Ben Z
Veteran
Mark said:
I used Pentax Spotmatics for around 30 years and then went over to Leica M, two of the "simplest" cameras around you might say. Both cameras have TTL metering and that's just about it. Not long ago I bought a refurb Canon 20D. I have it on Partial metering, Manual mode, and except at the very widest I'm still using the same screw mount Takumar lenses I always did, except I have to manually work the aperture with the stopdown lever. One dial works the shutter, the aperture is set on the lens (but with a Canon EF lens, it's a separate dial on the camera), and the only other parameter I change is the ISO which is a clearly-marked button to push, and turn the dial. The manual metering display in the finder is much more useful than the one in the Pentax or Leica, and there is no need to mentally adjust the framing dependent on the subject distance as it is in the Leica. Basically I set the camera to the functions I want and it acts just like the mostly manual camera of yore that I'm used to. I have yet to accidentally set or un-set anything (though I have no experience with the Nikon interface, maybe it's more apt to happen, I don't know). I find that the 20D is designed that I can ignore whatever whizbang bells and whistles I don't care about. To me, to be able to achieve the results I want, the Leica is in many ways more demanding, mostly emanating from the non-WYSIWYG setup of an RF vs SLR, but the superfluous "features" of the 20D just never interfere with basic operation, I don't even know they're there.
M
Magnus
Guest
J. Borger said:
I don't think Leica will ever market a full frame digtal camera. They simply lack the needed R&D funds... hence the current problems of the M8. Leica is a tiny company compared to the main contenders, they are ambitious for sure, but ambition often leads to stupidity.
They have to try and solve the ever increasing M8 problems... and over everything see if they can finance this operations without going belly up..... The Icarus theme springs to mind here....
nrb
Nuno Borges
Yes, a word of recognition must be addressed to these proud owners. I agree with you but, nevertheless, I'm not too confident about the success of their toils and perils.J. Borger said:
M
Magnus
Guest
nrb said:
I agree.... you cannot tell me they are happy with the product, although they do their best to cover it up.
Don't forget we're not all dentists, doctors and lawyers and such (sounds like a waylon/willy song doesn't it) which are able to buy an M8 every other day and not even notice the expense.
Go read some posts on LUF and you are made to feel like an idiot for complaining about the M8.
These so called "proud owners" would do us all a bigger favor complaining about the M8 instead of telling us all to wait for the next firmware release... time after time, after time .... Nothing has improved, it just got worse....
But I guess us normal people are not the marketing base of the leica company, they build an non functioning product, market it, and sit back laughing their ****** eyes out, for their "installed" base is trying their best to keep people cool and to accept the situation, and the miraculous thing is that it actually works.... this really surprises me, consumers should not be guinee pigs, ok some minor problems always occur but the rate of total screwups is quite relevant with the M8, one of the most expensive products on the market today.... just make a list in your head, pointing out all the malfunctions of the M8.... then think it will cost you 4500$ ..... phew..... what can you do?
tell everyone to wait for the next firmware update, always use big red filters, don't shoot at night, don't set the camera over 400asa, avoid bright lights, avoid people wearing dark clothes .... I'm sure there will be more to come ....
Last edited by a moderator:
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
>you cannot tell me they are happy with the product, although they do their
>best to cover it up.
>Go read some posts on LUF and you are made to feel like an idiot for
>complaining about the M8.
Heck, you don't have to leave RFf to see where idiots are made. Or trolls accused.
I have ragged the M8 since day one and have more recently called into question Leica's longevity because of the M8 fiasco -- and have caught no end of grief for it right here on RFf.
Maybe I was ahead of my time.
>best to cover it up.
>Go read some posts on LUF and you are made to feel like an idiot for
>complaining about the M8.
Heck, you don't have to leave RFf to see where idiots are made. Or trolls accused.
I have ragged the M8 since day one and have more recently called into question Leica's longevity because of the M8 fiasco -- and have caught no end of grief for it right here on RFf.
Maybe I was ahead of my time.
Last edited:
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
Nachkebia said:You might be right, but M8 has enough lawyer`s already, the one who is in trouble is film
Could not agree more with you!
Sailor Ted
Well-known
rvaubel said:
Rex,
Would a properly designed IR filter (read coated on both sides) have the issues of ghosting and flare (or any negitive side effect) under the conditions we all love to use our RF cameras- dimly lit with lots of point source lighting? If the answer is NO then what is the big deal about useing a filter? If the answer is YES then I will sing a different tune regarding the M8.
