rear

elements that were affected and they are a sealed unit very hard to service. No other Leica

lens has had a similar design-specific glass problem (unless perhaps one counts yellowing

in "radioactive" 'crons from the 50s).

The "fat" 90 TE is a whole different lens and there will be no correlation as regards

etching. The flare is also a bit more controlled (the "thin" gets reflections off the internal

focusing barrel into the sun).

My experices with the fat TE have been very varied - horrible with one I tried 25 years ago

as an RF newbie (certainly some user error involved), generally much better the times I've

tried them recently. Not QUITE as pin-sharp as the thin version, IMHO, but only something

one would notice with Pan F or Velvia (maybe) - and that trades off against the better flare

performance of the "fat".

My "thin" TE has never shown a hint of etching, thank goodness, so I've never felt a need

to look further. But regarding your original two points (etching and other flare), the fat

should be a safe bet.

I have one early production M8 and one fairly new one (likely left the factory in Feb.) The

serial numbers are about 6000 apart. That doesn't necessarily prove Leica sold 6000 in 4

months, because there may also be MPs, M7s, and R9s being sold in that number range

(anyone seen film Leicas in the 3100000+ range?). Then again, it might.

As to Jacob's point, yes I expect there will be a slowdown in sales once the pent-up

demand has been satisfied. However, over on the Leica User's Forum there are a noticeable

number of M8 users who either had never used an RF before, or had not used one for

many years. So I think the market beyond the "collectors and fanatics" is larger than the

skeptics would have us believe.

As to the original question: Lenses are backordered all over the place, as well as M8s, so

obviously Leica is getting a big bump in lens sales.

In addition, film Leica sales have also revived a bit (per my Leica sources). Could be folks

who were sitting on the fence and now have decided Leica has a future thanks to the M8 -

or it could be people who are persuaded Leica will go fully digital within a short time and

are grabbing up film bodies while they're still being made. Flip a coin.

Leica has had to spend a bit on customer satisfaction measures:

Warranty upgrades for the first 2000-3000 cameras to ship (with the banding bug);

free IR filters (net cost to Leica, under $200 per customer for those who paid for cameras

prior to Jan. 1, 2007);

discounted lenses for roughly the same group of buyers (Discounts are up to $1000 - but

that's discounted from Leica's MSRP, not from their dealer price, so the real cost to Leica is

less, perhaps even zero for some lenses);

and finally, two free coding upgrades for every uncoded lens purchased new - in effect a

cost to Leica of $150 or less per $1800-$3500 lens sold.

It's hard to quantify the real expenses of these measures, since a lot of them are internal

and thus well below "retail".

But I think it would be fair to bet that Leica has taken in at least $20 million in dealer-net

sales on the M8 (figuring about 5000 cameras); and possibly another $18 million in lens

sales (estimating an average of 2 lenses per camera, or 10,000 lenses @ an average net to

Leica of $1800 each).

Against an average cost of, say, $1000 per M8 in upgrades, filters, and lens and coding

discounts.

So $38 million in vs. $5 million for extra expenses = $33 million cash flow over 6 months?

All the above is of course educated guessing - feel free to offer rational adjustments to my

estimates.

"...there are third parties willing to code lenses, no?"

I'm not aware of any. Rangefinder Forum was going to try and get a copy of the Leica

milling machine, but Leica wouldn't license it (or some approximation of that - at any rate

the deal never took place).

Unless one counts Sanford, the "Sharpie" maker, as 3rd party.

Yes, used lens prices have jumped in some cases. Canadian v.3 28mm's (which can be

coded) were $800 2-3 years ago, and are now over $1000 again (that despite the

introduction of the "cheapie" 28 f/2.8 ASPH at $1500 new!)

21 Superangulons seem to be about where they have been for years - $1400-1500

average with the usual variation for condition.

90s seem pretty stable compared to 2 years ago, or even a bit lower. 135 APOs have

skyrocketed along with the new price (I got one used for $1300 3 years ago - now they are

all over $1800, even though the M8 doesn't have a finder for them).

Supply at KEH seems pretty stable, but a local dealer went from a dozen used M lenses a

year ago to just two today (one being a Nocti) - the lowest stock he's had in several years.

Alkos: Glad you were able to "fix" your problem.

Because the lines tended to follow tonal separations, I still think the water-stop played some

role in where the fixer worked and didn't work the first time around...but at any rate, now we

know another suspect in case these "pseudo-Mackie" lines ever show up in a question again.

One other possible factor: I am not familiar with "Era 100", but if it is a "traditional" film with

a thicker emulsion (like Tri-X or Plus-X, as opposed to the thin-emulsion T-grain films like

TMax 100), that thicker emulsion will hold more developer in the jelly, protected from the

washing water, and make this effect more likely.

These are "Mackie Lines" - see: http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/wljeme/Chapt2.html

Especially since they seem to roughly follow the borders between dark and light areas.

Thanks to your processing info, I can make a very good guess at what happened - actually

two effects back to back.

First, you used a water-only "stop" with a very active developer - HC-110. During the time

of the "wash", the developer kept on working away, since it is so active that the dilution

did not stop it the way an acid stop bath would have, only slowed it down.

However, in the highlights, the large amount of exposed silver DID eventually wear out the

developer (through chemical reaction) while in the shadows, the developer remained fairly

fresh.

At the borders between highlights and shadows, the "fresh" shadow-area developer, even

though diluted, spilled over into the highlights a tiny distance, giving extra development

along the edges, and making more silver there (thus producing dark lines on the film and

light lines in the scan or in a print).

Secondly, I suspect you gave a quick sneak-peek at the film once it had been in the fixer a

brief time, while it was still milky with un-fixed silver. With an acid-stop, this would have

had little effect, but since the developer had never been "stopped" it developed a little of

the shadow silver that was fogged by the sneak-peek, before the fixer could remove it.

This accounts for the large funky-looking shadow areas inside the "lines". In effect you

got a small amount of solarization or Sabattier effect in addition to the edge-development.

(Sabattier effect and solarization are also described in the link above).

Recommendations: if you must use a water-bath instead of a real stop-bath -

1) avoid high-activity developers than will still keep working at very low dilutions

(HC-110, Rodinal)

2) agitate strongly during the water "stop" so that the diluted developer is kept moving

around and can't form edge lines.

3) Make sure your fixer is at peak capacity (and remember that it will wear out

much faster with water-washing than with an acid stop) if you want to look at the film

quickly, or if using a water-only bath after development.

4) Give the film time enough to "clear" before opening the tank - at LEAST a minute even

with rapid fixers.

You have the "Buzz Lightyear" edition of the 50 'cron - "TO INFINITY AND BEY-YONNNND!"

Seriously: Unlike a lot of recent SLR lenses, especially telephotos, the Leica M lenses are

not intended to focus beyond the infinity mark. If your lens's ring goes past infinity

physically (which it does not appear to, in your snap) that would be a lens problem.

It is far more likely that the camera is out of adjustment than the lens, since the RF in the

camera has a lot of moving parts, whereas the lens just has a solid metal cam which won't

change over time (i.e. after it leaves the factory).

As mentioned, the way to check this is to try some other lenses - if they ALL seem to go

past infinity according to the RF double image, then it is most likely the camera. If they

"stop" right at inifinty according to the RF - THEN the 50 may be at fault.

"Infinity" for checking purposes is 1000x the focal length, so for a Leica M that should be

able to handle up to a 135mm, 135 meters (446 feet) or beyond counts as infinity - but a

full kilometer adds a safety margin.