tmfabian
I met a man once...
I just figured out what that something special for the m8 is going to be...
THE ABILITY TO DISABLE THE SELF TIMER.
THE ABILITY TO DISABLE THE SELF TIMER.
mn4367
Established
Very simple. I'd like to have an M8, I'd really like to. But I can't afford an M8. And I'm still not convinced that it is worth 4800EUR. At 3000EUR I wouldn't resist, maybe also at 3500EUR. That's why I wait and hope that there will be an alternative that I can afford. What's wrong with that?
Yes, I'm a Non-Customer. Ignoring potential customers (like me) isn't always clever. Many companies stumbled upon that.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Tom, it still costs a lot more to produce a FF sensor due to limitations in chip manufacture (die size) that cannot be overcome so easily. I do agree though that FF will become more mainstream. Me personally, I have put buying a new Nikon dSLR on hold until they come with a prosumer camera with an FF sensor (like the Canon 5D).
I still think it makes sense to go for a Sigma DP1 class camera, with an APS-C or 4/3 sensor. Leica and Panasonic could build a product line around it, lower end Panasonics with fixed (zoom) lenses and AF, and higher end Leicas with interchangable lenses and an optical RF. But the question is, which mount? Would 4/3 work? Probably yes, but M compatibility would be almost essential in a camera in this class. The engineers can work that out. I'm still convinced that an interchangable lens compact would be a reincarnation of the first Leicas and that they would sell by the millions.
tmfabian
I met a man once...
Indeed emra,
In fact this is the only negative thing I can find about the M8, regardless of all the nonsense people are moaning about here, and I fixed that with a little bit of hot glue to make a bubble preventing the switch from going past the C mode.
Oh, and to all you students out there that want an M8 but don't want to shell out the USD$5k they do have a student assistance program...for students and teachers alike....takes off 25%.
John Robertson
Well-known
Is the Leica S1 still made, or what was its final fate?
yanidel
Well-known
Your comparison is a bit like Rolls Royce vs Ferrari.
Your final choice won't come to the fact that Ferrari uses the latest and most high tech engine.
Sigh ... wish I had this kind of worries.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Hmm.. I think we all "would like" to see a better sensor in the M8 but to expect the performance of the D3 to be placed into the M8.. that's a bit much.
Once the digital realm came into being it seems that those quick to embrace it (myself included) chased after the "low noise / high ISO" prize. As time has gone on, we've seen incredible high ISO images with extremely or almost non-existent noise.
We've gotten to the point now where the D3 produces some incredible ISO 6400 images that, while there is noise present, are no where near the amount of grain you'd find by shooting film at that speed.
Heck, even though Fuji's NPZ (ISO800) was pretty usable it still had grain a lot larger than the ISO 6400 images out of the D3.
But..
is this such a good thing?
Or is this just the way we are now supposed to think because we've let the digital genie out of the proverbial bottle?
Dave
Once the digital realm came into being it seems that those quick to embrace it (myself included) chased after the "low noise / high ISO" prize. As time has gone on, we've seen incredible high ISO images with extremely or almost non-existent noise.
We've gotten to the point now where the D3 produces some incredible ISO 6400 images that, while there is noise present, are no where near the amount of grain you'd find by shooting film at that speed.
Heck, even though Fuji's NPZ (ISO800) was pretty usable it still had grain a lot larger than the ISO 6400 images out of the D3.
But..
is this such a good thing?
Or is this just the way we are now supposed to think because we've let the digital genie out of the proverbial bottle?
Dave
tomasis
Well-known
for leicasniper, Large format is smaller than p&s cameras for sure.
V
varjag
Guest
May I remind you folks that "industry standard D3 type sensor" exists only on, uh, D3? Canon still haven't quite matched that, and their R&D budget exceeds GDP of several African countries combined.
Expecting anything like that from Leica is unrealistic. Eventually its sensor will improve, but it is very unlikely it'll ever be on the bleeding edge of electronics. If you wait until it matches or trumps the spec of latest from the big two, you are waiting forever.
Expecting anything like that from Leica is unrealistic. Eventually its sensor will improve, but it is very unlikely it'll ever be on the bleeding edge of electronics. If you wait until it matches or trumps the spec of latest from the big two, you are waiting forever.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Discontinued. You could still get spare parts some time ago; you'd have to inquire at Leica whether you still can.
It would be utterly pointless to make a 25 megapixel scanning back nowadays.
Philipp
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Where do these figures for 'the already depressed sales of the M8' come from?
And does anyone give a stuff about the opinions of the nay-sayers, most of whom have never handled an M8, couldn't afford one, and buy only second-hand cameras 'because new ones aren't worth the money'?
Most people who own an M8 are very happy with it. A few aren't. Maybe they've been unlucky; maybe they have unrealistic expectations; maybe it's just not the camera for them.
