rsl
Russell
Hear, hear! I'm one of those thousands more. I was all ready to buy the thing too, in fact I'd been looking forward to a digital rangefinder from Leica ever since I gave up film and went exclusively to digital. But I've been a software engineer since the late seventies and I know enough to stay away from beta versions of anything I need for serious work. I hope Leica gets its act together with this camera or with a successor that's a final piece of work. I've always loved Leica's cameras and I can understand why people who bought the M8 want to cuddle it. But I need a camera that isn't built on compromises.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
rsl said:
By all means purchase that one.
barjohn
Established
And when you find it let me know where because I want one too
pfogle
Well-known
on the subject of horses (is this off-thread?) did you hear the one about the man who was into bestiality, necrophilia and flagellation?
Later he discovered he was flogging a dead horse...
Later he discovered he was flogging a dead horse...
Ben Z
Veteran
Gabriel M.A. said:
Evidently by "we" you mean you, since anyone else can check that I never said or implied either of those extremes. You really would be happier on an M8 Owner's Forum where polite discourse would be prohibited in favor of nothing but whitewash pablum in praise of the M8.
Xmas
Veteran
Ben
New word for me in last post, like, thanks.
Noel
P.S. Leitz probably had problems with their 1st batch - in '24 was it.
New word for me in last post, like, thanks.
Noel
P.S. Leitz probably had problems with their 1st batch - in '24 was it.
rsl
Russell
pfogle said:
Looks on-thread to me. Lots of those floggers around.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
You know me so well, dear honeybun.Ben Z said:
You were right. I was wrong.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Ben Z said:
Sorry but this is very much a "WE" thing- as in most M8 owners I know here on this forum are tired of the whitewashing that blows even an obscure claim into an every camera occurrence. Your latest post regarding the differences between the M8 and the R-D1 is a new tone from the usual rancor- I applaud you here for this as I did in the M8 forum. Let's hope claims stay more in balance.
Ted
Last edited:
rsl
Russell
I'm familiar with the kind of reasoned rebuttal you get from kids who are exposed to evidence that runs against what they want to believe, namely: "Don't say that!" You also hear the same thing in political arguments where a politician gets exposed to evidence he doesn't want to hear. But to use that kind of rebuttal to defend a defective camera? Come on!
Last edited:
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Actually the screws coming loose are not from the camera. For that we're talking about a few OP's whose sole intent is to portray this camera as having issues it does not- that's the "screw loose" IMO. In fact not only do such detractors have a screw loose, they also project a motivation that mystifies most Digital M users. After all we have the camera, we like or love it, and yet we are met with a kind of fanatical denunciation as if to say “your crazy if you like that POS, don’t you know it’s not a good camera?” This attitude seems mostly to come from people who have never used an M8 and who are in turn basing their information on hearsay or a friend of a friend who touched one at B&H. It’s all very odd to those of us who own this camera and know the truth- yes it needs IR cut filters but we obviously don’t care or are working around it due to what the M8 is, a world class DRF.
rsl
Russell
Sailor Ted said:
Several years ago I bought an Olympus 5050. For about a week I used it on the street. Suddenly, one morning as I set out to shoot I discovered that the LCD display on the top of the camera was scrambled. I took it back to the camera shop about a block from my office, handed it back, and got a new replacement. I took the new camera back to my office and started setting it up to my default specs. About half way through that process it locked up. Wouldn't respond and wouldn't turn off. I took it back to the shop, got my money back, and switched to a Nikon.
Yes, new digital cameras can have teething problems, but that was a $600 "consumer" camera. Eventually it settled down and, from what I've read, was quite satisfactory within its class. On the other hand, I've had several "professional" digital cameras: An Olympus E-20, a Nikon D100, and a D2X. I bought each one practically on the day it came out. I've never had any kind of problem with any of those cameras. I use the D100 and D2X daily, and now, years later, I've still never run into a problem with either of them.
All my life, and that's quite a while, Leica has been considered the most reliable camera manufacturer in the world, or at least close to it. My beef with the M8 isn't that I think screws will keep falling out of it, or that I think shutters will keep locking in burst mode, or that the camera always will be unable to write to certain flash cards, or that there'll always be green blobs and banding, or even that I think the M8 or its successor always will require IR filters on its lenses. If Leica survives, all of these problems will be solved.
But the fact that Leica released a supposedly professional camera without enough beta testing to catch these easy to catch problems leaves me with a sinking feeling about Leica's ability to produce a satisfactory digital camera. Clearly, it isn't satisfactory at the moment, and just saying "Don't say that!" doesn't change that fact. I'm just as eager to go shooting with a real "professional" M8 as any defensive M8 owner, but I'm willing to face the fact that I'll have to wait to do that. As someone once said, "Facts are stubborn things." Turning away from them doesn't make them go away.
Last edited:
Sailor Ted
Well-known
rsl said:
Aside from the IR filter issue that cannot be avoided given the current state of technology (however for the record I have not shot one image with an IR cut filter on my M8 flickr gallery so it's not as bad as you seem to want everyone to bealive.) The other "problems" you mention (banding and green blobs) were early issues with the camera and have already been delt with by Leica. The rest of your rant is based on obscure postings from the internet that do not represent the experience of the vast majority of M8 users and have only been documented a few times. I'll bet I could make up a fictions post on p net or the Leica users forum with a wild claim and you'd pick it up and run- that's the screw loose if you ask me. Really your rants a few days back regarding screws falling off was beyond funny and way over the top and based on what? Where did you get the idea screws are falling off M8 cameras? One post, two? What kind of a person goes on a crusade against a product based on only a handful of claims- or less?
This is not your grandfathers analouge M3 its a digital camera- a devise several factors more complicated then a simple light tight film holder with a shutter and M mount (though a very nicely machined light tight film holder with a very quite shutter)- sorry but the world is changing and as much as it is human nature to wax for the "good ol days" that's just not the way it is when it comes to photography unless of course you still want to shoot film.
rsl said:
Yes facts are stubborn things, they don't just go away and if you're going to keep distorting facts, blowing obscure claims out of proportion or misrepresenting this camera myself and other proud M8 owners will call you on your foolishness based on the facts.
rsl
Russell
"Don't say that!," he explained.
Anybody else wonder if Ted's avatar is a self-portrait?
Last edited:
barjohn
Established
rsl said:
Funny, I have read numerous posts of early problems with the Nikons should we believe them or your single experience?
rsl said:
Perhaps not to you... but the FACT is... that it must be to the people buying them or they wouldn't. The ones that have been for sale by owners have for the most part been a few entrepreneurs looking to make a quick buck by buying it at retail and selling it for more.
rsl
Russell
barjohn said:
I've never had to put an IR filter on a Nikon in order to get reasonable color, and as far as I know neither has anyone else. If you can point me to a post that rebuts that statement, let me know.
The FACT is that there were a bunch of early buyers ready to spring as soon as Leica came out with a digital rangefinder. I was one of those folks, but I waited long enough to see if any serious problems cropped up. Others just jumped in, and now they're really defensive about having done that. Let's wait and see how sales go in about six months if Leica doesn't solve the IR problem before we make any grand statements about sales volume. If they solve it I'll be part of the sales volume. If not, well...
Last edited:
barjohn
Established
I don't believe I ever said the Nikon required an IR filter. The fact that it didn't doesn't prove it was problem free just like the fact that you didn't have any problems doesn't mean it was problem free.
Like many others that purchased the camera in December and January we knew about the IR filter requirement and decided we could live with it for the other benefits the camera had to offer. Speaking only for myself, I don't mind having a filter in front of the glass as it provides added protection and if something is going to get scratched or broken I would rather it was a $100 filter than a $1,000+ lens. I may lose a few shots due to flare on rare occasion, oh well. I have faith, and yes it is a personal gamble, that Leica will have resolved 99% of the issues with 1.10 and future releases will add improvement and enhancements as Leica gets feedback from customers that will make it even better.
Like many others that purchased the camera in December and January we knew about the IR filter requirement and decided we could live with it for the other benefits the camera had to offer. Speaking only for myself, I don't mind having a filter in front of the glass as it provides added protection and if something is going to get scratched or broken I would rather it was a $100 filter than a $1,000+ lens. I may lose a few shots due to flare on rare occasion, oh well. I have faith, and yes it is a personal gamble, that Leica will have resolved 99% of the issues with 1.10 and future releases will add improvement and enhancements as Leica gets feedback from customers that will make it even better.
rsl
Russell
barjohn said:
John,
I'm with you on hoping Leica solves the M8 problems. I certainly wish them the best because I'd dearly love to have a really fine digital rangefinder for street work. The R-D1 works, but it's not the treasure the M8 could be. No point in going into the R-D1's shortcomings. They've been thoroughly ventilated on this site. I guess my problem is the "faith" part. I always had a lot of faith in the ability of Leica to produce the finest camera equipment in the world. The launch of the M8 kind of punctured that faith -- at least for now. I hope your faith turns out to be vindicated and I hope Leica will do what they need to do to give me back mine.
As far as IR filters on the Nikon are concerned, the point I was making was that although falling screws, green blobs, etc., etc., are the same kinds of transient and more or less easily fixed problems you're talking about with respect to some of Nikon's early offerings, the IR problem isn't. I really believe they'll solve it, but for now it's a persistent flaw.
barjohn
Established
If it had been me making the trade off decision between a thicker IR filter and some corner image resoultion loss, I would have probably gone for the thicker IR filter. I read somewhere that Kodak is working on providing a better thin IR filter. Of course, the big question will be, if they come out with one for the same sensor and new cameras are equipped with it will it be offered to existing customers and will it be free of charge. This is my biggest concern, however, in the U.S. they risk a class action suit which would cost many times more than just offering an upgrade.
LCT
ex-newbie
The fact is the M8 is unable to filter IR rays the same reasonable way as other digicams can do including older ones like R-D1 and R-D1s.
Call it a bug, a defect or whatever name, some of us have not spent little fortunes on Leica lenses to be happy with this situation.
Leica have decided to abstain from repairing the bug for now and to ask us Leica users to pay 200$ or so per lens to get them coded and 'protected' by IR filters.
Then not only Leica customers are considered as beta testers but they have to cover up the incompetence or at least imprudence of Leica in this matter.
And all this for what? For discovering in a couple of months that better IR-cut filters could have been used on the sensor, that lenses don't have to be filtered any more and that 6-bit coding is just usefull to get exif datas and to adjust vignetting issues the same way as softwares we own yet can do.
Trying to stay as objective as i can be as an old Leica user, let me say that i don't like this much.
Call it a bug, a defect or whatever name, some of us have not spent little fortunes on Leica lenses to be happy with this situation.
Leica have decided to abstain from repairing the bug for now and to ask us Leica users to pay 200$ or so per lens to get them coded and 'protected' by IR filters.
Then not only Leica customers are considered as beta testers but they have to cover up the incompetence or at least imprudence of Leica in this matter.
And all this for what? For discovering in a couple of months that better IR-cut filters could have been used on the sensor, that lenses don't have to be filtered any more and that 6-bit coding is just usefull to get exif datas and to adjust vignetting issues the same way as softwares we own yet can do.
Trying to stay as objective as i can be as an old Leica user, let me say that i don't like this much.