navilluspm
Well-known
I saw this posted this morning, and thought I would share:
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]12 June 2008, Thursday[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]NEW:[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]How to Use the Nikon D40x AF System.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]NEW:[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]How to Use the Nikon D40 AF System.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Observation: First review of the Leica M8 by an actual photographer. Michael Kamber, a seasoned photojournalist, has been shooting film Leicas for decades in combat. Today he's attached to the Baghdad bureau of the New York Times and has been shooting the Canon 5D and 1Ds for digital. These big cameras stuck out, so he decided to try a Leica digital hoping it would be less intrusive as he wandered the streets on the edges of combat and tried to blend in.[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I'll let you read his thoughts for yourself. All the other "reviews" out there are by hobbyists and collectors, not by people who shoot (and get shot at) for a living. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]As I read his work, the Leica digital is as I expected: a kludge which impresses collectors, but doesn't work for actual photography. Being fascinated by something has nothing to do with using it. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Leica's technical development stopped in the 1950s when rangefinders finally went obsolete. Leica's newest SLR, the $3,600 R9, has the same technology as the 1983 Nikon FA. (Leica still hasn't developed an autofocus SLR.) Collectors still enjoy them, and film rangefinder cameras still have a place in today's journalism since they are smaller and lighter than SLRs. Heck, just the other month you'll see that the National Geographic article on North Dakota was shot on a film Leica (see the "on assignment" section of the magazine at the back.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I shopped for a Leica rangefinder last summer. The film Leica M7, which has auto exposure, could be almost as useful as a used Nikon FE. The FE sells for $100 used, and the M7 sells for just under $4,000 new. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Then I discovered that I could get Japanese copies of the Leica M7, either the ugly Voigtländers for about $700 or the classy Zeiss Ikons for about $1,500. They use the same Leica lens mount, and have superior shutters with 1/125 flash sync. Today's film Leicas are still beyond primitive, with an inferior 1/50 sync speed. Criminy, the Nikon rangefinders of the 1950s had 1/60 sync. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]OK, so figure $1,500 for a Zeiss Ikon body that does almost what an FE does, but without through-the lens viewing. Then I noticed that today's Nikon F6 sold for the same $1,500 (a little more new today, and a little less used). I bought an F6, and it's the most incredibly good 35mm film camera I've ever used. It is the best 35mm film camera ever created, for the same price as a knock-off of a 50-year obsolete camera. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]If I need a small, quiet, inobtrusive and high performance film camera, I prefer the Konica Hexar, which is faster and quieter than any Leica.[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I'm not a journalist. If I was, the Leica film cameras are still useful. Just skip Leica for digital — Leica can't even make a full-frame digital camera.[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]12 June 2008, Thursday[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]NEW:[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]How to Use the Nikon D40x AF System.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]NEW:[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]How to Use the Nikon D40 AF System.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Observation: First review of the Leica M8 by an actual photographer. Michael Kamber, a seasoned photojournalist, has been shooting film Leicas for decades in combat. Today he's attached to the Baghdad bureau of the New York Times and has been shooting the Canon 5D and 1Ds for digital. These big cameras stuck out, so he decided to try a Leica digital hoping it would be less intrusive as he wandered the streets on the edges of combat and tried to blend in.[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I'll let you read his thoughts for yourself. All the other "reviews" out there are by hobbyists and collectors, not by people who shoot (and get shot at) for a living. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]As I read his work, the Leica digital is as I expected: a kludge which impresses collectors, but doesn't work for actual photography. Being fascinated by something has nothing to do with using it. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Leica's technical development stopped in the 1950s when rangefinders finally went obsolete. Leica's newest SLR, the $3,600 R9, has the same technology as the 1983 Nikon FA. (Leica still hasn't developed an autofocus SLR.) Collectors still enjoy them, and film rangefinder cameras still have a place in today's journalism since they are smaller and lighter than SLRs. Heck, just the other month you'll see that the National Geographic article on North Dakota was shot on a film Leica (see the "on assignment" section of the magazine at the back.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I shopped for a Leica rangefinder last summer. The film Leica M7, which has auto exposure, could be almost as useful as a used Nikon FE. The FE sells for $100 used, and the M7 sells for just under $4,000 new. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Then I discovered that I could get Japanese copies of the Leica M7, either the ugly Voigtländers for about $700 or the classy Zeiss Ikons for about $1,500. They use the same Leica lens mount, and have superior shutters with 1/125 flash sync. Today's film Leicas are still beyond primitive, with an inferior 1/50 sync speed. Criminy, the Nikon rangefinders of the 1950s had 1/60 sync. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]OK, so figure $1,500 for a Zeiss Ikon body that does almost what an FE does, but without through-the lens viewing. Then I noticed that today's Nikon F6 sold for the same $1,500 (a little more new today, and a little less used). I bought an F6, and it's the most incredibly good 35mm film camera I've ever used. It is the best 35mm film camera ever created, for the same price as a knock-off of a 50-year obsolete camera. [/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]If I need a small, quiet, inobtrusive and high performance film camera, I prefer the Konica Hexar, which is faster and quieter than any Leica.[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I'm not a journalist. If I was, the Leica film cameras are still useful. Just skip Leica for digital — Leica can't even make a full-frame digital camera.[/FONT]
__hh
Well-known
That's it, I'm getting rid of my Leica RF gear after reading this.... Hopefully, I'll get enough money to upgrade to a Nikon FE.
