larry_kincaid2

<p>It's not the heat in Bangkok, it's the humidity humidiy humidity. So, humid at times you simply do not dry out. Which is to say, you're always wet. Since no one else raised the issue, condensation on camera equipment from going in and out of cold, dry air conditioned hotels. In Viet Nam last year I put my camera and lenses in a zip lock plastic bag until the temperatures equalized. I had no trouble or any condensation. I wear glasses, and they often fogged up with condensation going in and out. Heat and humidity to mean one camera and at most two lenses. Often just the one lens I think I'll use the most. Weight really does matter and you will not want a heavy backpack sealing in heat on your back. I ended up keeping the other lenses and backup camera in the hotel safe for another day. Sounds like a bit extreme, yeah, but only for you not me. Have a great time; huge photo opportunities there. Search out traditional dancing and fire away in natural light. </p>

<p>I prefer B&W, but this one needed the color. My most cooperative model. </p><div></div>

<p>Yes, definitely art. Certainly not street photography or landscape. Quite intereting, as a matter of fact, and the quality of the b&w image from the M8 is quite good as well.</p>

<p>From what I've seen of the early reviews of the G1, it looks like Panasonic got it (mostly) right the first time out. Since it's a new concept, if it sells then presumably it will be improved over time. The key for many of us is: Does the sensor (and then the rest of the camera) do justice to the Leica M lenses? If so, then demand for Leica lenses should go up and many who wanted to try them but couldn't justify the money for a M6/7 or M8 will finally have a chance to try it. For those of us that already have a M8, there's a strong appeal to buy one as a backup to the M8. Right now, I'm using a Lumix _Z1 as a backup when I travel. It has the advantange of a long telephoto zoom as well, but without the image quality, of course. If the G1 has the image quality, then not only would it serve as a great companion, but it would also allow us to invest in a telephoto (and/or telephoto zoom) lens to supplement our Leica photography. For anyone who's invested in a M8 or any Leica M system, $600 is just not going to be a problem. My wife already encouraged me to buy one! But like everyone else, I'd like to see the images created with the G1 and the Summilux lenses or even a DR summicron in black and white. If the images "have it," then I'll definitely buy one as a backup. </p>

<p>Right, Ray. Not to mention a fortune invested in f1.4 and f2.0 lenses for low light photography at 64, 100, or 200 ISO.</p>

<p>I'm no engineer, but if Nikon can double the megapixels to 24.5 with a new sensor that fits into the same old D3X (that's full frame) slot, then there's no reason why Kodak cannot make new sensor to "plug into" the same sized slot on the M8 and call it an M8X, M9, or simply one of the (very expensive) upgrades to the original M8s. Then I'd get the others thrown in as a package. No hurry, the M8 I have now does everything I want it to do except point itself for the photograph. Okay, electronics and software upgrade at the same time. <br>

SEE: <strong><em>The Nikon D3X’s 24.5-megapixel FX-format (35.9 x 24.0mm) CMOS sensor was developed expressly for the D3X in accordance with Nikon’s stringent engineering requirements and performance standards, with final production executed by Sony.</em></strong><br>

Let's get some "expressly" development from Leica and Kodak. </p>

<p>This sounds a bit loony, even to me, but if I ever sold or gave away M6 and M8 I'd probably keep the two Luigi leather half cases. I do like almost anything made of leather, but these are very special in my opinion. In fact, I have a third one in natural brown color that I don't use and once planned to sell. But I just don't quite get around to it. I really don't like holding or using any of my Leica cameras without a leather case (with grips built in). But then I was weaned on a Pentax spotmatic that came with a leather full case. Isn't that how cameras are supposed to be shipped? </p>

"Glow" is not the right word. If you cannot agree on what the word glow means, then there's no way you can ever agree if "whatever it means" applies to any object in the real world such as a photograph. Which are these are you referring to:

 

Noun

1. light produced as a result of great heat

2. a steady light without flames

3. brightness of complexion

4. a feeling of wellbeing or satisfaction

Verb

1. to produce a steady light without flames

2. to shine intensely

3. to experience a feeling of wellbeing or satisfaction: she glowed with pleasure

4. (of the complexion) to have a strong bright colour: his pale face glowing at the recollection [Old English glōwan]

 

If you put a negative or slide on a light table, they all "glow." Leica images have a greater 3-D quality or "pop." These qualities can be defined and agreed upon by multiple observers when looking at the same photograph or negative.

I'm a little late to the thread, but then I've had a chance to read it all. Part of the problem is the use of the term, "glow." I have no idea what that term means with respect to a flat photograph that cannot physically release any kind of light itself. My backlit flat screen monitor glows behind images, but it does that for all of them. Some of the better descriptions above used more appropriate words.

 

It cannot be a myth "if it cannot be seen or measured," but several people provided instances of neutral judges who could consistently "see" it in printed photographs. So, it can be seen. I was completely convinced by my own children when they looked at my Nikon photos side by side with my first Leica 50mm Sumicron photos: "We like these the best. They look more 3-D." Another way to communicate what it is, therefore, is to say what the opposite would be. My kids could do it, untrained. The Nikon photos were good (best fixed focal length lenses--50mm and 85mm), but "flat." That's the easiest way to describe it. Other cameras tend to produce flat looking images. They come closer to Leica images with telephoto lenses (Nikon 180mm lens) when the foreground is in focus relative to the background (hence, bokeh), but . . . and this is a big exception, Leica lenses can often produce the same depth and 3-D plasticity with wide angle and normal angle lenses. As someone else said above, many Leica photos have a "real snap you can see." So, if it can be seen, and seen by more than one person, it's an objective fact. Objective: when two or more observers reach the same conclusion using the same methods.

 

So, I'd recommend dropping the use of the term, "glow," and sticking with "pop," "snap," and 3-D look to them. These words are easier to understand and don't get in the way of the phenomenon that's being observed. Too much time is being wasted by arguing about what the WORD "glow" means rather than what actually makes the photographs different from others. By the way, not all Leica images have this quality, just a lot more of them. Worth the money? Not to some. But once I saw the difference it just seemed to expensive to me to keep taking photos with a camera that hardly ever produced that kind of effect. It would just be a waste of time and money

Still makes a perfect capucino. Can a Canon or Nikon even make good drip coffee? You should see it printed on bright white photo rag paper at 11x14 inches.

Hey, Tony. The first time I took my M8 out for a trial, a gust of wind blew my hat off at the instant I was putting the camera back in the bag (hence not strapped on). Impulsively I started chasing my hat and as I bent down to grab it before it blew away again (great screen comedy), I dropped my brand new $4800 Leica on the concrete. No damage. At all. I still worry about the outrageous investment, but I not longer stress over dropping it. This means I'm less likely to drop it.

 

In a nutshell, the M8 comes closest to replicating M film photos in digital capture. If you don't believe it, go to dppreview and look at the photos from the brand new Nikon D700, full frame. The are just not right . . . still odd looking modern digital images. Second, I tried my M6 again to see what it would be like for b&w. Only one place to process it locally, the printed photos were horrible, and my scans were not much better. I never have developed myself, so the lack of a good processor nearby has brought and end to my M6 except for backup purposes. I'm still attached to it. Third, I really like processing digital M8 images in photoshop and just as importantly printing them myself at home with a HP B9180 up to 12x18 in size. I remind myself of Ansel Adam's trying over 60 or more times to print one of his most famous negatives to his own satisfaction and never quite getting it right. I have the luxury of experimenting and improving my own prints. I enjoy this a lot. It really is the other 50% of photography. I now know why Cartier-Bresson refused to have any of his negatives cropped when printed: not for any aesthetic reasons but because he was not the one doing he cropping. He always had other people print for him, so he had to do all his own cropping when he took the photo. So, how many great photos did he give up because they were never cropped correctly? He had way more than his share of great photos, so it probably doesn't matter much. But I enjoy doing this myself. And finally, what normally comes first, I like the freedom to take at least a few more photos than I did with the M6 and be able to nail down the exposure while I'm doing it and experimenting with different apertures and viewpoints. Okay, always end up with way too many images to throw away (yet don't), but also a few more keepers than with the M6. And all I ever expected was one good one for every roll of 36 and perhaps one great one per year. In other words, it's almost a whole new way of using the camera. And apart from the filters, I've never had any of the problems reported by others. Just lucky, I suppose. I'd like the M8-2 shutter improvements, but the M8 is fine as it is. We asked for something like the M8, and Leica gave it to us (okay, sold it to us). Seems like most users are quite happy about it. Just don't shoot war photos in the desert of Iraq in a sandstorm at 110 degrees. On the other hand, the 90% plus humidity and heat in Vietnam didn't bother the M8 at all. Of course, I religiously kept it in a sealed plastic bag while going in and out of air conditioned buildings. I don't see any point in waiting for a better digital camera "if" one has the extra money to spare. All my kids are not out of college, so there's no reason to wait, only reasons to hurry.<div></div>