Please advise as I've found a brand new chrome M8 I can purchase RIGHT NOW : )
As allways a big WOOF WOOF TO YOU!
Ted
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Ben Z said:
Hmmm here I believe are prime examples of why Leica did not place a thick filter in front of the digital sensor. All shots taken on the other DRF camera, that perfect DRF camera, the Epson R-D1s. Now if the Epson with it's 1.5 crop factor show these kind of problems can you imagine what the Leica images would have looked like under similar circumstances with a thick IR filter in front of its digital sensor with it's 1.3 crop factor? (You know that pesky angle of incidence "thingy-ma-bopper")
Shot one and it's exploded counterpart exhibit color fringing due to the backlit nature and over exposed background. The fact that this is near the edge of the sensor so light is traveling trough the filter at an acute angle cause this type of problem under severe backlit situations.
Shots three and four show what happens when bare lights are visible in a dimly lit environment.
Shot five shows that despite having that big delicious filter right were it should be
you still get a magenta shift on black but with added image softness- great!Now back to my question for Rex- come on boy do filters coated on both sides exhibit flare and ghosting or just a pain in my wallet? The latter I can live with
Attachments
Last edited:
M
Magnus
Guest
"Now back to my question for Rex- come on boy"
how degenerating can one get...
how degenerating can one get...
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Magnus said:
It's meant in good fun however if not taken in that light I apologize whole-heartedly and sincerely. Rex is one of my very favorite contributors here at RFf.
Rex if you take offense I apologize. Please IM me and I'll stop with the WOOF WOOF and dog humor.
Ted
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
AusDLK said:
And rightly so. In civilized society we call that senseless and witless bashing
Sailor Ted
Well-known
jaapv said:
Or TROLLDOM or perhaps TROLL"DUMB."
Now let's see comments on the shots I posted and why Leica should or should not have placed a thick IR filter in front of the digital sensor. How anyone could defend a thick IR filter in front of the digital sensor on a DRF camera boarder on fanaticism or ignorance of the compromises inherent in DRF design IMO.
No quarter should or will be given to such idiotic Leica bashers. If they insist on ridiculing not only Leica, but also Leica's users with half cocked arguments and or abuse they deserve getting slapped in the face with facts as well as their own brand of ****.
Last edited:
Ben Z
Veteran
Sailor Ted said:Hmmm here I believe are prime examples of why Leica did not place a thick filter in front of the digital sensor. All shots taken on the other DRF camera, that perfect DRF camera, the Epson R-D1s.
Shot five shows that despite having that big delicious filter right were it should be
I have never heard anyone refer to the RD-1 or 1s as "that perfect DRF" until you just made it up. The RD-1 came out 2 years ago having been in development at least a year or more before that. It uses an off-the-shelf chip from a Nikon D100 and the firmware was done by a printer manufacturer with little or no experience in digital cameras. The M8 did not start being designed until the RD-1 came out (remember Leica said it was impossible until Epson put egg on their face?) not a custom-made-to-order chip from Kodak and firmware/software from Jenoptik and PhaseOne, all three companies with extensive experience in high-end medium-format digital technology. The RD-1 at its most expensive was only 63% the cost of an M8, and a new RD-1s is now going for a bit over 40%. I just ordered a refurb for $1395, less than I calculated I would have to pay just for filters for an M8. I am not expecting it to be perfect, but human nature being what it is I am prepared to accept more imperfection for $1395 than for $4795
I have also never heard that the RD-1 has a "thick" IR filter. I understand it has microlenses to deal (in an admittedly less effective way than the M8) with vignetting due to the closeness of the rear elements of RF lenses, but otherwise is an off-the-rack D100 Nikon chip. Maybe I'm wrong about that. In any case I have not read anything from anyone who knows his digital sensor theory, that the RD-1 vignetting comes from a "thick" IR filter. In fact I was not aware that the strength of IR supression came from the "thickness" of the filter, but the density or configuration of the coating which is microns thin in any case. Again maybe I'm wrong.
In any case the faults of the RD-1 do not mitigate those of the M8 in my view. If I bought a 2006 Porsche Cayenne and it had major problems it would be irrelevant that a 2004 Hyundai Santa Fe had problems too.
