M8 Future

[kevin m]

On the other hand, why introduce facts into a perfectly good argument? Can you really argue with people who appear to think that Rolls Royce ought to make Chevrolets?

For the sake of argument it should be noted that Rolls Royce used to sell their products on the basis of their superiority in performance. In the case of RR, the quietness and smooth ride. But RR themselves admitted that by the early 1970's even a common Ford Galaxie was quieter than their car. Their recent cars are quite homely, actually, ( http://www.rolls-roycemotorcars.com/ ) and are by and large just a very expensive cudgel to demonstrate the owner's wealth to the lesser slobs stuck in traffic with them. 😉

 

[johnastovall]

Leica needs a digital CL to provide a price point below the M8.

 

[codeandtheory]

I wish the camera was a little quieter? The beauty of all the M cameras was how quiet they were. Do you think on future digital M's they will work on reducing the noise of the motor or have a manual shutter like the RD1?

 

[emraphoto]

Philipp,

You're spot on of course. Some people will buy anything provided it has the right "name on it.

Obviously not working in the UK though. Leica put up the recommended price of the M8 in October 2007 to £3350 from £3000, even though dealers can't shift them. Still advertised by most at the old price.

Most dealers have low mileage used examples at £2500 which also seem reluctant to shift. I am presuming these are the ex demo models that they charge people £45 for the priviledge of testing for a couple of hours

Perhaps they need to make the name plate bigger?

here we go again with the "folks who buy the m8 are buffoons" thing again. vagueries and all else aside i am inclined to think there's a huge market of photographers who bought the m8 as it suits theirs needs in a camera. too much a stretch?

 

[Olsen]

On my calculations, the prices are roughly similar. Of course an awful lot depends on what price indices you use food, rent, housing, salaries.. But you're broadly right, of course, and I'd second the point about seeing a lot of M8 images too.

On the other hand, why introduce facts into a perfectly good argument? Can you really argue with people who appear to think that Rolls Royce ought to make Chevrolets? Or that Holland and Holland should diversify into Saturday night specials?

Cheers,

R.

Roger,

Back in 1945 German POWs traded their Leicas for a kilo of butter. Has the price gone up, would you say?

 

[Olsen]

As I just said in another forum, Leica could offer products for the people drooling for an M8 but who cannot invest more than 2 or 3 thousand dollars in a digital body. My case for example.

They offer average point and shoot cameras that are only rebadged Panasonic models and then the M8 with nothing in between. (I am not counting the Digilux 3 since it is a reflex camera) In an analogy with cars Leica offers the Audi A3 in the Digilux 3 and the A8 with the M8, but there is also a huge market for the A4, A5, and A6. I work in marketing and used to manage the Audi ad account and I know that they have to offer products with closer gaps between them, and I am just saying that maybe the future of the M8 cold be more safe if Leica launch products appealing to a more budget-oriented target who also appreaciate hand-made stuff but don't have too much money to spend in gear.

I know photographers in their 20's that couldn't care less about film cameras and don't know a thing about the Leica heritage, so in the near future how come Leica
is going to create brand loyalty with those people while Nikon, Canon etc are their current brands offering them high-end equipment from 600dlls? A D40x user maybe is dreaming with the D3, but he nows he can upgrade first to the D80, D300 with reasonable price gaps in between.

I guess a digital CM cameras with fix lengths and a real rangefinder could be a very appealing line of entry-level digital M cameras, just as it was with the film CM, a camera many could buy without selling the car but with a real Leica feel.

(Sorry for my English)

Your English is excellent enough for us Norwegians to understand. Be glad I don't try to write you back in Spanish. - I just came home from a very tough car trip with my Audi A4 2,0T Quattro (I am glad they have that A4, because I can't afford the A6) in a 'hilarious' snowstorm. - Wish I was in Monterey, Mexico.

You have a good point. Even when Nikon had no full frame digital SLR's they kept spitting out cheap 'starter kits' to get new brand loyal customers for the future. Leica needs to do something similar. They should launch a 'digital CLE' - a cheaper and more compact digital M-camera with a price tag of 2/3 of the M8 price. This camera could have a 1,5 crop sensor etc.

 

[infocusf8@earthlink.]

Optics, optics, optics

Optics, optics, optics

You have a good point. Even when Nikon had no full frame digital SLR's they kept spitting out cheap 'starter kits' to get new brand loyal customers for the future. Leica needs to do something similar. They should launch a 'digital CLE' - a cheaper and more compact digital M-camera with a price tag of 2/3 of the M8 price. This camera could have a 1,5 crop sensor etc.

Leica are doing this it's called a Panasonic. Leica optics are being introduced to a new generation of buyers through point and shoot and bridge cameras such as the FZ 50. Anyone wanting to continue with the Leica look and step up will already be primed for the primary aspect of owning a Leica, optics.

 

[Olsen]

You have a good point. Even when Nikon had no full frame digital SLR's they kept spitting out cheap 'starter kits' to get new brand loyal customers for the future. Leica needs to do something similar. They should launch a 'digital CLE' - a cheaper and more compact digital M-camera with a price tag of 2/3 of the M8 price. This camera could have a 1,5 crop sensor etc.

Leica are doing this it's called a Panasonic. Leica optics are being introduced to a new generation of buyers through point and shoot and bridge cameras such as the FZ 50. Anyone wanting to continue with the Leica look and step up will already be primed for the primary aspect of owning a Leica, optics.

Sure, but not on a 'M-frame'.

 

[RIVI1969]

Thanks Olsen, by the way I would love to switch weather with you anytime! right now at the middle of winter we are in the 26-28C degrees, which I guess is something aroung 85-90F! How crazy is that! I am wearing a T-shirt right now actually.

Ok, going back to the subject I agree with you, a compact, all metal, crop sensor, with a REAL rangefinder could close the gap and expand Leica's market share considerable. I don't think Leica is building any brand loyalty through their optics in the expendable Panasonics. Most of my friends -if not any- with point and shoot cameras don't know a thing about MTF charts, bokeh, ASPH, 3D rendering, chromatic abberations etc which are topics they couldn't care less about which makes irrelative the lens brand.

Sigma is supposed to launch an APS point and shoot with a fixed lens, that will open a new category and maybe new possibilities for future cameras.

Cheers!
Ricardo

 

[SR1]

emraphoto

"here we go again with the "folks who buy the m8 are buffoons" thing again. vagueries and all else aside i am inclined to think there's a huge market of photographers who bought the m8 as it suits theirs needs in a camera. too much a stretch?"

Apologies if I've offended you. That was not the intention. I am keen to understand why people continue to defend a sub standard product which is suposed to represent the pinacle of portable photography.

In the UK, consumers are protected by the Sale of Goods Act which allows them to return goods to the retailer for a full refund (not repair)if they are:

1. Not of satisfactory quality
2. Not as described
3. Not fit for purpose.

It seems quite clear to me that the M8 failed on item 2 and 3 when launched. Item 2 is down to opinion and this is doubltess why people did not return them (at least in the UK) as they obviously thought the product was satisfactory.

Leica should be very grateful to those owners for their support and loyalty however they don't seem to realise this in their solution.

They will give you 2 filters free. Big deal. what if you have 5 or 6 lenses and you prefer to leave the filters on them. You have to spend your own money to fix a problem they have admitted to.


I realise that to those only wanting to use rangefinders they have little option if they want to move into digital imaging and also want to buy new. Leica should be very very grateful for this loyalty.

Now if the M8 was only a few hundred dollars/pounds then perhaps that would be acceptable but as I posted earleir, they change in the UK around £3000 and they have just put the price up for a flawed camera.

If your rear wheel drive car kept losing traction because the weight distribution did not put enough mass over the driving wheels, would you accept the manufacturer giving you a bag of cement to put in the boot! Okay, stretching a point but I'm sure you see where I'm going.

If we don't challenge manufacturers to improve, they will have no incentive to do so.