No, it's not perfect. But if you want a digital RF camera, it's the only game in town (unless you want a used RD-1, a very nice machine but hardly in the same class with its short-base rangefinder). So if you want one, and can afford it, buy one. If you don't want one or can't afford it, why should anyone care about your opinion?
Cheers,
Roger
And does anyone give a stuff about the opinions of the nay-sayers, most of whom have never handled an M8, couldn't afford one, and buy only second-hand cameras 'because new ones aren't worth the money'?
Most people who own an M8 are very happy with it. A few aren't. Maybe they've been unlucky; maybe they have unrealistic expectations; maybe it's just not the camera for them.
No, it's not perfect. But if you want a digital RF camera, it's the only game in town (unless you want a used RD-1, a very nice machine but hardly in the same class with its short-base rangefinder). So if you want one, and can afford it, buy one. If you don't want one or can't afford it, why should anyone care about your opinion?
Cheers,
Roger
tomasis
Well-known
ahhh we hope customers who want buy D3, have strong bear like body 
10x8" sheets let me salivate down me.
10x8" sheets let me salivate down me.Highway 61
Revisited
kevin m
Veteran
Because we're potential customers, Roger, who, unlike a magazine writer, pay for gear with our own money.
Since you're repeating yourself, I'll do the same: I wanted to put a pair of M8's in my bag to replace the pair of TTL's I was using, but cost aside, I simply couldn't do it: The M8 isn't the reliable tool the film M's are.
FWIW, I used to know of several wedding shooters who had film M's as their only cameras; I know of NONE who do the same with the M8. That, in a nutshell, is the problem with the M8.
Last edited:
veraikon
xpanner
Herr Kaufmann said in an interview (I posted it here before) they are building about 1000 M8 ans 500 Film-Ms (M7+MP) per month. Presuming it is the number you can market.
M8 started Oct. 06 - May 08= 20 000 M8s.
14 000 may be the number sold at End of 2007
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
I would have to say, so far in my "ownership" of the M8, that I would agree with Kevin in that statement.
For my own "stuff".. no worries.. just not a reliable enough tool for me yet (plus I would definitely have to become accustomed to shooting an M a certain way) to use for weddings 100% of the time.
I know it's worked for Riccis but that aside... I personally would have difficulty using it if I was being paid to shoot with it.
Dave
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Kevin,
If you don't want it, you're never going to be a potential customer.
If you can't afford it, but would like something cheaper and different, consider the possibility that the product you want cannot be made at the price you want to pay. I'd like a Hesketh motorcycle. I can't afford £14,000 (call it $27,000).
At this point I do not suggest that Hesketh move production to China; I make the (not unreasonable) assumption that Mick Broom at Hesketh knows more about his business than I do.
Believe it or not, I pay for things with my own money too. I won't deny that I can sometimes get a handsome discount, and that sometimes, I get given stuff.
Yes, of course this distorts one's perception. Does it distort it as much as the perception of someone who can't/won't afford it? Hard to say. At least I've tried it.
Cheers,
Roger
arturo
Member
I think I may be beaten up for what I'm about to write, but here are my gut feelings about a Nikon digital rangefinder:
The rumours on a digital Nikon RF keep coming because Nikon has all the ingredients needed to produce such a camera. They have the know-how to produce classic RF cameras (from the reissued S3 and SP) and to produce digital cameras (from the DSRL line). And certainly they can make a line of lenses to back it. Now they recovered the edge they lost to Canon few years ago. They just need the will and the market demand.
I have the gut feeling that if Nikon went into a digital RF this time it would be for real, not a nostalgic or irrational exercise like the reissued S3 and SP cameras, but a product for the mass market. I mean something much bigger than the RF camera market. Such a product would have to compare in terms of image quality delivered with a top-of-the-line DSLR, and in terms of size, handling and photographic experience with a rangefinder camera. But a rangefinder camera would only hit the mass market, or even the professional market, if the concept of rangefinder camera is fundamentally reinvented. It must accept zoom lenses. It must have AF. It must have a decent flash system. And of course some other features that you can already find in RF cameras, like integrated exposure meter (ideally TTL).
A camera with the features rumoured previously in this thread makes perfect sense to me. It is actually a kind of genuine post-film camera design, overcoming the shortcomings of both reflex designs (mirror, internal moving parts, etc) as well as rangefinder designs (parallax, viewfinder not adequate for zooms, etc.). It is not a film camera with a sensor in the back, but something truly new. And if it can take existing lenses, it makes even more sense.