Ororaro
Well-known
Puh-Leeeze! Don't mention this name in such a forum as this one.
If I was a Mod or the bartender, I'd ban the users that post messages about Ken Rockwell's reviews and thoughts.
If I was a Mod or the bartender, I'd ban the users that post messages about Ken Rockwell's reviews and thoughts.
Anupam
Well-known
What an idiot. Not because everything he says is untrue in this case but because he patently has no idea what he is talking about.
desire
Amateur RFer
Here's some light reading on other pple's opinion on Mr. Rockwell...
http://www.bahneman.com/liem/blog/article.php?story=Ken_Rockwell_Facts
http://www.bahneman.com/liem/blog/article.php?story=Ken_Rockwell_Facts
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
[If I need a small, quiet, inobtrusive and high performance film camera, I prefer the Konica Hexar, which is faster and quieter than any Leica]
Huh! ... I like my Hexar but I'm not delusional about the shutter sound!
I heard a rumour that Frank Granovski and Ken Rockwell have never actually been seen in the same room at the same time ... 'The Man in The Moon?'
Huh! ... I like my Hexar but I'm not delusional about the shutter sound!
I heard a rumour that Frank Granovski and Ken Rockwell have never actually been seen in the same room at the same time ... 'The Man in The Moon?'
Last edited:
mhv
Registered User
Ken Rockwell keenly spoke the truth nobody wanted to hear... by repeating it from another source.
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
Boy am I sick of this type of "critique". As a user of high end Leica and Nikon equipment both have their places, and both are fine tools.
Take these comments form their source... I have read many Kent Rockwell "lens reviews" where he has admittedly never even seen or touched the lens in person. 45mm f2.8P Nikkor is an example. What a joke. To call the M8 a "Kluge" is just plain funny to me, I guess my D300 that kept locking up during a recent race I was covering is a "kluge" as well.
Anyway, the last laugh is on people who listen to this drivel, they miss out on some terrific equipment.
Kent
Take these comments form their source... I have read many Kent Rockwell "lens reviews" where he has admittedly never even seen or touched the lens in person. 45mm f2.8P Nikkor is an example. What a joke. To call the M8 a "Kluge" is just plain funny to me, I guess my D300 that kept locking up during a recent race I was covering is a "kluge" as well.
Anyway, the last laugh is on people who listen to this drivel, they miss out on some terrific equipment.
Kent
louisb
Well-known
I often read Ken Rockwell's site. If you are into Nikon kit his views are interesting and it is worth remembering, entirely offered for free.
I also read the article by the journalist and it is a great read. I would be surprised if the M8 was the best camera for work in a hostile environment. Too slow, too quirky. I would have thought you need to stick with something where you press the button and 50 frames get grabbed all in one go - which is not the M8 or indeed any M camera. If you were trying to do fine art battle shots then maybe.....
It is difficult to make sweeping statements about any camera because there will always be one person out there who has worked out how to exploit the camera for the most unexpected uses. The journalist who wrote this piece clearly was not able to do so but in the hands of someone else, who knows?
As Rockwell hints, I stick with the M8 because of the size and convenience. It is a lot easier to lug a M8 around with me as an everyday tool than a D3 with a 14/-28 lens. Horses for courses.
LouisB
I also read the article by the journalist and it is a great read. I would be surprised if the M8 was the best camera for work in a hostile environment. Too slow, too quirky. I would have thought you need to stick with something where you press the button and 50 frames get grabbed all in one go - which is not the M8 or indeed any M camera. If you were trying to do fine art battle shots then maybe.....
It is difficult to make sweeping statements about any camera because there will always be one person out there who has worked out how to exploit the camera for the most unexpected uses. The journalist who wrote this piece clearly was not able to do so but in the hands of someone else, who knows?
As Rockwell hints, I stick with the M8 because of the size and convenience. It is a lot easier to lug a M8 around with me as an everyday tool than a D3 with a 14/-28 lens. Horses for courses.
LouisB
aizan
Veteran
why do people ask "who is ken rockwell?" when they clearly know who he is.
lemalk
Rebel Without Applause
Ken Rockwell is a clueless hack - he's a lousy writer and a clumsy photographer at best.
Chris Weeks has been taking potshots at him for a while on his Uber page - and, regardless of what you think of Mr. Weeks (I think he's great), he's dead-on when he calls out PDN for aligning themselves with Rockwell.