It's why we have no car industy in Britain anymore

Roll on the M9.

 

[kevin m]

They should launch a 'digital CLE' - a cheaper and more compact digital M-camera with a price tag of 2/3 of the M8 price. This camera could have a 1,5 crop sensor etc.

I'm fine with that, as long as they make a freakin' fast, wide-angle prime lens designed to work with the cropped sensor! No f4.0, no Tele-Elmars. An f1.4 prime lens that equates to 35mm on full frame.

Cripes, I can't believe that no one has done this YET! :bang: 😡 🙁

 

[johnastovall]

Thanks Olsen, by the way I would love to switch weather with you anytime! right now at the middle of winter we are in the 26-28C degrees, which I guess is something aroung 85-90F! How crazy is that! I am wearing a T-shirt right now actually.

Ok, going back to the subject I agree with you, a compact, all metal, crop sensor, with a REAL rangefinder could close the gap and expand Leica's market share considerable. I don't think Leica is building any brand loyalty through their optics in the expendable Panasonics. Most of my friends -if not any- with point and shoot cameras don't know a thing about MTF charts, bokeh, ASPH, 3D rendering, chromatic abberations etc which are topics they couldn't care less about which makes irrelative the lens brand.

Sigma is supposed to launch an APS point and shoot with a fixed lens, that will open a new category and maybe new possibilities for future cameras.

Cheers!
Ricardo

The f/4.0 lens for the Sigma DP-1 makes it just about usless.

We need a DMD camera such as Mike Johnston has described for some time but the DP-1 won'td be it.

 

[rsl]

How do you figure that?

I have read that a M3 in early 60's was $400 or less (possibly with a lens), was the M3 actually much more expensive than that? 400 1960 dollars are not worth 5500+ 2008 dollars, based on other retail goods.

What am I missing?

I don't think you're missing anything. I bought an M4 in 1967 for around $650, which would put the M8 in the same ballpark, except for one thing: I bought the M4 as a kit and the kit included a 50mm Summicron f/2.0. That puts the whole shebang way out of the ballpark. To give you an idea of the monetary relationship, 5 years after I'd bought the M4 I bought a house with 7 bathrooms for around $65,000. The comparison is a long way from exact because in the past decade we've seen a huge house-price bubble based on speculation, but the comparison isn't all that far off either.

Sorry, Jaap, I don't agree with you one this one. Based on my own experience I think the M8 body is inflated, and I think current Leica lenses are even more inflated. But, as Sitemistic pointed out, these things have become cult objects -- perhaps not for serious shooters, but for the cultists, yes.

 

[jaapv]

emraphoto

"here we go again with the "folks who buy the m8 are buffoons" thing again. vagueries and all else aside i am inclined to think there's a huge market of photographers who bought the m8 as it suits theirs needs in a camera. too much a stretch?"

Apologies if I've offended you. That was not the intention. I am keen to understand why people continue to defend a sub standard product which is suposed to represent the pinacle of portable photography.

In the UK, consumers are protected by the Sale of Goods Act which allows them to return goods to the retailer for a full refund (not repair)if they are:

1. Not of satisfactory quality
2. Not as described
3. Not fit for purpose.

It seems quite clear to me that the M8 failed on item 2 and 3 when launched. Item 2 is down to opinion and this is doubltess why people did not return them (at least in the UK) as they obviously thought the product was satisfactory.

Leica should be very grateful to those owners for their support and loyalty however they don't seem to realise this in their solution.

They will give you 2 filters free. Big deal. what if you have 5 or 6 lenses and you prefer to leave the filters on them. You have to spend your own money to fix a problem they have admitted to.


I realise that to those only wanting to use rangefinders they have little option if they want to move into digital imaging and also want to buy new. Leica should be very very grateful for this loyalty.

Now if the M8 was only a few hundred dollars/pounds then perhaps that would be acceptable but as I posted earleir, they change in the UK around £3000 and they have just put the price up for a flawed camera.