Last edited:
M
Magnus
Guest
Sailor Ted said:
What a stuck-up, arrogant man you are.....
I have no idea how you make your money but I have to work for it. Spending 4500$ on an M8 does not come easy for me. But when I do get it together I have the right, perhaps you don't fully understand the meaning of the word, but I have the RIGHT to complain about the fact that I have bought a 4500$ camera that will not function properly under all given circumstances..... No it gets worse as time goes by, more and more discrepancies keep on popping up instead of less, no improvement seen here at all.
And then if I choose to complain about it I get posts that I should be slapped in the face by someone who calls others "boy" .... go back to your plantation whereever that may be...
As for the dentist, well he'se a dentist, he is excused, just one thing I might want to add.... DUMB is somebody who pays money for an invalid product and disregards that fact at all cost, no, completely blocks it out of his head for how can somebody so clever by a dud-product, this is not possible is it, so let's call all the others DUMB and continue to uplift the qualities of the product until end of days. ......
M
Magnus
Guest
oh and inc ase you question the fact, yes I do own a Leica M8...
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Magnus said:
Perhaps you should stick to the German language forums where the subtle nuance of the English language will not challenge or up set you- my reference to the word "boy" was not a racial slander or a throw back to the days of slavery either here in the US or in Europe. It was a reference to Rex being a common name for a dog here in our country and a word play game I've been playing with Rex where he also makes reference in his posts to his name being like that of a doggie. Think (or not) "here boy, here boy" a common way to call a pooch in the US.
Now address my points and photographic evidence (if you can) regarding what happens when a thick IR cut filter is used on a different DRF to "sort of" correct for IR contamination on black and it's (the very same thick filter in front of the digital sensor) inherent negative side effects on image quality under certain circumstances that cannot be solved with a simple IR cut filter (see my prior post and photos for examples). You only show ignorance of the compromises and decisions Leica had to make to deliver a DRF given the current state of digital sensor technology when you make some of you claims. If you feel cheated or that the camera should have been perfect given what you paid then by all means please take that up with your dealer or Leica or sell your camera on eBay but please stop making these baseless claims regarding how Leica could or should have done things differently. I believe under the circumstances they made the best choices they could in delivering the best possible image quality in a DRF again given the current state of technology.
Certainly if you have the right to continue bashing Leica myself and others have the right to call you on it.
Last edited:
M
Magnus
Guest
"my reference to the word "boy" was not a racial slander or a throw back to the days of slavery either here in the US or in Europe. It was a reference to Rex being a common name for a dog here in our country"
Well that explains that, glad I don't have any rex'es amongst my friend and family.
Taking into account that we don't see eye to eye within the common photographic area, we should shift our mutual interest to other fields of interest.....
Are there any other names that might imply relationships to or with dogs (or worse) be avoided.... my wife is pregnant after all and we do want a civil name for the young chap....
Well that explains that, glad I don't have any rex'es amongst my friend and family.
Taking into account that we don't see eye to eye within the common photographic area, we should shift our mutual interest to other fields of interest.....
Are there any other names that might imply relationships to or with dogs (or worse) be avoided.... my wife is pregnant after all and we do want a civil name for the young chap....
rvaubel
Well-known
Sailor Ted said:
Hey, Sailor Boy
Offense? Are you kidding? On the contrary, I wear by doggy lineage on my chest like a dogtag
REX
The Wonder Doggie
ARF,ARF.......ARF!!!
rvaubel
Well-known
Magnus said:
Ted, Magnus, Ben, Jaav, etc
Living in the political correctness capitol of the world (Berkeley, Ca) and a product of the Free Speech Movement and the Ant-Vietnam War era, hasn't dampened my sense of humor when it comes to joking around about ethnicity. The fact that I am a dog, I must admit, has in the past subjected me to a certain amount of discrimination. In the past, the prohibition of my getting up on the furniture has impedded my career choice. Likewise, the fact that I was forced to eat from a bowl made business lunches more difficult for me.
However, on this Forum I have seen very little overt discrimination because of my species. I would hope that those envolved in this little contraversy could apologize and shake hands like animals,
Rex
...ARF, ARF
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Rex I'm with you- I've been telling people since college "I'm a dog in a man's body!"
WOOF WOOF!
WOOF WOOF!