Rhodie
Established
But sadly not the Leica M8
Robert White's Imprimatur
- Thread starter Rhodie
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 80
- Views 7K
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
jaapv said:
If the Digilux is good enough, then why spending all that money on an M8 on the first place? Just use 2 digital compacts and you'll travel a lot lighter. (not mentioning the $5000 saved)
I find hard to believe that you seriously suggest to carry some low quality equipment just in case your top of the line camera gives you crappy pictures.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
fgianni said:
I figure Jamie's profiles will do the trick a whole lot quicker than that. But Rhodie is right: a filter would have been the better solution. As for filter availability: I have the filters I need right now without any problem within the week. I am saving two to get from Leica. The only ones I am waiting for is 39 for my 2.0/35asph and 41 for my Summarit.Leica will supply the two 58 mm I'll need sometime in the future. But the 50 and 35 focal lengths are covered for in the TriElmar. Another "issue" I have not experienced. I must be the luckiest Leica owner on the world😱 😉 🙄
V
varjag
Guest
Jaapv, am really don't have a problem with people being OK with compromises like that: it's their money, at this moment they supposedly know what they do and I respect their choice. A lot of M8 owners apparently don't mind mandatory filters on their lenses. What I really object to is:
1) Leica not being honest and clear about the issue when introducing the product,
and
2) an attitude to present the cumbersome, ad-hoc solution of mandatory lens coding and cutoff filters as something natural.
If Canon introduced a camera with that much IR sensitivity, commanding cutoff filters usage on lenses in 2006, they'd be laughed off, and deservedly so. Yet here we see a lot of post-factum rationalising with questionable analogies, as if Leica engineering department really intended that much IR and filter usage from the start.
I seem to recall your very thorough post this summer on why protective filters might be undesirable in many circumstances (an opinion that I share), and even mentioning of an accident involving lens damage by a shattered filter. So you're certainly not ignorant about drawbacks of extra glass surfaces (esp. on wideangle lenses and odd stuff like superfast designs), that's why my somewhat skeptical reaction to your advocacy of Leica's (IMHO) ugly solution.
That said, I entirely believe that you (and any other competent photographer) still can achieve great results with M8, much in a fashion like a professional boxer can knock out most of untrained opponents even with one hand tied. Still to tie a hand is not natural 🙂
1) Leica not being honest and clear about the issue when introducing the product,
and
2) an attitude to present the cumbersome, ad-hoc solution of mandatory lens coding and cutoff filters as something natural.
If Canon introduced a camera with that much IR sensitivity, commanding cutoff filters usage on lenses in 2006, they'd be laughed off, and deservedly so. Yet here we see a lot of post-factum rationalising with questionable analogies, as if Leica engineering department really intended that much IR and filter usage from the start.
I seem to recall your very thorough post this summer on why protective filters might be undesirable in many circumstances (an opinion that I share), and even mentioning of an accident involving lens damage by a shattered filter. So you're certainly not ignorant about drawbacks of extra glass surfaces (esp. on wideangle lenses and odd stuff like superfast designs), that's why my somewhat skeptical reaction to your advocacy of Leica's (IMHO) ugly solution.
That said, I entirely believe that you (and any other competent photographer) still can achieve great results with M8, much in a fashion like a professional boxer can knock out most of untrained opponents even with one hand tied. Still to tie a hand is not natural 🙂
Bill58
Native Texan
Life isn't perfect people. Go out and shoot and make it work. That's all that counts.
HL[/QUOTE]
For $5,000 a pop it could/ should be closer to perfect than it appears. Even if I could afford/ justify one, I'd be really p____off with the problems w/ the M8.......... and RD-1.
HL[/QUOTE]
For $5,000 a pop it could/ should be closer to perfect than it appears. Even if I could afford/ justify one, I'd be really p____off with the problems w/ the M8.......... and RD-1.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
From Leica:rxmd said:
"The dream of many Leica photographers has come true: the Leica M system is now open for professional digital photography. Breaking completely new ground, the LEICA M8 doesn't only look like an M - it utilizes all the benefits of the analog Leica M system for sophisticated and creative digital photography. It is the only digital camera for professionals to incorporate the rangefinder system with its advantages of discreet and quiet operation, speed and precision. And the no-compromise quality criteria of the M system continue to apply to the M8. Full compatibility with nearly all M lenses means that their unique imaging performance is now available for digital photography, too. The low-noise CCD image sensor with a resolution of 10.3 megapixels has been specifically matched to the compact lens design to guarantee superlative photographic quality."
and
" Exceptional performance in every detail
For Leica, image quality is not only a catchword, but a value attainable by optimizing all the links in the performance chain: Leica's M high performance lenses, now performing even better in the digital system with the new 6-bit coding."