Leica has done exactly what the first person who posted asked for: They've developed a diverse series of digital cameras for every possible budget with PANASONIC. If that's what you want, it's right there before your eyes. I assume Leica is making money with this arrangement; I assume Panasonic has no idea how to make a quality lens. The M8 camera was designed for us. A custom designed digital camera for people who like Leica M lenses and begged for a high quality digital camera worthy of the lenses. Leica will give you one but you have to pay for it. If you don't have the money, get a panasonic/leica camera. I have grown weary of this kind of complaining post on this forum, so I only read the last entries with the photographs (a strength of this forum). So, if someone already said this, I second them.

Maybe "Christina ____ Barcelona," Woody Allen's new movie. At one point one of the characters (of course it's written by Woody Allen) tells the other to quit using a point-and-shoot automatic camera and get a serious one. In a later scene it looks like she's using a rangefinder, but it's hard to tell. Anyone else see it?

Fast primes: "I notice that a surprisingly large subet of the other 20-somethings I see walking around with DSLRs have a 50mm lens attached. Most of my friends who have DSLRs also have 50mm lenses."

 

I checked B&H a couple of days ago and was surprised to see both the import and US 50mm f1.4 lenses were "out of stock." Demand or lack of supply? I traded in my only Nikon zoom for fixed lenses when I realized that I always seemed to set the zoom around 50mm most of the time, or as wide as possible or as long as possible, and the 300mm long was never quite long enough. Too many people on the web are praising the benefits and price of the 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 lenes for younger zoom only digital photographers not to notice and give it a try for the price. For certain types of photography--esp. portraits, street scenes, and even landscapes--I cannot see why anyone would want to use a clumsy zoom lens with lower resolution and quality. How long does it take for younger photographers to figure out the qualityis better with fixed primes and you can use you feet most of the time to zoom in or out? Switching just two lenses--say a 24mm and 50mm--when the need arises is not much of a problem.

I'll give you the same advice my wife gave me before moved from M6 to M8: "Now is the time you want to use it, so buy the M8 now . . . and then start dividing the cost by the total number of shots you take and by the number of months that pass by. You'll soon discover that the cost per shot taken goes down dramatically (the first one is US $5,000) over time as does the cost per month." Great wife, no? [Of course, she does this when she buys clothes too.] And this does not take into account the zero cost per roll of film, per roll processed, and high cost of your labor to scan and adust in photoshop. As I responded to my wife, "You mean the sooner I buy the M8 the sooner it becomes a cheap camera?" Hey, the M3 was expensive in its time, as was the M6. The cost of the camera for each shot on those must be practically zero. Believe it or not, she said the same thing every time I bought another Leica lens; now they've all turned into good investments, especially the 75mm Lux. Let us know what you end up doing. The M8 will solve your problem, by the way. You didn't say how old you are, but Ben Franklin said it all when he remarked, "The only thing you have left at the end is time, so you better start using it wisely now."

Shooting you shooting is what I call a vacation in Europe in the summer.

I use Leica lenses from 75 Lux, 50 Lux, 35 Lux, and 24 f2.8 without any lens coding. I've never seen any problem with the images from any lens. It's supposed to be necessary from 35mm and wider, but I've taken many tests shot at blue skies and white walls and I have not seen any problems in the corners whatsoever. My advice is shoot without coding until you see a problem, and if you don't have any problems, forget about it. I don't need to pay that much money to have information automatically recorded. It also irks me that this issue is not resolved with software. Anyone else have the same experiences with wide, uncoded lenses?

I am tryhing to print B&W on the new Ilford Gold Fibre SIlk paper with a HP B9180 printer. A note with the paper

says "We do not recommend the use of matt black inks . . . as these may smudge and do not adhere well to the

surface." which is baryta coated. The HP software to print from within Photoshop only gives two B&W options:

1) composite gray or 2) gray inks only. The electronic manual does not say what either one means in terms of the

print cartridges. For a while, I thought gray inks only would exclude "matt black," but now I'm not sure.

 

Does anyone know what each of these means exactly and which one might exclude matt black?

