ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
I just saw these M8 photos. One of them appeared in the random selection here.
They are great photos and I enjoyed them a lot. Then I noticed they were made with a Leica M8.
I'm not a digital guy and not an equipment guy, but it surprised me that digital has come so far. Next I looked in the M8 gallery and found that many of the photos I've enjoyed in the past few months were made with this camera.
Will this M8 change photography in the same way that the first Leica 35mm cameras changed photography?
One more thing. Do I understand correctly that a 35mm lens fitted to a Leica M8 gives about the same perspective as a 50mm lens on a 35mm film camera?
They are great photos and I enjoyed them a lot. Then I noticed they were made with a Leica M8.
I'm not a digital guy and not an equipment guy, but it surprised me that digital has come so far. Next I looked in the M8 gallery and found that many of the photos I've enjoyed in the past few months were made with this camera.
Will this M8 change photography in the same way that the first Leica 35mm cameras changed photography?
One more thing. Do I understand correctly that a 35mm lens fitted to a Leica M8 gives about the same perspective as a 50mm lens on a 35mm film camera?
stephen.s1
Member
use the 4/3rds rule John. 35/3=11.7. 35+11.7=46.7mm. Yep, close to 50mm. 
My walk-around lens on the M8 is a Zeiss 35mm f2. Works great.
My walk-around lens on the M8 is a Zeiss 35mm f2. Works great.
Ben Z
Veteran
Jon Claremont said:
Leica was the first company to produce a successful mass-produced (for the times) 35mm camera. They come very late to the digital party and the M8 is way out of the financial reach of the vast majority of photographers. No doubt some photographers will exploit its potential, others won't...as is the case with every other camera Leica or not.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Ben Z said:
You are not seriously suggesting that the pre-WWII Leica's were cheap snappers for the masses are you? Relatively the were further out of reach of Joe Average than the M8 is today.
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Don't confuse people with currency adjusted for inflation- this will go over the top every time.
K
Ken Tanaka
Guest
Back to the original point of this thread...
The rangefinder camera has had its day. While it's enjoying a modest resurgence this style of camera doesn't have much of a widespread future in today's digital world. The two digital rangefinders are far too costly and far too limited to offer much of a change to photography. They will remain interesting but pricey niche products. The last type of camera that truly "changed photography" was the digital point-and-shoot. (EDIT: Actually, probably the camera phone!)Jon Claremont said:
Yes, that's about correct. I think that a 35mm lens on an M8 provides about the same field of view as a 45mm lens would provide. Multiply the focal length of the lens by the camera's sensor crop factor (approx 1.3) to determine the 35mm equivalent focal length.Jon Claremont said:
Last edited by a moderator:
sirvine
Established
There's a tactile quality to rangefinders (at least the good ones) that is very satisfying. Sure, the top-of-the-line Casio watch tells time and has nineteen stopwatches, but it's plastic and bulky and ugly on your wrist. And, no, photography isn't a fashion show, but if the way a camera looks and feels gets you out shooting, that's worth the sacrifice in features (and maybe even performance to an extent). Not to mention reclaiming the lost art of manual focus, etc., which can actually lead to better photos. And can anyone deny that M-mount lenses are something special that also add a special dimension to the digital experience.
Some day everyone will shoot 50MP HDR images on their camera phones, and they'll wonder why us bozos still want these heavy little cropped 35mm throwbacks.
Some day everyone will shoot 50MP HDR images on their camera phones, and they'll wonder why us bozos still want these heavy little cropped 35mm throwbacks.
Ben Z
Veteran
jaapv said:
Where did I mention 'cheap snappers for the masses'? You are not seriously suggesting that there was a wide assortment of reasonably-priced prosumer cameras in the 1920's are you? Pretty much everything other than fixed-settings box cameras were rather expensive. Today is a different market and the choices are not limited to a $5000 Leica or a 'cheap snapper'. That's the market Leica has to survive today, as opposed to the one they owned in the 1920's.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Ben Z said:
The words were mine, the sentiment yours, I believe. The M8 is relatively far cheaper than Leica's were then.
Ben Z
Veteran
There's a site here that figures what something bought in years past would cost in today's money. According to a price list I have here, a chrome Leica IIIb body only in 1939 cost $96, which translates into $1393.35 in 2006 (the last year the calculator accepts). I do believe that's just a tad less than an M8 costs
Last edited:
HAnkg
Well-known
You need to adjust for inflation so multiply by at least 10. That's probably still not close to the amount of purchasing power the dollar has lost since then.Ben Z said:There's a site here that figures what something bought in years past would cost in today's money. According to a price list I have here, a Leica in 1930 cost 17 British pounds (the calculator doesn't work in dollars), which translates into 738 British pounds in 2006 (the last year the calculator accepts). I'll have to defer to our UK forumers here but I suspect the M8 costs a bit more than that
Average US salary was 1,368. per year in 1930 compared to more then $44,000. today. The pound was worth about double the dollar value then then today although on that I'm not sure. So 17 pounds was pretty big bucks back then. A Chevy went for between $555 - $755 in 1930.
Last edited:
Ben Z
Veteran
HAnkg said:
I redid the original post because I found where it does dollars, and I also have a 1939 pricelist in dollars with all sorts of bodies and lenses. Very interesting, I never thought I'd have any use for it
In 1939 my father made $125 a week as a tool-and-die man, so the IIIb he bought cost him a little under a week's salary. I don't know if tool-and-die men make $4000/week ($200K/yr) today but I kind of doubt it. Maybe.
Last edited:
zuikologist
.........................
HAnkg - £17 was the average male weekly wage in the Uk in the 1960s.
Ben Z
Veteran
What is the average weekly wage in the UK today? Is it much less than the £738 the calculator says a 1930 Leica would cost today? I'm having a really hard time understanding how Leica could sell enough cameras to survive in the 1930s--the depth of the great depression world-wide--if they cost more than what $5000 buys in terms of life necessities in 2007.
Kim Coxon
Moderator
OK, Lets try not to spoil another M8 thread yet again with the Punch and Judy show "Oh yes it is- Oh no it's not" arguments.
Kim
Kim
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Kim Coxon said:
I thought that was the Pantomime, Kim?
Kim Coxon
Moderator
Oh no it isn't. Well maybe it is. I think the Punch and Judy line was "Oh yes you did - Oh no I didn't."
Kim
Well maybe it is. I think the Punch and Judy line was "Oh yes you did - Oh no I didn't." Kim
jaapv said:I thought that was the Pantomime, Kim?
Ben Z
Veteran
Wow, that brings back memories. My grandmother used to talk about seeing Punch & Judy when she was a child--she would be 120 if she were alive, how old are you guys ??
Kim Coxon
Moderator
My Grandmother took me to see it on Folkestone beach in the 60's. There are still a few Punch and Judy shows in the UK and you can sometimes find them at country fairs and on the beaches. Most still use the original puppets.
Kim
There are still a few Punch and Judy shows in the UK and you can sometimes find them at country fairs and on the beaches. Most still use the original puppets.Kim
Ben Z said:Wow, that brings back memories. My grandmother used to talk about seeing Punch & Judy when she was a child--she would be 120 if she were alive, how old are you guys ??
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
The dialog does get ridiculous outside of a comedy sketch with the persistent, predictable characters, doesn't it?Kim Coxon said:
(oh, no it doesn't)