(Emphasis mine)
Yes, Leica does have "A special note to for the Leica M8 users", but the point of Rhodie's 1st post is that with all the Leica hype and marketing statements of excellence, continuing the Leica tradition, yadda, yadda, yadda ... Leica released something that was NOT predictable in its performance for the professional. And they clearly knew this was the case pre-launch, as their press release about the problems states. (If that is not the case, then they are lying in said press release.)
So, just like with Epson's mishandling of QC and post-sales support, this is an issue of brand and reputation. I don't think that those own, enjoy and appreciate the M8 for its marvelous image quality when the problems are apparent (or for when the issues get fixed) should denigrate those who are really disappointed. As has been pointed out in one of Dave Sang's threads about attachment to Leica cameras, our light boxes are emotional objects for many, not just tools for freezing moments of time.
Now, I promise myself
I WON'T READ ANY MORE LEICA M8 THREADS!!!!
(Note the magenta text! 😀 )
Rhodie
Established
Back Up Cameras
Back Up Cameras
Jaapv does have a good point about always carrying a back-up.
My first assignment was 3 months in Afghanistan in 1983 carrying 2 OM2s & 3 OM1s.
I only had one OM1 truly working by the end of the trip.
I quickly moved over to Nikon F3Ps and an FA for the flash sync. But I always had a P&S whether it be a XA, Canon ML, Contax T1-3s, Nikon 28Ti, Ricoh GR1v. Sadly they don't come out of the cabinet as often as they ought.
Depending on the job I still carry a P&S backup - Canon Powershot S70 [RAW] or Powershot S80 which I don't like as it's toooooo magenta! and only shoots jpeg.
What do you carry for a backup now we know that the M8 cannot always be relied upon?
Back Up Cameras
Jaapv does have a good point about always carrying a back-up.
My first assignment was 3 months in Afghanistan in 1983 carrying 2 OM2s & 3 OM1s.
I only had one OM1 truly working by the end of the trip.
I quickly moved over to Nikon F3Ps and an FA for the flash sync. But I always had a P&S whether it be a XA, Canon ML, Contax T1-3s, Nikon 28Ti, Ricoh GR1v. Sadly they don't come out of the cabinet as often as they ought.
Depending on the job I still carry a P&S backup - Canon Powershot S70 [RAW] or Powershot S80 which I don't like as it's toooooo magenta! and only shoots jpeg.
What do you carry for a backup now we know that the M8 cannot always be relied upon?
Last edited:
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Instead of making the same points over and over again, why don't we just put together a list of the most common M8 arguments, like this:
A. Filters, yes or no?
A.1 Filters deteriorate optical quality.
A.2 It's inconvenient to use filters, especially if you use more than one.
A.3 It's normal to use filters. Every photographer should be familiar with them.
A.4 I don't want to be forced to strap something in front of my camera because the company failed to strap something to the back of it.
...
D. Leica's attitude
D.1 I think they made the right design decisions.
D.2 I think they made the wrong design decisions.
D.3 I think they are evil because they knew about it and didn't tell anybody.
...
H. Money
H.1 If I shell out $5000, I can expect a flawless device.
H.2 People shell out $30.000 for cars and don't mind when they're recalled.
...
U. User's attitude
U.1 I have an M8 and I like it.
U.2 I have an M8 and I hate it.
U.3 I just cancelled my order for the M8.
U.4 I ordered an M8 and I'm not going to cancel it.
U.5 I don't have an M8, but I like to complain anyway.
U.6 I don't have an M8, but I feel every customer is entitled to an opinion.
...
And then we just have to shout "A1" - "E2!" - "You U5!" - "U6!" at each other. Less typing, and most threads wouldn't be any more or less informative than they are now.
Philipp
A. Filters, yes or no?
A.1 Filters deteriorate optical quality.
A.2 It's inconvenient to use filters, especially if you use more than one.