I believe Nikon has the technology and the corporate culture to manufacture such a camera, if cost was not an issue. If they want a camera that is not limited to a niche market (in the way the M8, IMHO, is) then Nikon probably must wait until they can sell it at a price consumers are ready to pay. Say something above the D3 price but not much more, and not too far from the M8 price either. If the most expensive single component is the sensor, probably Nikon would wait until the sensor price drops enough to make it feasible. Rather waiting until the electronic components get cheaper than sacrifying build quality (beyond certain limits). This is my guess. And my hope. I salivate only to think about it.
Arturo
The rumours on a digital Nikon RF keep coming because Nikon has all the ingredients needed to produce such a camera. They have the know-how to produce classic RF cameras (from the reissued S3 and SP) and to produce digital cameras (from the DSRL line). And certainly they can make a line of lenses to back it. Now they recovered the edge they lost to Canon few years ago. They just need the will and the market demand.
I have the gut feeling that if Nikon went into a digital RF this time it would be for real, not a nostalgic or irrational exercise like the reissued S3 and SP cameras, but a product for the mass market. I mean something much bigger than the RF camera market. Such a product would have to compare in terms of image quality delivered with a top-of-the-line DSLR, and in terms of size, handling and photographic experience with a rangefinder camera. But a rangefinder camera would only hit the mass market, or even the professional market, if the concept of rangefinder camera is fundamentally reinvented. It must accept zoom lenses. It must have AF. It must have a decent flash system. And of course some other features that you can already find in RF cameras, like integrated exposure meter (ideally TTL).
A camera with the features rumoured previously in this thread makes perfect sense to me. It is actually a kind of genuine post-film camera design, overcoming the shortcomings of both reflex designs (mirror, internal moving parts, etc) as well as rangefinder designs (parallax, viewfinder not adequate for zooms, etc.). It is not a film camera with a sensor in the back, but something truly new. And if it can take existing lenses, it makes even more sense.
I believe Nikon has the technology and the corporate culture to manufacture such a camera, if cost was not an issue. If they want a camera that is not limited to a niche market (in the way the M8, IMHO, is) then Nikon probably must wait until they can sell it at a price consumers are ready to pay. Say something above the D3 price but not much more, and not too far from the M8 price either. If the most expensive single component is the sensor, probably Nikon would wait until the sensor price drops enough to make it feasible. Rather waiting until the electronic components get cheaper than sacrifying build quality (beyond certain limits). This is my guess. And my hope. I salivate only to think about it.
Arturo
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Arturo,
A very fair analysis, but there are a few nits I'd like to pick.
First, how much does this differ from a high-end digital compact? The only differences I can readily imagine are first, a half-decent viewfinder instead of a chimp window and second, interchangeable lenses with reasonable speed.
Second, there's still the problem of the body thickness. Use an SLR sensor and you're looking at about 50mm/2 inch body thickness in front of the sensor. A thin body assumes a smaller sensor (= lower quality) or a microlens array (= M8).
Third, Nikon's non-SLR autofocus is still lamentably slow. Presumably this can be fixed.
Fourth, how big is the market?
Yes, Nikon could make an interchangeable-lens camera of the type you describe, and it might well appeal to a mass market; but I don't think that I (or any other M8 owner) would swap it for an M8/M9.
Cheers,
Roger
A very fair analysis, but there are a few nits I'd like to pick.
First, how much does this differ from a high-end digital compact? The only differences I can readily imagine are first, a half-decent viewfinder instead of a chimp window and second, interchangeable lenses with reasonable speed.
Second, there's still the problem of the body thickness. Use an SLR sensor and you're looking at about 50mm/2 inch body thickness in front of the sensor. A thin body assumes a smaller sensor (= lower quality) or a microlens array (= M8).
Third, Nikon's non-SLR autofocus is still lamentably slow. Presumably this can be fixed.
Fourth, how big is the market?
Yes, Nikon could make an interchangeable-lens camera of the type you describe, and it might well appeal to a mass market; but I don't think that I (or any other M8 owner) would swap it for an M8/M9.
Cheers,
Roger
kevin m
Veteran
What kind of screwball, circular logic is this? (Or are you channeling Buckaroo Banzai? - "No matter where you go, there you are." )
I had a kit bag full of M gear: Two TTL bodies, an M2, thousands of dollars in Leica lenses, including the 35 Asph. Summilux, 24 Elmarit, 50 Summilux, 90 Summicron, etc., and I was using it to make money. I wanted to simply replace my M film bodies with M8's and keep going; I had the money in hand, ready to spend, but the M8, sadly, isn't a replacement for those film bodies.
If you, and Leica, think that marketing the M8 as a luxury doo-dad for those with "refined tastes" is the way to go, then good luck with that. But the fact that there are virtually NO professional wedding shooters using the M8 as their main camera, where there used to be many using the film bodies, should be a wake up call. Jeff Ascough shoots with a Canon DSLR now, for goodness sake!
I had the money to spend for a camera I could use to make a living; I won't spend the same amount for a pricey toy that requires special handling.
Last edited: