Rhodie
Established
To paraphrase a renowned Danish beverage's claim: Robert White' s is "possibly the finest camera store in the world".
Yet even this forum’s sponsor has removed details for the M8 from their site.
And this, for me, is the clincher.
Having been eagerly anticipating the digital M, I am truly grateful to those on this forum who have taken the plunge and bought what is clearly a far from finished product; and IMHO should not have been put out on general sale.
In summary, to purchase a camera for photographic work that is seriously flawed when shooting in colour is not something that Leica photographers should have been subjected to.
IR & WB are no longer issues that photographers should have to work around these days, considering the progress of digital imagery. Leica with their association with Panasonic and with their own R8/9 back cannot claim to to be neophytes in the digital business.
Supplying Capture One software and with problematic card reading abilities are far from worthy of Leica. This is not a $200 P&S camera - yet it is sold as such!
But to also read about cameras being sold with dirty sensors, just makes me furious.
Leica apologists and aficionados -and I count myself as in both camps for their analogue products, should not be digitally taken for granted.
The filter work around and other tweaks for what may be termed as the M8-2, are far from satisfactory.
Professionals demand product predictability, as reshooting –especially reportage- is not always possible.
And commercially, leaves the photographer seriously in question with a client. “A bad worker always blames his tools”.
But with the M8, there is real justification for calling the image created by this camera into question.
I shall wait for the M9. Hoping that Leica are still in business, and that the necessary redesign and forthcoming digi wide-angle tri-elmar truly are professional tools.
In the meantime I shall continue shooting film, where neither the image nor the focal lengths are compromised. Slow it maybe, but the results and quality are assured - and the faults are my own! It also maintains a photographic discipline that digital shooting allows to lapse.
For digital, I shall sadly use my Canon 1Ds MkII. Again a tool with predictable quality – though without the enjoyment.
Rhodie
_______________________________________________________________
Yet even this forum’s sponsor has removed details for the M8 from their site.
And this, for me, is the clincher.
Having been eagerly anticipating the digital M, I am truly grateful to those on this forum who have taken the plunge and bought what is clearly a far from finished product; and IMHO should not have been put out on general sale.
In summary, to purchase a camera for photographic work that is seriously flawed when shooting in colour is not something that Leica photographers should have been subjected to.
IR & WB are no longer issues that photographers should have to work around these days, considering the progress of digital imagery. Leica with their association with Panasonic and with their own R8/9 back cannot claim to to be neophytes in the digital business.
Supplying Capture One software and with problematic card reading abilities are far from worthy of Leica. This is not a $200 P&S camera - yet it is sold as such!
But to also read about cameras being sold with dirty sensors, just makes me furious.
Leica apologists and aficionados -and I count myself as in both camps for their analogue products, should not be digitally taken for granted.
The filter work around and other tweaks for what may be termed as the M8-2, are far from satisfactory.
Professionals demand product predictability, as reshooting –especially reportage- is not always possible.
And commercially, leaves the photographer seriously in question with a client. “A bad worker always blames his tools”.
But with the M8, there is real justification for calling the image created by this camera into question.
I shall wait for the M9. Hoping that Leica are still in business, and that the necessary redesign and forthcoming digi wide-angle tri-elmar truly are professional tools.
In the meantime I shall continue shooting film, where neither the image nor the focal lengths are compromised. Slow it maybe, but the results and quality are assured - and the faults are my own! It also maintains a photographic discipline that digital shooting allows to lapse.
For digital, I shall sadly use my Canon 1Ds MkII. Again a tool with predictable quality – though without the enjoyment.
Rhodie
_______________________________________________________________
soulfood
Leica, that is!
Good for you.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
The problem isn't that Leica screwed up the design of the camera, but that Leica was faced with a set of design decisions dictated by good old mother nature.
It appears that it is physically impossible to build a rangefinder camera, with retrofocus lenses, a large sensor and a slim profile that does not encounter the issues we are experiencing.
So, since you can't change the physics of the universe, there isn't much ANYONE or any company could have done to circumvent this problem, short of the solution we ended up with. In other words you can wait for the M9 and M10, but the issue will most likely remain.
That's not an apology, but simply accepting reality.
This gent here has a very nice technical explanation of the issue at hand:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31886
You are outraged because of the necessity of a software upgrade, because version 1.0 of a piece of code wasn't 100% bug free? Name one digital camera short of the simplest P&S that hasn't had an upgrade. Name one operating system or software package that isn't routinely upgraded in one form or another.
The white balance is a little iffy with version 1 of the software? Are you going to send your 1DsII back, because anything under low temperature tungsten lighting looks like it was shot with a tobacco filter? That didn't make me send my 5D back.
I'll give you this much. Leica acted like a bunch of idiots and handled the PR end of this rather poorly. But are you really shocked and insulted that people are incompetent or heaven forbid- mildly dishonest? Frankly I don't think it's enough to crucify a company for, that gets as much right as they do and have gotten right for the past 80 years.
So, in the end all of this huffing and puffing boils down to a software upgrade and $50 filter.
Big f@#$%&@ deal.
As far the filter goes, well what can I say. A large percentage of Leica shooters already use UV filters on their precious M lenses. The vast majority of professional PJ's have UV filters on their lenses. At work I routinely stick filters in front of cine lenses that cost tens of thousands of dollars and no one gives it a second thought. Frankly this is a non issue, as far as I am concerned.
I am really getting a little tired of everyone getting their nose bent out of shape and acting all outraged and insulted over what amounts to a hill of beans in the big picture.
Everyone wanted a digital M. Here it is. It's almost perfect, except the FIRST version of the software has some issues (like every other digital camera) and you need to use a filter on your lens. In exchange you get what appears to be one of the highest performing digital cameras out there. Turning the camera down for those reasons is like sending a Porsche back, because it doesn't have enough cup holders. The word dilettante come to mind.
If people can't live with that, maybe they should give up photography and take up ping pong or something else that's less stressfull.
Life isn't perfect people. Go out and shoot and make it work. That's all that counts.
HL
It appears that it is physically impossible to build a rangefinder camera, with retrofocus lenses, a large sensor and a slim profile that does not encounter the issues we are experiencing.
So, since you can't change the physics of the universe, there isn't much ANYONE or any company could have done to circumvent this problem, short of the solution we ended up with. In other words you can wait for the M9 and M10, but the issue will most likely remain.
That's not an apology, but simply accepting reality.
This gent here has a very nice technical explanation of the issue at hand:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31886
You are outraged because of the necessity of a software upgrade, because version 1.0 of a piece of code wasn't 100% bug free? Name one digital camera short of the simplest P&S that hasn't had an upgrade. Name one operating system or software package that isn't routinely upgraded in one form or another.
The white balance is a little iffy with version 1 of the software? Are you going to send your 1DsII back, because anything under low temperature tungsten lighting looks like it was shot with a tobacco filter? That didn't make me send my 5D back.
I'll give you this much. Leica acted like a bunch of idiots and handled the PR end of this rather poorly. But are you really shocked and insulted that people are incompetent or heaven forbid- mildly dishonest? Frankly I don't think it's enough to crucify a company for, that gets as much right as they do and have gotten right for the past 80 years.
So, in the end all of this huffing and puffing boils down to a software upgrade and $50 filter.
Big f@#$%&@ deal.
As far the filter goes, well what can I say. A large percentage of Leica shooters already use UV filters on their precious M lenses. The vast majority of professional PJ's have UV filters on their lenses. At work I routinely stick filters in front of cine lenses that cost tens of thousands of dollars and no one gives it a second thought. Frankly this is a non issue, as far as I am concerned.
I am really getting a little tired of everyone getting their nose bent out of shape and acting all outraged and insulted over what amounts to a hill of beans in the big picture.
Everyone wanted a digital M. Here it is. It's almost perfect, except the FIRST version of the software has some issues (like every other digital camera) and you need to use a filter on your lens. In exchange you get what appears to be one of the highest performing digital cameras out there. Turning the camera down for those reasons is like sending a Porsche back, because it doesn't have enough cup holders. The word dilettante come to mind.
If people can't live with that, maybe they should give up photography and take up ping pong or something else that's less stressfull.
Life isn't perfect people. Go out and shoot and make it work. That's all that counts.
HL
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I look forward to your sunny shots on B&W with washed out skies - because you refused to accept that the spectral response of B&W film needs to be corrected with a yellow filter - your dark-foliage landcape shots because a green filter is not needed, your undersaturated and white-sky slides because a polarizer impinges purity.. Man, wake up! Using filters is basic photographic technique to correct for the limitations of our tools....Rhodie said:
V
varjag
Guest
You don't normally have to use filters when shooting reportage though. And IR cutoff filters hardly were seen as a neccessity back in the film days and with advent of consumer digital as well.jaapv said:
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
It somehow seems to me that the discussion about the M8 limitations is extremely polarized, it's either the crappiest camera ever or the best thing since sliced bread, and of course neither side is right.
One side refuses to accept that from test reports the M8 is able to render details beyond what would be expected from a 10 MPixel sensor, and that under good lighting conditions it seems to outperform even some (if not all) full frame DSLR, the absence of an AA filter does not seem to do any harm to the pictures (I don't think the average RF user will photograph stuff like a model with fishnets, fashion photographers have their Hassie with Digital backs and are not changing over to the M8), and the vignetting is better controlled that with the only other DRF on the market.
The other side refuses to accept that having to put a filter in front of the lens to take colour photographs is less than ideal, it is not only the $50 for each lens you own, but also because if you want to add an effect filter (e-g polarizer, ND or whatever) you may end up with too many additional glass to air surfaces that certainly are not going to improve image quality.
Also the hig ISO performance seems to be worse than the one of the R-D1, a camera with a design over 2 years older, and that seems to defy the "physically impossible" mentioned above since, while it still has some IR sensitiviy, it is much better controlled than in the M8; so people wonders: if Epson did it, 2 1/2 years ago, how come that Leica was not able to do it now?
The conclusion is that the camera has its pros and cons, like everything, big surprise, but at the end of the day it all boils down if it is worth $5000 to you or not, and whatever you choose that does not make it a lemon, nor it makes it the best camera ever.
That said I think it is good that all the problems are made public, so the buyer can make an informed decision.
One side refuses to accept that from test reports the M8 is able to render details beyond what would be expected from a 10 MPixel sensor, and that under good lighting conditions it seems to outperform even some (if not all) full frame DSLR, the absence of an AA filter does not seem to do any harm to the pictures (I don't think the average RF user will photograph stuff like a model with fishnets, fashion photographers have their Hassie with Digital backs and are not changing over to the M8), and the vignetting is better controlled that with the only other DRF on the market.
The other side refuses to accept that having to put a filter in front of the lens to take colour photographs is less than ideal, it is not only the $50 for each lens you own, but also because if you want to add an effect filter (e-g polarizer, ND or whatever) you may end up with too many additional glass to air surfaces that certainly are not going to improve image quality.
Also the hig ISO performance seems to be worse than the one of the R-D1, a camera with a design over 2 years older, and that seems to defy the "physically impossible" mentioned above since, while it still has some IR sensitiviy, it is much better controlled than in the M8; so people wonders: if Epson did it, 2 1/2 years ago, how come that Leica was not able to do it now?
The conclusion is that the camera has its pros and cons, like everything, big surprise, but at the end of the day it all boils down if it is worth $5000 to you or not, and whatever you choose that does not make it a lemon, nor it makes it the best camera ever.
That said I think it is good that all the problems are made public, so the buyer can make an informed decision.
Rhodie
Established
M Design Constraints
M Design Constraints
Most of the M design constraints are well known & accepted.
Though the IR issue was neither immediately apparent, nor owned up to by Leica. Of course, this should have been announced/confronted upon release thereby allowing purchasers to have made their mind up before shelling out $5K.It is not for the first time that Leica are behind the PR curve
Similarly - a full frame sensor is extremely unlikely to happen nor, be very relevant as their new digital design lenses come on stream - sadly for those of us with a range of their excellent 35mm optics.
However, I am sure that should their digital M succeed, we will have a new line of lenses covering similar perspectives.
I only hope that their digital Tri-Elmar does not go thru the redesign phase that the original 28/35/50 - though to their credit Leica did exchange mine after a number attempts to repair it
Abuse/flaming responses are immaterial. But as a professional photographer I need a tool I can rely on. Regrettably the M8 is not [yet] such a tool.
It is also a disappointment to those of us who have more than just an emotional investment in Leica; albeit the M8 is a valiant first attempt.
For me, rangefinders maybe slower, but are a more intuitive means of capturing an image. Therefore, if you now have to factor in whether the sensor is going to play, due to prevailing conditions, then you could well end up missing the moment. I grant you, various films have their own characteristics dependant on light temperature etc. But the M8 has more fundamental issues, as highlighted by a number of different problems posted on this forum.
I only wish the M8 had as few difficulties as the 1Ds MkII!
I certainly have not encountered such difficulties concerning WB or IR when I moved over to digital with the Canon.
Personally, I am still committed to Leica and dearly want them to succeed. They are a minnow in a world of very big fish and it would be tragic for them to disappear. But for me there is little point in purchasing a camera that is a collection of compromises that is unable to capture an image with predictable consistency.
The purpose of this post is not to rant, but to let Leica know that for this professional photographer the M8 is unacceptable; and that I had hoped for and, with previous experience of their pursuit for excellence in mind, expected better.
M Design Constraints
Most of the M design constraints are well known & accepted.
Though the IR issue was neither immediately apparent, nor owned up to by Leica. Of course, this should have been announced/confronted upon release thereby allowing purchasers to have made their mind up before shelling out $5K.It is not for the first time that Leica are behind the PR curve
Similarly - a full frame sensor is extremely unlikely to happen nor, be very relevant as their new digital design lenses come on stream - sadly for those of us with a range of their excellent 35mm optics.
However, I am sure that should their digital M succeed, we will have a new line of lenses covering similar perspectives.
I only hope that their digital Tri-Elmar does not go thru the redesign phase that the original 28/35/50 - though to their credit Leica did exchange mine after a number attempts to repair it
Abuse/flaming responses are immaterial. But as a professional photographer I need a tool I can rely on. Regrettably the M8 is not [yet] such a tool.
It is also a disappointment to those of us who have more than just an emotional investment in Leica; albeit the M8 is a valiant first attempt.
For me, rangefinders maybe slower, but are a more intuitive means of capturing an image. Therefore, if you now have to factor in whether the sensor is going to play, due to prevailing conditions, then you could well end up missing the moment. I grant you, various films have their own characteristics dependant on light temperature etc. But the M8 has more fundamental issues, as highlighted by a number of different problems posted on this forum.
I only wish the M8 had as few difficulties as the 1Ds MkII!
I certainly have not encountered such difficulties concerning WB or IR when I moved over to digital with the Canon.
Personally, I am still committed to Leica and dearly want them to succeed. They are a minnow in a world of very big fish and it would be tragic for them to disappear. But for me there is little point in purchasing a camera that is a collection of compromises that is unable to capture an image with predictable consistency.
The purpose of this post is not to rant, but to let Leica know that for this professional photographer the M8 is unacceptable; and that I had hoped for and, with previous experience of their pursuit for excellence in mind, expected better.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
varjag said:
No- but what I mean - it is such a minor thing and such a normal thing since the middle nineteenth century to use filters where needed. So we need different filters for different puposes now because technical requirements have changed - so what? I need different tyres on my car now than I did twenty years ago. And the M8 is by no means the first digital camera to need 486 filters. My camera supplier stocked them normally long before the M8 was even conceived- because he sold them to those customers that cared about decent blacks on their digital photographs - My cousin, who shoots Nikon has been using them for years for flash photography. It was not even worth a comment. And now? the sky has fallen for some.
*end of rant* - sorry.
Before I am thought to be flaming - I fully accept that everybody makes his own choices, based upon his own preferences and that the requirements of professional photographers may differ - for instance having hassle free equipment may well transcend the need for ultimate tonal range etc. - a good thing as it makes for diversity. But I do think some perspective on the "issues" as they are bandied around on various forums is sorely needed.
Last edited:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I think it was Karl Valentin who once stated that "everything has been said, just not yet by everybody".
Philipp
Fittingly so for a discussion that revolves around filtersfgianni said:
Philipp
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I think the problem is that many people don't want to make compromises themselves, they want compromises to be made for them.jaapv said:
Philipp
Rhodie
Established
Robert White Postscript
Robert White Postscript
Just spoken to them today.
M8 link restored.
Received 3 cameras so far.
40+ deposits taken. No cancellations.
B+W Filters ordered & expected end of December.
Only negative report they have had concerns a shoot at Rememberance Day Parade London.
Guards uniform correct in scarlet red - trousers magenta [should be black].
Difficult to reshoot. Queen unavailable.
I gather the photographer will have the filter with him next year.
Robert White Postscript
Just spoken to them today.
M8 link restored.
Received 3 cameras so far.
40+ deposits taken. No cancellations.
B+W Filters ordered & expected end of December.
Only negative report they have had concerns a shoot at Rememberance Day Parade London.
Guards uniform correct in scarlet red - trousers magenta [should be black].
Difficult to reshoot. Queen unavailable.
I gather the photographer will have the filter with him next year.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
rxmd said:
And when the compromise is made they don't like it - because it is not the compromise they would have made themselves - had they made it.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Rhodie said:
Cheapskates! One would expect them to wear good old-fashioned British wool!
Seriously: even as a non-pro I will always take two different camera's to a non-repeatable event. That is where the Digilux series comes in...
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
So it would seem. Just like if he had used the 1Ds-II with the wrong CF card in 2004 or so. Eek, no pictures. That's the kind of risk you run as an early adopter.Rhodie said:
Every camera has issues. Some of them impede your work more than others. That's one way to choose your cameras, and before you start working you had better be familiar with the properties of your gear. I think that can be said without sounding like a Leica apologist, which I'm not.
Philipp
Rhodie
Established
Therein lies the problem - you need another camera to make good on the M8's defficiencies.jaapv said:
I gather from the photographer that the magenta cast is not readilly seen in ambient daylight and up until the event -early November- the issue was unknown to him. Anyway the filters are not yet avalable.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Not just the M8 - any camera. I do a lot of wildlife stuff in central Africa. I would not consider leaving home without at least two or three bodies and redundancy in lenses.
Rhodie
Established
He was using canon[x2] for telephoto and Leica for wide.
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
Rhodie said:
A few hours (or days depending on the number of pictures he shot) with photoshop and he'll be ok.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
So fortunately he was not totally out of shots As he would have been in the case Philipp describes. I guess it is a case of : If it is important, use tried and tested gear.
As he would have been in the case Philipp describes. I guess it is a case of : If it is important, use tried and tested gear.