A.3 It's normal to use filters. Every photographer should be familiar with them.
A.4 I don't want to be forced to strap something in front of my camera because the company failed to strap something to the back of it.
...
D. Leica's attitude
D.1 I think they made the right design decisions.
D.2 I think they made the wrong design decisions.
D.3 I think they are evil because they knew about it and didn't tell anybody.
...
H. Money
H.1 If I shell out $5000, I can expect a flawless device.
H.2 People shell out $30.000 for cars and don't mind when they're recalled.
...
U. User's attitude
U.1 I have an M8 and I like it.
U.2 I have an M8 and I hate it.
U.3 I just cancelled my order for the M8.
U.4 I ordered an M8 and I'm not going to cancel it.
U.5 I don't have an M8, but I like to complain anyway.
U.6 I don't have an M8, but I feel every customer is entitled to an opinion.
...
And then we just have to shout "A1" - "E2!" - "You U5!" - "U6!" at each other. Less typing, and most threads wouldn't be any more or less informative than they are now.
Philipp
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Eugene,
Your remark about my stand is totally true, and I still stand by it. However that was about protective filters. I also made it very clear in that post that I advocated the use of filters for photographic reasons or even protective filters when needed. Here we are in a situation where the use of filters enhances the quality of the photograph. Not only IR issues, but also colour balance and sharpness, as it turns out. There I say: use them by all means. As an additional bonus IR filters are configured in such a way that flare and reflections are better surpressed than with multicoating. I have started testing this and it seems to be true.There are a couple of shots on LUF.
Having said that, I don't like the necessity of filters and would rather be without, but I do understand the underlying issues and am prepared to accept this solution, as it is a photograpically correct one.
The tradeoff is of course is the camera worth the hassle? Having used it for some weeks now I can only say emphatically yes. It is worth the money and it is worthy of the Leica name. But it is not a camera for everybody. I do not mean this negatively.I cannot imagine a taxidriver being happy driving a Ferrari instead of a Mercedes, but it does not make a Ferrari a lesser car.
Also valid is criticism to the way this way initially handled by Leica. I won't repeat my take on this, I posted it earlier in this thread, but I personally blame Leica more for misjudgdment than anything else.
What is really starting to irritate me are the uninformed or downright malicious posts (although this forum seems to have fewer of them than some others) stating that:
a. Leica knew full well that the camera was utterly faulty and should be sued.Mostly by those that would never have dreamt of buying the camera in the first place.
b. Leica was too stupid/cheap/hasty to choose the "better"solution of a filter in front of the sensor, never mind the laws of physics.
c. Leica is so inexperienced that a firmware update is needed, not that that matters with Canon, Nikon, etc.
d. It is totally unacceptable that a new product has some bugs and should have been tested until -until when? Those posters never state that, nor do they waste any words on the excellent way in which Leica is handling the recall. No other maker ever did that as well.
e.The camera is incapable of taking any photo better than a cell-phone and anybody saying the contrary is an idiotic apologist.I suppose the galleries like the one here don't exist.
f. Leica is driving the cost up by making filters necessary. This about 70$ filters on a 5000$ camera, with at least 8000$ worth of lenses (the first two lenses are free) and adding 70$ to each subsequent 2500$ lens. Sorry, that is pitiful.
And similar blatherings.
There is something in the Leica brand that makes every troll and basher crawl from under his stone and start swamping the internet.In a way I suppose it is a compliment. I am thankful for the voices of reason on this and some other forums and the reviewers that managed to keep tied to their anchors in this hurricane.
Your remark about my stand is totally true, and I still stand by it. However that was about protective filters. I also made it very clear in that post that I advocated the use of filters for photographic reasons or even protective filters when needed. Here we are in a situation where the use of filters enhances the quality of the photograph. Not only IR issues, but also colour balance and sharpness, as it turns out. There I say: use them by all means. As an additional bonus IR filters are configured in such a way that flare and reflections are better surpressed than with multicoating. I have started testing this and it seems to be true.There are a couple of shots on LUF.
Having said that, I don't like the necessity of filters and would rather be without, but I do understand the underlying issues and am prepared to accept this solution, as it is a photograpically correct one.
The tradeoff is of course is the camera worth the hassle? Having used it for some weeks now I can only say emphatically yes. It is worth the money and it is worthy of the Leica name. But it is not a camera for everybody. I do not mean this negatively.I cannot imagine a taxidriver being happy driving a Ferrari instead of a Mercedes, but it does not make a Ferrari a lesser car.
Also valid is criticism to the way this way initially handled by Leica. I won't repeat my take on this, I posted it earlier in this thread, but I personally blame Leica more for misjudgdment than anything else.
What is really starting to irritate me are the uninformed or downright malicious posts (although this forum seems to have fewer of them than some others) stating that:
a. Leica knew full well that the camera was utterly faulty and should be sued.Mostly by those that would never have dreamt of buying the camera in the first place.
b. Leica was too stupid/cheap/hasty to choose the "better"solution of a filter in front of the sensor, never mind the laws of physics.
c. Leica is so inexperienced that a firmware update is needed, not that that matters with Canon, Nikon, etc.
d. It is totally unacceptable that a new product has some bugs and should have been tested until -until when? Those posters never state that, nor do they waste any words on the excellent way in which Leica is handling the recall. No other maker ever did that as well.
e.The camera is incapable of taking any photo better than a cell-phone and anybody saying the contrary is an idiotic apologist.I suppose the galleries like the one here don't exist.
f. Leica is driving the cost up by making filters necessary. This about 70$ filters on a 5000$ camera, with at least 8000$ worth of lenses (the first two lenses are free) and adding 70$ to each subsequent 2500$ lens. Sorry, that is pitiful.
And similar blatherings.
There is something in the Leica brand that makes every troll and basher crawl from under his stone and start swamping the internet.In a way I suppose it is a compliment. I am thankful for the voices of reason on this and some other forums and the reviewers that managed to keep tied to their anchors in this hurricane.
Last edited:
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
rxmd said:
For U you missed:
U.6 I don't have an M8 and I am not in a hurry to get one since my R-D1 performs flawlessly (so far), If I did not have one I would probably buy the M8 and, very grudgingly, live with its deficiencies.
So for me is
A.2, A.4, D.2, H.2, U.6
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
jaapv said:
Soryy Jaap but again I find hard to believe that it is not only the $2500 lenses that will need filtering, along with my cron and lux I have an I61, and several CV lenses, I think that they would need filters as well, and for some the cost of the filter is more than the cost of the lens.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Hell, the cost of the LTM-M adaptor is more than my I-50 (and the Zorki it came with!). But if I want to put it on my M3, that's what I have to pay. I wonder what Leica's service dept. has to say about that??fgianni said:
...Mike
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
fgianni said:
Yes, that is the worst-case scenario and actually it was not aimed at that situation. I do believe a 489 is less expensive and nearly as effective. On the other hand, I find filtering is not needed for 80% of use and the other 20% are situations (like indoor etc.) where I would tend to use older lenses for B&W anyway, if that is any consolation.
newyorkone
Established
Rhodie said:
Absolutely ridiculous statement on so many levels. It's not even worth my time to address how inaccurate this statement is since it is so absurd.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
jaapv said:
Yes. Who buys B&W film, anyway? It's fundamentally flawed: it lacks color. 🙄
V
varjag
Guest
BW film manufacturers make no false claims about its color fidelity.
(I called analogy police, black helicopters arrive shortly)
(I called analogy police, black helicopters arrive shortly)
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Gabriel M.A. said:
I'm with you! Don't buy Tri-X but desaturate!! Levels sliders of the world unite!!!😀 😀 😀
John Camp
Well-known
Rhodie said:
I'm shocked that you shoot Canon. Absolutely shocked.
JC
S
Socke
Guest
Harry Lime said:
Would you keep a Porsche which is limited to max 80 mph due to new tire technology? Especialy when nobody told you so until the first owners blew a tire at 120?
I can accept a couple of flawed circuit boards which are replaced, but a severe lack in image quality, and the magenta cast is one, is a bit too much.
If they'd comunicated that
a) due to compromises made in favour of edge to edge sharpness the camera may need an additional IR block filter
and
b) the camera may not work as expected with third party and uncoded Leica lenses
this would have been fair.
After all a lot of Leicas customers are used to digital cameras by now and have expectations which are met by other digital cameras.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
They turned around at the whisper of "orthochromatic" and "panchromatic" from air control 😱varjag said:
Similar threads
