LCT
ex-newbie
So you suggest that Leica would be able to sell the M8 at a lower price if i understand well.nrb said:
How much does it cost to build it in your opinion?
bayerische
Established
The M8 is in another league.
I had the Epson before finally getting my hands on an M8, and the epson is a great camera, but the M8 is so much better. So for me the M8 is THE M.
I had the Epson before finally getting my hands on an M8, and the epson is a great camera, but the M8 is so much better. So for me the M8 is THE M.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
One really cannot compare the RD-1 with the M8. This reminds me of the film days where people compared Nikons - Canons - Pentax - Minolta, etc., etc., etc.. It's a moot point. Each camera or system is a tool with its own virtues and foibles, and we each take and learn with those tools to get what we want.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
If you think that standing in front of an ice-cream parlour and telling people, where-ever they go to have ice-cream, that they are a bunch of idiots for spending money on something that has virtually no nutritional value, be my guest. Just don't be surprised if you're not taken seriously.nrb said:
Off to have my granola bar...
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
btw, I was originally responding to m3photo's post. I don't know how *I* got you involved there, but evidently you thought I was responding to you, which I wasn't by any strech of the imagination.nrb said:
I. Donough's on third.
nrb
Nuno Borges
I understand your point.Gabriel M.A. said:
mn4367
Established
I've voted for the Epson. Not because it is the better tool but I think that the M8 is simply too expensive although I have to admit that I'd really like to have one. Some aspects of the M8 are more advanced than the R-D1 but for more than 4200 EUR I would expect it to be near perfect and it seems that it isn't. Just one example, I talked to a guy who sold his M8 switching back to an M6 because for his street photography the shutter was to loud (although he did really wonderful shots with it).
In addition to that I think I wouldn't feel comfortable walking around with a 4+ kEUR gadget swinging around my neck. Maybe that could change if money was no object, but that isn't the case for me.
If prices for a used M8 would fall considerably below 3000 EUR I'd maybe rethink buying it, but for the forseeable future I'll stick with the Epson and I really like it.
In addition to that I think I wouldn't feel comfortable walking around with a 4+ kEUR gadget swinging around my neck. Maybe that could change if money was no object, but that isn't the case for me.
If prices for a used M8 would fall considerably below 3000 EUR I'd maybe rethink buying it, but for the forseeable future I'll stick with the Epson and I really like it.
tomasis
Well-known
I hope that after 10 years, electronics become cheap so M8 prices fall down to almost same as film bodies 
IF you compare M8 4200 euros to new M7, MP, it appears to be very price competitive by today standards isn't? about 1000 euros for such nice electronic things fitted in a small M camera body. way too cheap hehe
IF you compare M8 4200 euros to new M7, MP, it appears to be very price competitive by today standards isn't? about 1000 euros for such nice electronic things fitted in a small M camera body. way too cheap hehe
Last edited:
Didier
"Deed"
Have the Epson, would like the M8. Shorter crop factor, less vignetting.
Geo
Established
Have the RD-1 and tried the M8 in the shop.
The only thing I dislike about the M8 is the fact and that has been said a few times,
that the camera is SO digital, for too many functions one needs the screen.
The screen of my RD-1 is folded back and my cam is always in a Luigi half case.
I only use the screen at the end of the day, to view what I have shot,
So I actually use the RD-1 as an analogue camera, which is impossible with the M8.
Geo
The only thing I dislike about the M8 is the fact and that has been said a few times,
that the camera is SO digital, for too many functions one needs the screen.
The screen of my RD-1 is folded back and my cam is always in a Luigi half case.
I only use the screen at the end of the day, to view what I have shot,
So I actually use the RD-1 as an analogue camera, which is impossible with the M8.
Geo
georgef
Well-known
tomasis said:I hope that after 10 years, electronics become cheap so M8 prices fall down to almost same as film bodies
By introducing a camera that sits at the top of the food chain economically, I think LEICA has severely distanced a new generation of photograsphers who will rather buy a DSLR like the full frame 5D with very good glass for less than the M8 body alone!
I am not convinced the company can or will survive out of older customers like us; they need to start a new client base and the M8 is not aimed at them whatsoever.
Nice camera, not sure its worth the cash though...:angel:
tomasis
Well-known
one thing is simple. if one cannot afford a brand new M7 or MP so forget M8. I bought M4 instead of M7 and Rd-1 of m8 lol. Thankfully, it exist cheaper choices. Though I'd spend easily up ten thousand $ for lenses.
