nrb
Nuno Borges
Surely any decision to buy should be based on the merits, if any, of this new camera and its corresponding value for money.
Will said:Jaapv,
You don't have to defend your choice, the only person you need to justify the purchase is yourself.
Will
nrb said:Surely film is much more fun than digital,.
jaapv said:I showed this post to my wife. She didn't agree....![]()
jaapv said:General disclaimer:This post is based on a generalisation and was not written with any specific member, real or imagined, in mind.
It seems to me that there is an increasing number of posts rationalising decisions made with any argument imaginable, spurious or not. In addition it seems other members are challenged to justify choices they made. Unfortunately I bait easily, so I decided to defend my choice for the M8 -once-
*start of r(f)ant*
When Leica first announced their intention to build a digital M I swung between:"Why?, the M is perfect as it is"and "I want it now!". So I decided to analyse my photographic hobby.
I have been taking photo's for 53 years now. Starting with a 6x9 box camera,I progressed through a succession of Agfa Click's and Clack's to my fathers Agfa Silette. The first real camera I bought was an Exacta SLR, followed by an Olympus OM1 set. Then I bought a used M3 and since then I was never without a rangefinder: M4,M6,M6TTL despite occasional digressions to midformat photography.I even shot a Safari using a Mamiya 645 and 500 mm & 1.4xconv. Beside that I shot SLR's, Leica R3,R4,R5,R7, mainly for wildlife.
Then digital arrived and I traded my Leica R system for a Canon 10D and was very happy with the result until a local camera shopowner (he knew what he was doing 😉) gave me a Digilux2 "to try out". The Canon is relegated to photography needed for my work and occasional wildlife and I only use the Digilux2 and M6TTL.
So I found four things:
1.It seems that my whole photographic progression has been a quest for excellence (at any rate of equipment).
2.I seem to be irrevocably wedded to the Leica M system for over 30 years.
3.I found I was delighted to regain my freedom to "darkroom" my colour photography again when digital arrived, and I digital gave me back my inspiration, but I hate scanning. So I will have to go digital for 90%.
4. For me current digital quality is as good or better than film
This can only lead to the conclusion that the M8 is just right for me.
Now the main purpose of this post is to explain that it is utterly useless to try and tell me that I should not buy the M8 because
a. It will be worth only 10$ one week after I purchase it.
b. Leica will introduce a "full frame" M9 within three months and if not Leica it will be Suzuki.
c. Digital is horrible and will never replace the Daguerrotype.
d. The 250 MP 12000 ISO sensor is just around the corner.
e. This camera is overpriced by 900%.
as all these considerations are as irrelevant to me as my reasons are irrelevant to anybody else.
*end of r(f)ant*
And I wish everybody happy shooting with the camera of his/her choice! 🙂 🙂
New Suzuki Swift I fear....But she has really used up the Alto she has now. Like I did my M6TTL 😀Will said:Did you budget-in a diamond necklace with your M8 purchase?
Will
jaapv said:New Suzuki Swift I fear....But she has really used up the Alto she has now. Like I did my M6TTL 😀
JohanV said:I just found a Belgian website where it's advertised at €3.900. No pics yet, but they are taking orders
http://www.fotorembrandt.be/content/4513/site/?id=3756
sorry, it's in Dutch...
mac_wt said:That would be 3900 Euro including VAT!?! That is a lot better than I expected. It's only 400 Euro more than the analog leicas! Not that I have this kind of cash in my pocket, but the outlook on buying one someday has much improved.
Wim
Not really. She needs it anyway... 🙂Will said:you win some, you lose some...
but that's getting out of proportion...
dexdog said:Sometimes bigger is better. I can't imagine anyone arguing in favor of a camera that used APS-sized film. I would much rather spend 3K on a Canon 5D than 5K on a Leica digital.
Perhaps a forum dedicated to rangefinders mostly dedicated to a format with no practical use, is...what then?petermcwerner said:full frame is 8x10 negs, 4x5 is half frame and 35mm is plain nothing, good for so called "spy cameras" that end up in museums and have no practical use. Let us wait for the 8x10 digital cameras to come.
petermcwerner said:I am all for full frame: 8"x10" negs that is. Leica's first mistake was to introduce that 35mm film; they should have stuck to glass plates and sheet film. Real photographers use real cameras: full frame is 8x10 negs, 4x5 is half frame and 35mm is plain nothing, good for so called "spy cameras" that end up in museums and have no practical use. Let us wait for the 8x10 digital cameras to come.