Ugh - Rockwell...clueless as always. Go shoot some more La Jolla sunsets...
Chris Weeks has been taking potshots at him for a while on his Uber page - and, regardless of what you think of Mr. Weeks (I think he's great), he's dead-on when he calls out PDN for aligning themselves with Rockwell.
Ugh - Rockwell...clueless as always. Go shoot some more La Jolla sunsets...
tmfabian
I met a man once...
what in tarnation kind of half cocked review of the m8 is that. All he does is say it sucks then mentions how great the zeiss and and his hexar are. My guess...leica wouldn't pay him off or advertise on his site, and this is his temper tantrum.
Edit: Would someone also like to tell me what in gods name is up with the whole full frame business being blown out of proportion, aside from the fact that your lens ain't the same FoV as it used to be...All I can say is, not having full frame sure as he!! hasn't stopped me from completing a $20k assignment. Good grief, people really do just love to gripe about pointless crap. It's just a freaking camera, it ain't the freaking thing deciding when to fire off the shutter. All the cry babies out there must really be awful photographers that feel that a leica camera in their hands should automatically take the greatest picture ever made.
Edit: Would someone also like to tell me what in gods name is up with the whole full frame business being blown out of proportion, aside from the fact that your lens ain't the same FoV as it used to be...All I can say is, not having full frame sure as he!! hasn't stopped me from completing a $20k assignment. Good grief, people really do just love to gripe about pointless crap. It's just a freaking camera, it ain't the freaking thing deciding when to fire off the shutter. All the cry babies out there must really be awful photographers that feel that a leica camera in their hands should automatically take the greatest picture ever made.
Last edited:
photogdave
Shops local
It's no secret that his photography is horrific and he says the strangest things about cameras and lenses. However, I've said it before and I'll say it again, he really knows his stuff with regards to Apple computers and viewing photos on monitors. THOSE articles are worth reading. Ignore everything else unless you need a good laugh!
Gid
Well-known
I find Mr Rockwell highly amusing and if you care to wade through the fun (yes, I think he's just having fun) there is some good stuff in there. If you view his opinions regarding Leica objectively then there is a lot of truth there. For example, Olympus OM kit can be picked up very inexpensively, it is relatively small and well built and the glass is very good. For the majority of uses this type of kit would probably be just as good as a Leica and mostly more versatile (substitute just about any maker for OM). Granted you lose the advantages of RF (what are they again? ) but unless you regularly shoot in darkness in a church full of worshippers, I doubt most of us would miss those advantages. This is not meant to be a troll post against Leica - I have owned (and enjoyed owning) a lot of Leica kit - just an observation not constrained by brand loyalty.
) but unless you regularly shoot in darkness in a church full of worshippers, I doubt most of us would miss those advantages. This is not meant to be a troll post against Leica - I have owned (and enjoyed owning) a lot of Leica kit - just an observation not constrained by brand loyalty.
Gid
Well-known
No need to get upset unless you respect his opinions. But he did manage to write some classic lines in that piece.
I found these to be quite funny:
Oh, and this one, especially coming from a Nikon fan:
How long did it take Nikon to come up with that D3?
As for the Zeiss Ikon:
What is really amusing is that all of those statements are true (or near enough true).
infrequent
Well-known
Huh! ... I like my Hexar but I'm not delusional about the shutter sound!
Keith, he is talking about the Hexar AF. The shutter on that puppy is quieter than any Leica M. And that's without the Quiet Mode.
Cheers~
Sunny
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Well that makes him an even bigger idiot than I suspected ... the Hexar AF doesn't have a Leica counterpart. It's a fixed lens auto focus ... what a wanker!
Gid
Well-known
Yup, and I guess you could say that Bin Laden is a freedom fighter. It all depends on your perspective
Or your sense of humour (as far as Rockwell is concerned - I don't find BL amusing in the slightest).
The reality is, that the MP is a 50 year old design as is the M7, except that the M7 has '70's electronics
What Rockwell does is throw these "facts" at you, but out of context. Personally I find him very entertaining and some peoples' reactions almost as entertaining. He is only having fun and you don't have to read his stuff.
Gid
Well-known
Well that makes him an even bigger idiot than I suspected ... the Hexar AF doesn't have a Leica counterpart. It's a fixed lens auto focus ... what a wanker!
He didn't say anything about lens interchangeability -
"If I need a small, quiet, inobtrusive and high performance film camera, I prefer the Konica Hexar, which is faster and quieter than any Leica"
I don't see anything wrong with his statement - there are enough Hexar AF fans on this forum. However, that isn't the point, having a different opinion doesn't warrant labelling anyone a "wanker"
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Well don't get your knickers in a twist Gid ... I was taking the p*ss a little. It's the Aussie way doncha know?
I used to peruse his site regularly back when I first bought my D70s and bought a Nikon 18-200VR lens on his recommendation ... he raved about it and I was gullible.
Actually it's a very good zoom ... I should write and thank him!