Nachkebia
Well-known
More computer geeks will be joining this forum, nothing special, gallery wont gain anything I can ensure you 
Didier
"Deed"
J. Borger said:
That's true, but the M8 could at least be as weather "suitable" as the former M's are. I've used a M6 on, for instance, wet alpine hikes, without problems - it's not really weathersealed, but can stand quite much waterdrops and humidity. The lens was mostly the 28 Skopar and did not suffer, too. I kept the camera inside the (wet) jacket but it got many drops on when shooting. This kind of "watherproofness" is usually enough good for me.
Didier
c.poulton
Well-known
anselwannab said:
A camera like this would certainly tempt me - a lot!
IGMeanwell
Well-known
Nachkebia said:More computer geeks will be joining this forum, nothing special, gallery wont gain anything I can ensure you
So basically the more M8s that get on this forum the less images of worth will be added to the gallery?
Hmmm .... whats your thoughts on polaroids?
Nachkebia
Well-known
Polaroids are great, Honestly
IGMeanwell
Well-known
Nachkebia said:Polaroids are great, Honestly
LOL....
I think the best way to get these companies motivated on digital rangefinders is to start planting these seeds over in Japan; get their population to create the demand and then we can reap the benefits.
If Nikon, Canon, or even Sony see that they have a home market for something like a M mount rangefinder.... then they feel much easier about mass marketing it throughout the world
in other words, make a small sample and see where the demand is ... expand from there
Although I don't know if I see Nikon going into this; only because they seem to be struggling with just updating their lens lineup and keeping up with demand over many of their products
Nachkebia
Well-known
Pardon me but what the heck are you talking about?
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
Indeed the M8, despite is shortcomings, is the best digital RF at present, I only hope that in no more than a couple of years someone comes up with a dRF as good as the M8 in terms of resolution, but with more sensible design decisions.
I don't care if it is the ZI-d1, the bessa 1D, the R-D2 or the M9.
I don't care if it is the ZI-d1, the bessa 1D, the R-D2 or the M9.
akptc
Shoot first, think later
Time to start buying up those refurbished RD1's for spare parts, I reckon.CameraQuest said:
IGMeanwell
Well-known
Nachkebia said:Pardon me but what the heck are you talking about?
My rant was unrelated to your previous remarks... I was just going off on a tangent
My point was that there is a call for a digital rangefinder, that is somewhat affordable (or at least more so than the M8), reliable, and basically most everything you have in a DSLR except it needs to be near silent and rangefinder.
I figure if there is enough demand for something of that nature in Japan then the Japanese companies would most likely look into manufacturer such a camera. Who's yelling tends to be the loudest, your neighbor 4 houses down or the one that is right next door? If there is a call for a rangefinder in Japan, the camera is produced, and they find significant numbers being exported to other parts of the world.... then they produce enough for the rest of the world.
The more I think about it the more I think Sony would most likely the company to go into rangefinder's than canon or Nikon ... only because they are a company that could take that kind of leap and be able to absorb the impact; if the camera were to flop.
JohanV
another GAS victim
I just noticed that Amazon.com has the new Nikon SP at 6.499$.
Wonder what they'll want for a digital version?
M8 sounds like a cheap alternative to me...
Wonder what they'll want for a digital version?
M8 sounds like a cheap alternative to me...
HAnkg
Well-known
Digital RF
Digital RF
The costs for Zeiss to produce a line of M mount lenses or a manufacturer to dust off the tooling to produce an expensive limited run of RF cameras are not close to the costs of producing a digital rangefinder that would best Leica's effort. Leica had no choice as it was vital to the survival of their key product the M.
But Canon, Zeiss or Nikon? Considering the size of the market I can't see any executive betting his career on funding such an effort, especially after having a look at Leica's experience so far.
Hell, despite the thousands of digital P&S out there no one seems able to even produce a fixed lens digital pocket camera with a decent viewfinder. A better RF digital then the M8? one day, but probably not any time soon.
Digital RF
The costs for Zeiss to produce a line of M mount lenses or a manufacturer to dust off the tooling to produce an expensive limited run of RF cameras are not close to the costs of producing a digital rangefinder that would best Leica's effort. Leica had no choice as it was vital to the survival of their key product the M.
But Canon, Zeiss or Nikon? Considering the size of the market I can't see any executive betting his career on funding such an effort, especially after having a look at Leica's experience so far.
Hell, despite the thousands of digital P&S out there no one seems able to even produce a fixed lens digital pocket camera with a decent viewfinder. A better RF digital then the M8? one day, but probably not any time soon.
summilux
Well-known
Epson obviously intended the R-D1 to be for Japan only originally, and they sell quite well, despite showing age, it is a more inspired product than M8.
I have handled M8, its shutter release is not as smooth as R-D1, or indeed Hexar RF (which has the smoothest and lighest shutter release IMO); its high ISO performance is nothing to brag about (you are best advised to stay below ISO 640); its control unfriendly; its attempt for a closed system short-sighted.
anyway, there is no point to claim being the best if there are only two around, is it? especially you are comparing with a model produced two years by a third tier manufacturer.
if Canon or Nikon (no stranger to rangefinder camera because they made their start copying Contax and Leica) decide to go into the hiterto undeveloped digital rangerfinder market, the M8 will be in no better position than its Digital Back for R series.