 

Anyone like the Gold Fibre Silk paper?

It always amuses me when I see "should I spend $_____" to upgrade equipment when no one asks "How much money do you make a year?" There's no way to discuss prices outside the context of disposable income. If you make over $200,000 a year with no debt or college tuition payments and you really enjoy trying out the latest cameras and lenses, go ahead. Forget about the $, whether it's a hobby or a profession. The fact that I no longer have to pay college tuition for my kids--by itself--frees up enough money to buy any camera or lens I want. That's whyI much prefer the "If you're not sure what you need, you don't need it." Good luck with your cameras. [by the way, who wants to carry around two heavy DSLRS at the same time just to keep from changing lenses?]

Some responses are hard to understand. Of course, lenses matter; you cannot use your camera without one. Which means you have to choose one. If someone wants to achieve that same kind of photographic effect as someone else, such as Robert Frank, then you need to know what angle lens he/she was using to get it. The Brand may not matter to some, but to anyone on the Leica forum it matters if the lens used was made by Leica because then you need to ask the date it was manufactured (generation or era), if it was coated, and so forth. This is the Leica/RF forum.

Gets funnier all the time. Someone on the Leica forum mentioned a recent Ebay sale of a Mint used Leica for US $3,800. So, lower than the $4,000 I mentioned. But this is too high. Who needs mint if you're going to upgrade it? $2,000 for a banged up M8 would be better.

 

Here's what looks like more bad news for something called a Photo Business forum. The author things the M8 upgrade is a horrible idea too late. Here's the interesting part:

 

"Further, I know of several Leica professionals (yes, that would be people who actually use the Leica for paying work, not as an accessory to their Aesculapian staff) who are selling their M8's (for a loss, no doubt), and have stated their intent to wait until Leica produces a professional camera that's ready for prime time."

 

Keep on selling them, guys. When it gets down to $3,000 maybe I'll buy a second one, upgrade it, and sell my current one for $4,000. And while we're at it, keep those M lenses and look for new ones to buy. What happens if a FF sensor does appear. Where's all the needed lenses?

I don't get it. Why is the M9 still being discussed? If the M8 is built to last (seems to be), and all the components that would become outdated can be replaced, what would be the reason for a M9? You don't want a bigger or heavier body, otherwise it's no longer a M. Remember, it's still 50% about the lenses, and right now they cost more than the camera. If a full frame sensor can be put in there and the computer chip replaced and the shutter replaced, and the software replaced in the "box" the size of the M8, then there's no need for a M9, unless its just a slightly modified body.

 

Everyone's missing the implications for used M8s. Right now what you'd like to find is a user M8 with a scratched LCD and malfunctioning shutter for say about US $2,000. Then send it to Germany to upgrade and overhaul (which they said they'd do with the upgrade). Your new backup camera would become you main camera. Okay, even if you buy a used one for $4,000, the upgrade would still make it worthwhile. This takes us back to the days of the ol' M3 or M6 that just needs be sent in and relubricated, parts replaced, and adjusted. This is exactly what anyone would want out of Leica. FF is the final piece. Can they fit it in that box or not. First they need the sensor to be developed, then we'll find out if they designed the M8 box with that in mind. If not, M9

This is great news. Why would anyone who gave up US$5,000 or so for the M8 be happy about the release of the M9 2 years later? Good news because it confirms that the M8 was built like all Leica cameras to last for a long time. We knew that already. Now we know that the components are upgradable, including the possibility of a more quiet, faster shutter. Not enough incentive yet . . . but this indicates that the sensor can also easily come off and be replaced by a better one. Who wouldn't pay for all of those as a package deal a year or so from now? We don't need another camera, just a Leica M8 that can be repaired and upgraded over time. What more can you ask for? Two years ago everyone here was saying that it was technically impossible to develop a sensor for the Leica M lenses. We got a very good sensor for those lenses.

Always more interesting than a coffee cup.<div></div>

Decided to try some back focus testing without rulers. Tried a coffee cup

first on the kitchen table. Bright sunlight coming thru the window. Realized

the background (room) was almost black and I could get the whole background

black by placing a black T-shirt under the cup. On one shot the light also

caught the "spokes" of the chair as well. Needless to say, the M8 and lens

focused well enough for me on the fine detail of the cup.

 

So, this is an invitation for still life W/NW. Focus test is an extra.<div></div>