It depends on what photographers are giving up to get another thing regarding photography tools . I cannot bear SLR handling no matter if those cameras are priced very nicely, have a lot of features, big sensors, AF.
I paid the price for Rd1 which was high almost as the same of 5D. I got small sensor with low mpx, very slow, very few choices on menu compared to even cheapest DSLR. But I got the very important thing. It is RF. Yeah it is rangefinder camera with digital sensor. It is so fantastic and I was happy that I didnt bought 5d, D300, D3, 1Ds III, Hb H3, whatever
It depends on what photographers are giving up to get another thing regarding photography tools . I cannot bear SLR handling no matter if those cameras are priced very nicely, have a lot of features, big sensors, AF.
I paid the price for Rd1 which was high almost as the same of 5D. I got small sensor with low mpx, very slow, very few choices on menu compared to even cheapest DSLR. But I got the very important thing. It is RF. Yeah it is rangefinder camera with digital sensor. It is so fantastic and I was happy that I didnt bought 5d, D300, D3, 1Ds III, Hb H3, whatever
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
All of my photographical purposes? None. Yet I find all those that I own fulfilling my photographical purposes, which is why I have them.mdspace said:
usayit
Well-known
tomasis said:
RD1 was released in 2004... which placed it somewhere between the Canon 20D and the 1DMII. Both cameras were 8mp which doesn't make the R-D1 too far off in terms of specs. For the price I paid (refurb EPson direct), it is still a bargain.
The M8 is indeed too expensive for what it does (and its flaws). I don't see the point of comparing a DigiRF to a DSLR. Two completely different tools for the job. I am thankful that I'm fortunately enough to own both a Canon DSLR, Film SLR, M3, and R-D1 all complete with lenses... I enjoy all of them.
Part of the problem I see with Leica is that they are the masters of producing a wonderful MECHANICAL work of art. They did it too well to the point that they refused to change. Unfortunately for them, there is very little in digital cameras that remain completely mechanical and Leica is going through growing pains from years of absense from the realm of electronics R&D. They are currently dependent on outside partnerships to compete in the digital world..
... partnerships that might not be up to the standards the Leica loyalists expect.
... partnerships that make the current Leica M8 well.. less "Leica".
From an R&D electronics/digital point of view, Leica just cannot compete with the likes of Nikon, Canon, and other digital camera makers. Epson, although not a big player in the market, probably has a bigger R&D budget than Leica (seems evident from their surprise release of the R-D1 back in '04). When that much of the camera doesn't seem to meet many Leica loyalist's expectations, I just can't see my self paying that much money for a Leica body with internals that doesn't meet Leica (real or perceived) standards/expectations.
In my opinion, the M8 should be CHEAPER than an MP. One is made of mass produced electronics and outsourced parts. The other is a handmade work of art. Its the difference between the quarts AA battery driven clock in my office and the 100 year old grandfather clock at home.
The lenses on the other hand will always be expensive and in that case they should be... we are paying a premium for craftmanship.
Last edited:
retow
Well-known
usayit said:
Have you ever held an M8 in your hands, ever used one....................?
The vast majority of M8 "experts and critics" never even touched one - do you happen to be one of those?
usayit
Well-known
Yes Yes and Yes....
I am fortunate enough to have one of the north eastern's largest Leica shops just a 1/2 hour away in an area that is surprisingly easy to find one to borrow. Leica repair shop too. Not to mention the largest selection of camera stores (leica too) in NYC.
AND
What in the world does that have anything to do with my post? Not one sentence was a critical of the M8.
* "Leica = MECHANICAL wonders of art"... nothing bad said about the M8 there.
* "Leica and the absense of a strong digital/electronics R&D"... um.. not there.. unless you are now telling me Leica makes their own sensors and electronics now.
* "Dependent on outside partnerships".. Um.. thats not critical either...
* "From an R&D electronics/digital Leica does not compete".. Um.. thats a fact. Small versus large budgets...
* I can't see my self paying..." um.. not critical.. just stating an opinion.. I have tried it .. it does not meet my expectations (real or perceived). for the money. Perhaps my expectations are high.. it should be after M3, M6 and a borrowed MP plus the lenses I"ve owned and borrowed.
Sheesh.... Are all Leica M8 owners so defensive? (I know the answer.. no not all...). I'm simply stating why they have an up hill battle in regards the M8.
I also know that my time with the M8, albeit short, did not make me rave to the point of selling my Canon system to free up funds for the M8. I really wanted it to.
I still think the M8 should be cheaper than the MP.
Rolex with Casio internals anyone?
I am fortunate enough to have one of the north eastern's largest Leica shops just a 1/2 hour away in an area that is surprisingly easy to find one to borrow. Leica repair shop too. Not to mention the largest selection of camera stores (leica too) in NYC.
AND
What in the world does that have anything to do with my post? Not one sentence was a critical of the M8.
* "Leica = MECHANICAL wonders of art"... nothing bad said about the M8 there.
* "Leica and the absense of a strong digital/electronics R&D"... um.. not there.. unless you are now telling me Leica makes their own sensors and electronics now.
* "Dependent on outside partnerships".. Um.. thats not critical either...
* "From an R&D electronics/digital Leica does not compete".. Um.. thats a fact. Small versus large budgets...
* I can't see my self paying..." um.. not critical.. just stating an opinion.. I have tried it .. it does not meet my expectations (real or perceived). for the money. Perhaps my expectations are high.. it should be after M3, M6 and a borrowed MP plus the lenses I"ve owned and borrowed.
Sheesh.... Are all Leica M8 owners so defensive? (I know the answer.. no not all...). I'm simply stating why they have an up hill battle in regards the M8.
I also know that my time with the M8, albeit short, did not make me rave to the point of selling my Canon system to free up funds for the M8. I really wanted it to.
I still think the M8 should be cheaper than the MP.
Rolex with Casio internals anyone?
Last edited:
matt fury
Well-known
usayit said:
Hey, IIRC, the Oysterquartz was more expensive than some of Rolex's all-mechanical offerings. Especially so now since they've been discontinued. Just saying...
leicashot
Well-known
usayit said:
You are sadly mistaken....the M8 cost Leica a mint to design, and the MP came from years of mechanical engineering. I agree, it has it's shortcomings, but Leica have still done well to design a M Digital with all the challenges that are associated with it. Sure, it is not a mechanical marvel like the MP, but this product and future M Digital products will keep Leica alive in this new age of photography.
if you're happy to keep shoting film with your MP, then continue to do so, without complaining about a product you either can't afford, and/or can't appreciate. Obviosuly, it is not the product for you, and if you are only appreciative of mechanical marvels, then no M Digital will ever satisfy your needs, cause it just ain't possible. Electronics is where Leica's future is, and like it or not, they will continue to be expensive for some time. If you really do enjoy Leica as a brand/product, then embrace Leica for their efforts, and support their will to survive.
usayit
Well-known
matt fury said:Hey, IIRC, the Oysterquartz was more expensive than some of Rolex's all-mechanical offerings. Especially so now since they've been discontinued. Just saying...
Oh but the big difference is that the Oysterquartz was an in-house Rolex project built with the close supervision and high quality execpectations of Rolex designers and manufacturing. I would argue that there isn't a quartz movement of that time that can closely compare to the quality of the original oysterquartz movement out of Rolex.
- Rolex didn't outsource the internals that involved years of development prior to general release.
- Rolex Oysterquartz was near perfection for that time in quartz movement and that alone justified the price.
There is a HUGE difference between 1970 Rolex and 2006 Leica both in products and business model.
usayit
Well-known
leicashot said:
EXACTLY my point!!! The M8 cost a mint to design (and impliment) over a short development cycle. The MP came from "years of mechanical engineering". The M8 (the one I wanted) should have been the product of "years of electronics engineering ".
It isn't how much Leica Camera (the company) spent on making the M8. It is how the money was spent... I would have liked to see what the M8 would have looked like if they invested in digital in the late 90s and allowed Leica designers/engineers to work their magic.
You just can't buy perfection.. you have to invest in time and effort.
..
More accurately... the MP was borrowed.. I shoot with either an M3 or M6. I'm not happy shooting film exclusively although I still enjoy it... I'm not old enough but I'm sure people who held the M3 for the first time said "wow.. this a work of innovation and art". I wanted to have the same experience out of an M8.
For those of us who have long invested in Nikon or Canon, the M8 just felt like a Leica body with digital internals. Remember Pentax ME-F??? It was a standard ME with shoe-horned electronics to support an Autofocus lens. FAILED MISERABLY. Remember the Minolta 7000 a few years later. It was a ground up design years in the making to completely incorporate Autofocus into the camera. A COMPLETE SUCCESS and changed SLR design forever. You held that Minolta and said "wow its magic".
Last edited: