Classic VS Disposable

[matt fury]

This whole obsolesence arguement is bs IMO. If the camera takes good pictures in 2006, the pictures it takes in 2010 will be just as good.

 

[KoNickon]

Assuming the electronics don't fail before then.

 

[rxmd]

This whole obsolesence arguement is bs IMO. If the camera takes good pictures in 2006, the pictures it takes in 2010 will be just as good.

That's because you define obsolescence as "things becoming worse", when really it is about "things becoming worse in comparison because of other things raising standards and expectations". If you were talking film cameras, would "If the camera takes good pictures in 1925 the pictures it takes in 2005 will be just as good" really be an argument against obsolescence? Looking around I see a lot more EOSes and compacts than Voigtländer Bessa II folders, even though you can take fine pictures with the latter.

Philipp

 

[KM-25]

I happily shot film for 35 years. 10 megapixels plus Leica glass is already better than film

As a guy who shoots both for a full time living, I find that to be entirely subjective.

I take off tonight for a magazine assignment that will become part of my long term tribute to Kodachrome. The images I have gotten already from my Leica on it simply breathe a different life than any digital ever will.

Absolutely no contest whatsoever.

 

[jaapv]

As a guy who shoots both for a full time living, I find that to be entirely subjective.

I take off tonight for a magazine assignment that will become part of my long term tribute to Kodachrome. The images I have gotten already from my Leica on it simply breathe a different life than any digital ever will.

Absolutely no contest whatsoever.

Which is simply saying that film and digital are different and one not worse than the other and Kodachrome is something else again. Which magazine? I would be interested to see it 🙂
Your website is pretty impressive as well....

 

[AndyPiper]

KM25: You caught me out making the same mistake I always warn others against - in this day and age one must, of course, specify WHICH film and WHICH digital!

So to be more specific - I find 10+ Mpixel images capture more detail with better color accuracy than any 35mm film of equivalent ISO from which I can acquire a finished image within 3-4 hours of shooting. "More detail" meaning not just resolution but also retrievable shadow and highlight detail.

I've spent the past 30 months searching hard for any film(s) that can change that. No luck so far.

 

[glasgowdave]

Andy, thanks for your gracious comments. I'm presently waiting for my business gateway grant to appear and when it does I am giving serious consideration to an M6TTL or used MP/M7 rather than increasing my D200 lens collection. I enjoy wide angle work more and I think I see more along these lines; I wonder if you might point me toward the best lens as an initial Leica purchase? I'm thinking 35mm or possibly shorter. Also, in terms of the finder variations, I think 0.72 is probably the most versatile...although I've read that 0.58 might in some cases be better for wide angle.

Rgds
Dave

 

[sreidvt]

Glasgowdave,

Before you draw too many conclusions about what Leica's digital rangefinder will and will not be, how long it will last, etc. I'd suggest you work with one later this year. It's tough to draw conclusions about a camera that one has never seen, held, worked with, etc.

BTW, I do indeed use digital rangefinder cameras for weddings: two RF bodies and a 5D.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[jaapv]

That is a kind of a blanket question, Dave, as the possibilities are well, not endless, but numerous. Are you thinking of a new lens or a second hand one? Must it be Leica or would you consider another brand? What quality range? Do you like the slam-bam exactness of modern ASPH lenses or the more dreamy-flary type of older designs?And not unimportantly: what price-range?
As for the magnification, it depends on what you like, My old eyes find 0.72 fine, but for some .58 is better.

Andy, thanks for your gracious comments. I'm presently waiting for my business gateway grant to appear and when it does I am giving serious consideration to an M6TTL or used MP/M7 rather than increasing my D200 lens collection. I enjoy wide angle work more and I think I see more along these lines; I wonder if you might point me toward the best lens as an initial Leica purchase? I'm thinking 35mm or possibly shorter. Also, in terms of the finder variations, I think 0.72 is probably the most versatile...although I've read that 0.58 might in some cases be better for wide angle.

 

[Ben Z]

If a camera being "obsolete" is defined as it not being able to produce image quality on the same level as other cameras, then every 35mm camera on earth is and was obsolete in the face of medium format. And likewise medium format is obsolete due to large format. Certainly then all of the sub-24x36 DSLRs including those Canon haven't yet produced but will, are obsolete compared to the 5D. Which itself was obsolete the day it came out, compared to the 1DS-II.

For me, as long as the M8 (or any other 35mm-body-based digital) can produce image quality equal to what I can get from the same type of body using 35mm film, then I won't classify it as obsolete.

And given a $5000 camera that saves me roughly $1200/yr on film and processing, any time after about 4 years should it become un-repairable, I stand to lose nothing. True, someone who keeps it in a closet and shoots it rarely has an economic worry in that regard.

 

[glasgowdave]

I think the new, sharper route is probably best for me - I'm not too fussed about new or used as long as it's from a reputable supplier. Does this help firm up my recommendation base? I'd probably go as far as £550-600.

 

[rxmd]

If a camera being "obsolete" is defined as it not being able to produce image quality on the same level as other cameras, then every 35mm camera on earth is and was obsolete in the face of medium format.

Is anyone defining obsolescence this way?

Philipp

 

[glasgowdave]

I meant obsolete in comparison to other digital compacts at a twentieth of the price...albeit with significantly lower image quality even at 10mp...not in comparison to other formats.

 

[jaapv]

That would put the VoigtländerUltron 1.7 35 asph with M adapter firmly on your list. Have a look on the Cameraquest website, button on this site.

I think the new, sharper route is probably best for me - I'm not too fussed about new or used as long as it's from a reputable supplier. Does this help firm up my recommendation base? I'd probably go as far as £550-600.

One more thought: the .72 models are more common than the .58 ones, therefore it is easier to find a good and reasonably priced example. Have a look at the ffordes website as well. Not cheap, but highly reliable and value for money.

 

[Ben Z]

Is anyone defining obsolescence this way?

Philipp

Reading his original question/rant,

If you spend 5 grand on a camera, it either better be right at the top of the heap in every sense of the digital meaning,

I thought he was . But now he says

I meant obsolete in comparison to other digital compacts at a twentieth of the price...albeit with significantly lower image quality even at 10mp.

so now I'm totally confused. How will the M8 be obsolete if that which purports to obsolete it has significantly lower image quality?


Still, what I said stands: unless someone buys the M8 for a shelf piece and only shoots it occasionally, the savings in film and processing will pay for the camera by the time the next version comes out, given Leica's pace.

One could always have compared a Leica rangefinder to the Japanese SLR-de-jour and made a good case for the Leica being an overpriced obsolete antique, that's nothing new with the M8. If a DSLR or a pocket digital suits your photographic needs better than a digital M-series rangefinder then the answer is simple: buy what suits you. Ranting against the M8 and putting down the people who want or will buy one is totally unnecessary.

 

[glasgowdave]

I meant that the M8 is likely to have superior image quality in comparison to other 10mp compacts. I think overall there's something about the matching of TFT monitor and the other requirements of full digital that just clashes with my idea of handbuilt, meticulously skilled optical engineering. Like I said, to me it's a bit like a Rolls Royce with a cheap, tinny tape player in it.

 

[jaapv]

I meant that the M8 is likely to have superior image quality in comparison to other 10mp compacts. I think overall there's something about the matching of TFT monitor and the other requirements of full digital that just clashes with my idea of handbuilt, meticulously skilled optical engineering. Like I said, to me it's a bit like a Rolls Royce with a cheap, tinny tape player in it.

Unfortunately, Dave, there is but one "compact" as you call it that one can compare it to. That is the Epson RD1. Based on a camera that is on a level below the Leica M, with an older generation APS sensor of 6Mp, with vignetting , with manual framelines and a limited range of framelines at that, quality-control and service issues, it still costs 3000 Euro. And that one is a very good camera and has an enthusiatic group of users. It seems to make the Leica M8 positively good value for money. No other camera's compare. The only genuine compact that seems to approach the M8 is the Digilux2, but that is a real compact with a fixed lens and a far smaller sensor, also at least one generation back, at a proud 1500 Euro in its time. Add to that that it will be by no means the most expensive camera in its quality class, even if we have to compare it unjustly to DSLR's, it will be a rarity: A Leica that is not overpriced! 😉
Believe me, if there was a competetive alternative by Zeiss or CV I would certainly consider those, but it seems those are, if they ever appear at all, not even close to the stage of rumours. No it is not a case of being partisan, it is a case of no alternatives.

Btw my Jaguar sports a number of LCD screens in its interior, in full colour as well, and I cannot say that is a bad thing 😛

 

[AndyPiper]

Like I said, to me it's a bit like a Rolls Royce with a cheap, tinny tape player in it.

Understood.

For me, compared to 10 Mpixel digital (based on using the Leica SLR back and my Sony R1), shooting film with my M4-P is like driving a Rolls Royce with 2 quarts of sand in the lubricating oil.

And I still don't get the comparison to "compact" digital cameras. The M8 has a larger sensor than 95% (maybe 99%?) of digital cameras sold - exceeded only by the Canon 1D cameras and the MF backs. Nine times the surface area of the sensor in the Digilux 2 (and the D2 has a large sensor - "2/3rds" - compared to most non-SLR digicams).

Which means it will be able to shoot at ISOs above 1000 with less grain/noise than most compacts get at ISO 200 (sensitivity and noise being related to surface area and the amount of enlargement required, rather like film).

It will mount f/1.4 and f/2.0 lenses (and even the f/1.0 Noctilux!) whereas compact digicams usually max out at f/3.5-5.6 at the long end of their fixed zoom lenses.

If one MUST make comparisons outside the rangefinder realm - the M8 is not a Nikon Coolpix with better build quality.

It is a Canon 1D with 1/3rd the weight and bulk, with 'analog' shutter and aperture controls rather than thumb-wheel thingies, and with much more definite, binary "snap the two images together" manual focusing.

...and, of course, that Leica/Rolls build quality.

Just out of curiosity - which compact digital cameras do you have in mind that you are comparing to the M8?

 

[rxmd]

If one MUST make comparisons outside the rangefinder realm - the M8 is not a Nikon Coolpix with better build quality.

It is a Canon 1D with 1/3rd the weight and bulk, with 'analog' shutter and aperture controls rather than thumb-wheel thingies, and with much more definite, binary "snap the two images together" manual focusing.

Or it's a Nikon D200 with 20% grams less weight and maybe a third less bulk (depending on metric), with the ability to use an extensive range of lenses that span a roughly comparable number of years, excluding, of course, zoom lenses, specialty lenses such as macro or perspective control lenses and of course everything above 90mm (as Leica sees it), without autofocus, with much less sophisticated metering and flash options, with controls where we don't know yet at all how well they're suited to the different technical requirements of a digital camera (if it indeed looks like Jorge's pictures, there will be a lot of menu fiddling) and at close to three times the price.

This kind of comparison usually doesn't work, and if it does, it works both ways. Leica doesn't want to build a camera that holds its own in comparison (because then they have to keep track with all the developments in the DSLR world). They want to build a camera that can't be compared to DSLRs at all, that represents a class in itself.

Philipp

 

[AndyPiper]

Well, as we both said - rangefinders are their own realm,

BUT:

Canon 1D - 1.3x crop; Leica M8 - 1.33x crop;......D200 - 1.52x crop

Canon 1D - split-image focus available (optional Canon screen); Leica M8 - split-image focus built-in;....D200 - no split-image focusing from Nikon (3rd party screens available?)

Canon 1D - meters fully with EOS lenses, won't mount pre-EOS Canon lenses; Leica M8 - meters fully with Leica lenses back to 1932;...D200 - meters fully with AF lenses, meters with MF AI lenses back to 1976 _IF_ one stops to enter the focal length and max. aperture manually every time one changes lenses.

Canon 1D - SD cards optional; Leica M8 - SD cards only; ....Nikon D200; CF (cr*p-flash) cards only (talk about 'obsolete' technology!)

If the D200 were the only digital option available - I'd stick with film. If the M8 were not available, I'd have to go with a 1D eventually (and spend the extra $1000 on chiropractor treatments).

But to be fair - if a hypothetical D300 takes SD cards (a la the D80) - THEN we'd be talking. In fact I'm gonna look real hard at the D80 as my long-glass camera (once the M8 is paid for) - with a 180 f/2.8 and a 300 f/4 it would be a GREAT space-holder for a more compact Leica R10 (and perhaps even beyond).