Foveon sensor & IR sensitivity

[Olsen]

It's all good- I was not implying that M8 shooters or modern day RF shooters in general to be little more then P&S photographers. I was merely saying that we tend to over emphasize our kit and don't pay as much attention to our craft as a lot of DSLR photogs I know and shoot with; for them gear is secondary by contrast. It seems to me that many RF photogs and especially those that must pay the princely sum of 5K tend to pixel peep and bemoan anything less then perfect. The M8, like all other cameras, is less then perfect. They then make sweep pronouncements (kind of like I am doing here: ) regarding the M8 and it's lack of perfection and therefore it's unworthiness to bear the Leica name all the while ignoring it's considerable strong suites- namely the most film like prints currently in the digital world with out having to lug a medium format camera, hard drive and digital back around. And back to my original premise, I suspect this is due to some people’s love of kit over photography and a belief that boarders on religious zeal expecting a Leica DRF to some how transform their typically lack luster photographs into something spectacular instead of learning to work with the tool at hand (with it's inherent strengths and weaknesses) to the best if it’s and their ability.

That’s my take,
Ted

You suspect people of 'love of kit above photography' and that some see the M8's lack of perfection. Isn't it the other way around? Isn't it the gear-nutted brand loyalty from half a generation of photographers - to their most admired toy; Leica, that important design flaws of M8 now are bagatellized and that a unbiased 'test' of this camera is nowhere to be found on the Net?

They are not 'gear nuts' those who rather decide to buy a Canon 5D or even a G7 - to the fraction of the cost of a M8 just because they take better pictures. But those buying a M8, what are they?

 

[rxmd]

And as far as I know the only mount they can get.

As far as I know, the Pentax K mount is still not patented. A *istD or K10D with Leica lenses would have been awesome.

However, I think Panasonic was in the 4/3 boat already.

Philipp

 

[HAnkg]

Exactly. If you wanted to make a P&S that took pictures as well as an M8, you could right now. Only how much will people pay for a P&S.

Yes if you can charge as much as a Canon 1Ds MKII or a Leica M8 you can make a camera that can make images like a Canon 1Ds MKII or a Leica M8. Although you will not be able to stuff it into a P&S sized package. If you can charge $3000. dollars for a lens you can make a lens as good or better then a Leica. So?

One day your camera phone will be able to make images equal to a $30,000 digital back and you will be able to fly to the moon. That may be true but it doesn't have any impact on my equipment choices today. Today, the Leica D series or the Canon G7 make nice images but they don't cut it in terms of final image quality when compared to Canon/Nikon DSLR's or the Leica M8. There is no way I would stake my business on a P&S or current 4/3 cameras. Nothing to do with brand snobbery its just $ for me.

Even the marketing departments of these camera manufacturers who are not shy about hyping their wares and making ridiculous claims are not making the claims you are making about their products.

 

[HAnkg]

I would add one more point -can you imagine anyone shelling out the price of a Canon 1Ds MKII for a camera that had a fixed super zoom and that required you to use the live preview LCD screen to frame your shots. Even if the image quality matched the 1Ds they would get laughed out of the market.

 

[RML]

I'll take Carl Zeiss lenses on those digital cameras any day over Leica lenses. They're cheaper and definitely not inferior to Leica lenses.

 

[nikola]

HCB would use P&S. 😀

Just use your little finger. 🙂

 

[Sailor Ted]

Not so sure about Zeiss glass being the equal of Leica- very good but different in a subjective way. HCB cared not for DOF?

T

 

[Nick R.]

I would add one more point -can you imagine anyone shelling out the price of a Canon 1Ds MKII for a camera that had a fixed super zoom and that required you to use the live preview LCD screen to frame your shots. Even if the image quality matched the 1Ds they would get laughed out of the market.

I think that's what I said when I said "but who would pay for it?"

Anyway, my original point was and still is:
"The only reason for building a digital rf is to use M lenses"

M=anything that uses an M mount including VC, Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, ltm w. adaptor.

 

[HAnkg]

M=anything that uses an M mount including VC, Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, ltm w. adaptor.

You could exchange the word Range Finder for M (as the M is now the universal and only RF mount). The one thing all those lenses have in common is that they are RF lenses. Some are better quality then some SLR lenses some are not. The thing that sets all of them apart from SLR lenses is not quality (you can find quality SLR lenses from Leica, Zeiss, Canon, etc.,) it's the RF viewfinder and compact size of RF cameras and lenses. For some the key attraction is the size -in which case a compact non-RF camera would be just as or maybe more attractive. For quite a few though it's the RF viewfinder focusing and manual controls combined with the small size, for those users DSLR's and P&S type systems are not attractive alternatives. You could also add a third group, those who like the look of older classic RF lenses -for this group the RF system and M mount is also mandatory.

 

[Sailor Ted]

HAnkg,
Very well said and spot on- count me in groups 2 and 3 thank you very much.