If your rear wheel drive car kept losing traction because the weight distribution did not put enough mass over the driving wheels, would you accept the manufacturer giving you a bag of cement to put in the boot! Okay, stretching a point but I'm sure you see where I'm going.

If we don't challenge manufacturers to improve, they will have no incentive to do so.

It's why we have no car industy in Britain anymore

Roll on the M9.

We're not defending it - we're exposing nonsense. Not fit for purpose? It was made for taking photographs, witch it has proven to do tens of thousands of times over. The only thing you might say is not revealed technical tradeoffs i.e. the IR thing which is totally explainable but wasn't at launch. So return it - some did. A number went back and bought it after all alter.

 

[rxmd]

here we go again with the "folks who buy the m8 are buffoons" thing again.

That's not at all what I said.

Philipp

 

[Peter Klein]

I think the biggest market for Leica M8s as well as for Bentleys and tube amps is people who want them as items of distinction. They buy them because their possession and use is connected with the idea of a special kind of credibility in the right circles - the same way how young creative people buy Macs, or how computer geeks used Linux in the 1990s (now it's a bit less). RFF is such a circle where the M8 confers a special kind of label to its owner, so that peer pressure is created (how many RFF readers have bought M8s largely because of reading online forum entries?).
<snip>
...Philipp

I sometimes wish the "item of distinction" cachet would go away, along with its evil twin, the "you stupid rich b*stard collector who couldn't photograph his way out of paper bag" brickbat). They really muddy the waters.

I use an M8 because I focus better with a rangefinder, I like the feel, and I like the way the lenses draw. I've tried many cameras, and I like the pictures I take with a Leica best. I wanted a digital RF. And I've already got the lenses. All the rest is icing on the cake.

The IR filter "defect" argument is just not that big a deal. I would rather have the image quality I get with the M8 and external IR filters, than what I would get with the limitations of an on-sensor filter at RF lens angles of incidence. Using the IR filter issue to trump an Internet discussion about the M8 is kind of like a Republical candidate in the U.S. saying, "my opponent raised taxes" or a Democrat claiming that "my opponent voted for the war." All are oversimplified arguments that attempt to minimize the details. But the details are necessary for understanding the issue.

Yes, Leica should have told us beforehand. But the free filters compensate for that.

--Peter

 

[Ben Z]

Today @ B&H, new EOS 1V (film) $1650. New EOS 1D-MKIII (10MP DSLR based on 1V) $4330. A factor of 2.6X.

Today @ B&H, new Leica M7 (flim) $3700. New M8 (10MP digital based on M7) $5400. A factor of 1.5X.

Granted the M7 has had some ridiculous price hikes since it's introduction at $2350 whereas the 1V is about where it's been for quite a few years, so let's adjust for that. Still a factor of 2.3X, still less than the Canon differential. And it makes no difference for the sake of comparing price differentials that the Canon "has more features" than the Leicas. The feature set between 1V-1D and M7-M8 are almost identical.


But I don't offer that in defense of my purchase of an M8. I worked hard for my money, and I don't think even that would've done the trick if I had been stupid or frivolous. If anybody has a problem with how I spend my money now, the complaint line forms to my rear 😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Jaap, Ben, Peter...

Taking pictures? Why, you heretics! Everyone knows cameras are for arguing about.

I've been using Ms for 30+ years and yes, I like the M8.

But what do I know? I only take pictures...

Cheers,

R.

 

[jaapv]

Jaap,
you mean carry and use an Incident light meter? and it will reduce grain .. I think I'm still in the dark 🙂 but can anyone help to explain how does that help?
cheers.

It is an excellent tool; using it will help you get perfect exposure. Perfectly exposed high-iso shots on the M8 are surprisingly free of noise.
See the ISO 2500 shot in post #43 of this thread:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica...nsor-upgrade-when-available-2.html#post448844




Or these ISO 1250 shots:

 

[johnastovall]

Here's another example of ISO 1250 and lack of unaceptable grain.

Now can we put the myth of not usable at high ISO to bed with a stake in it's heart.