I have handled M8, its shutter release is not as smooth as R-D1, or indeed Hexar RF (which has the smoothest and lighest shutter release IMO); its high ISO performance is nothing to brag about (you are best advised to stay below ISO 640); its control unfriendly; its attempt for a closed system short-sighted.
anyway, there is no point to claim being the best if there are only two around, is it? especially you are comparing with a model produced two years by a third tier manufacturer.
if Canon or Nikon (no stranger to rangefinder camera because they made their start copying Contax and Leica) decide to go into the hiterto undeveloped digital rangerfinder market, the M8 will be in no better position than its Digital Back for R series.
Jan Brittenson
Who's Avatar?
I don't know anything about cars, I find them incredibly boring. People who discuss cars are as interesting as people who discuss money over dinner. I drive a fully paid for 1999 Japanese, fairly inexpensive, stationwagon. It gets me, my wife, dogs, passengers, and stuff where and when we need to go someplace. That's really all I care about.
Cameras are used to create images. Cars are instruments of consumption. Very different roles. A camera to a photographer is like an instrument to a musician. Is a $50000 violin better than a $1000 one? The instrument of a musician, especially a young one, is often their only possession of real value. Even very minor, marginal benefits that can't be recognized except by a highly receptive ear, are highly prized with price to match.
Comparing a Leica M8 to a car is like comparing a $50k violin to a home theater system. (I personally don't have one of those either. I hardly ever watch TV.)
Cameras are used to create images. Cars are instruments of consumption. Very different roles. A camera to a photographer is like an instrument to a musician. Is a $50000 violin better than a $1000 one? The instrument of a musician, especially a young one, is often their only possession of real value. Even very minor, marginal benefits that can't be recognized except by a highly receptive ear, are highly prized with price to match.
Comparing a Leica M8 to a car is like comparing a $50k violin to a home theater system. (I personally don't have one of those either. I hardly ever watch TV.)
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Hmm. Sony makes its own sensors. Sony is trying to make their mark in high-end cameras. I wonder what happened to the Hexar RF stuff in the K-M photographic acquisition? One can hope...IGMeanwell said:
...Mike
ywenz
Veteran
J. Borger said:
Doesn't matter, since the lenses have been proven to be weather proof over the decades.. They just need a rubber seal around the lens mount.
ywenz
Veteran
JohanV said:
Compared to an MP special Korea indenpendce edition, at $8999, the M8 soundsl ike a bargain too. The Nikon SP is a special model. What is the point of comparing the M8 to that? Check out how much Nikon is charging for their DSLRs. I guarantee you that they'll be able to come out with a cheaper than M8 Digital RF.
Jan Brittenson said:
Wow.. what life.
Last edited:
N
Nick R.
Guest
Hmm . . . a 4/3's Japanese digital rangerfinder wouldn't be a bad system. If it was developed from the E-330 body, it'd be a nice sized camera and Olympus makes some terrific lenses. Too bad it'll never happen.
*(I own an E-330)
*(I own an E-330)
peter_n
Veteran
Never mind the M8. I want to know if the R4A is on schedule!
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
>Is it realy that loud?
I challenge anyone to put an M8 and an M7 side by side and click the shutters. Then decide for yourself what loud is.
Then put the M8 and any DSLR side by side, close your eyes, click them both, and try to tell them apart. (Okay, the sounds are not exactly the same nor the M8 as noisy but anyone who has not consumed the M8 kool-aid will see -- and hear -- my point. The point of reference is a real M camera.)
And beyond the decibels, it is just so woefully unsatisfying, empty, and hollow to this one's ears in comparison to, again, a real M camera.
>Something smacks of VENDETTA from that one.
This one, an early adopter and then dropper (like a hot potato) of the M8, does occasionally resurface to (re)express his disgust and deep disappointment in this hugely expensive psuedo continuation of the M camera that Leica is passing off.
Call it what you will but I predict that Leica will never recover from the false start of the M8 and its ultimate failure as useful "digitalization" of M photography.
I challenge anyone to put an M8 and an M7 side by side and click the shutters. Then decide for yourself what loud is.
Then put the M8 and any DSLR side by side, close your eyes, click them both, and try to tell them apart. (Okay, the sounds are not exactly the same nor the M8 as noisy but anyone who has not consumed the M8 kool-aid will see -- and hear -- my point. The point of reference is a real M camera.)
And beyond the decibels, it is just so woefully unsatisfying, empty, and hollow to this one's ears in comparison to, again, a real M camera.
>Something smacks of VENDETTA from that one.
This one, an early adopter and then dropper (like a hot potato) of the M8, does occasionally resurface to (re)express his disgust and deep disappointment in this hugely expensive psuedo continuation of the M camera that Leica is passing off.
Call it what you will but I predict that Leica will never recover from the false start of the M8 and its ultimate failure as useful "digitalization" of M photography.
Last edited: