Rick Waldroup
Well-known
If all you want is a bare bones digital camera with limited functions, why pay a premium price for it? Should it not be less expensive?
And as far as a camera maker making a camera that lets you be a photographer again- what a bunch of hogwash. Only you can decide that, not a camera.
And as far as a camera maker making a camera that lets you be a photographer again- what a bunch of hogwash. Only you can decide that, not a camera.
Last edited:
What's so good about the M8 and M9- the selection of lenses and preservation of Their HMI (Human-Machine Interface).
It's a rangefinder.
It's a rangefinder.
Luna
Well-known
My dentist and I agree. This is the only thing holding us back.
sprokitt
Established
Some great comments.
I am in no way saying rangefinder vs DSLR. Far from it. All systems rangefinder, SLR, TLR, whatever, have their place.
I'm saying is that I want a cameras not a computer. I'm tired of being so distracted by 300 different controls and trying to figure out how to keep the camera from NOT doing something for me.
For nearly 20 years I worked in a camera store. From the time I was a freshman in college until I had to move for my job in 2001. Regardless of brand or format the major theme of the customers in the camera store was the demand for more and more manual equipment over time.
When they first got started most customers came in to bought the latest camera. Within a year or so they began to realize they didn't use 90% of the "features" on their camera. Within a couple of years many customers were back to shooting the most manual gear with the best lenses they could find. Leica most certainly had a built-in audience for that.
I haven't been around many pros in a while, but my past experience would tell me most are shooting the latest gear in almost completely manual mode. Technology is good stuff, but it really can be a dreadful distraction if you know what you're trying to do. Seems like there is a significant market here that very few are addressing.
I am in no way saying rangefinder vs DSLR. Far from it. All systems rangefinder, SLR, TLR, whatever, have their place.
I'm saying is that I want a cameras not a computer. I'm tired of being so distracted by 300 different controls and trying to figure out how to keep the camera from NOT doing something for me.
For nearly 20 years I worked in a camera store. From the time I was a freshman in college until I had to move for my job in 2001. Regardless of brand or format the major theme of the customers in the camera store was the demand for more and more manual equipment over time.
When they first got started most customers came in to bought the latest camera. Within a year or so they began to realize they didn't use 90% of the "features" on their camera. Within a couple of years many customers were back to shooting the most manual gear with the best lenses they could find. Leica most certainly had a built-in audience for that.
I haven't been around many pros in a while, but my past experience would tell me most are shooting the latest gear in almost completely manual mode. Technology is good stuff, but it really can be a dreadful distraction if you know what you're trying to do. Seems like there is a significant market here that very few are addressing.
umcelinho
Marcelo
<dreaming> I wish epson would read this and all the other similar threads and realise that maybe itd be a smart move to make an FF R-D2 with a ZI body. </dreaming>
sig
Well-known
I think the marked for high priced digital cameras with less functionality than a camera half the price is quite small. I can be wrong, maybe all the people who can handle a camera with more than 4 buttons one day will understand that their photos will be better if they spend a lot of money on a camera without the buttons. There are probably people out there today who just ignore the functionality on cameras they do not use (instead of paying top dollar for getting the functionality removed).
GrahamWelland
Well-known
It all seems pretty obvious to me when I'm holding/shooting with my M8 or M9 & decent glass. I enjoy the simplicity of the camera that puts me in much more control of the results without the distraction or temptation of excessive automation taking over. For me it's also the nature of the glass and the quality of the results it helps me produce.
I also have a full blown Nikon DSLR outfit and S90 point & shoot, both of which I use extensively too. I'm happy to use the features of these cameras when I want them and for a lot of shooting scenarios they are my systems of choice.
I think of a car analogy when thinking of M digital vs pro DSLR - the pro DSLR is the SUV or 2010 sports sedan that is technically excellent in all aspects but my M system is analogous to the open top air cooled vintage sports car that is simply a joy to drive just for driving sake.
I also have a full blown Nikon DSLR outfit and S90 point & shoot, both of which I use extensively too. I'm happy to use the features of these cameras when I want them and for a lot of shooting scenarios they are my systems of choice.
I think of a car analogy when thinking of M digital vs pro DSLR - the pro DSLR is the SUV or 2010 sports sedan that is technically excellent in all aspects but my M system is analogous to the open top air cooled vintage sports car that is simply a joy to drive just for driving sake.
user237428934
User deletion pending
I must admit that I don't understand all that puristic stuff.
When I look at the M8 and the 5D then only one thing makes the difference: the rangefinder. The killer functionality of a rangefinder camera is the rangefinder and not that it's more puristic. Sometimes I prefer to use the rangefinder over autofocus. Then a rangefinder camera is the natural choice.
Overall the 5D has the superior user interface and it's less complicated. "Wait a minute" you might say. There are so many features it must be more complicated. But the 5D gives better feedback and I can change all the important settings without taking the camera from the eye. With the M8 it's not possible to change ISO or to compensate without taking it from the eye. When I consider all this, then the 5D is less complicated in daily operation.
But M8 is a great camera with good quality that is fun to use. But not because it's so puristic.
Ricko of Fla
Established
The M8 is a over priced camera. You can buy a great point & shoot for a lot less and get a great picture. But hay I love My M8 and it takes great pictures. And you can play and add all kinds of lens and filters. You only live once, so buy the best and ENJOY!
Ben Z
Veteran
I have all that functionality in my Canon 5D-I and it only cost me $1399. Plus, the high-ISO is great, and I can use not only Canon EF lenses, but Leica-R, Nikon, Olympus, Contax, Pentax screw...even Visoflex lenses! I have no trouble setting the camera up to shoot RAW, and using manual or AE, and ignoring whatever else I don't want to use. I can't see paying more for the removal of unwanted functions, then again I'm not a technophobe so perhaps I don't comprehend the urgency.
Actually what they are, are two of only three digital traditional rangefinders in existence that can use Leica M and screw lenses, and the only two that carry the Leica badge. I suspect that's the main reason why people are willing to pay so much for them.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
If I want to go running, I wear running shoes instead of divers' boots. If I want to drink champagne, I use a silver tankard rather than a flowerpot with a bit of sticking-tape over the hole in the bottom. And if I want to take a picture, I use a Leica rather than a DSLR.
Where's the hogwash in that? On the one hand you can use equipment that is 'transparent', where you can concentrate on doing what you want, or where the pleasure of using it augments the pleasure of taking the picture, and on the other, you can fight with a refractory computer peripheral with a lens on the front.
As for 'shouldn't it be cheaper', well, of course a cramped, noisy, stick-shift Ferrari should be cheaper than a roomy, quiet, automatic Suburban station wagon.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
chrishayton
Well-known
Rangefinder, size and feel is why I like the m8
(by feel I mean, solid, robust quality. Brass instead of magnesium and plastic)
(by feel I mean, solid, robust quality. Brass instead of magnesium and plastic)
Roger Hicks
Veteran
You're using that word 'functionality' again. Completely unjustifiedly.
Cameras take pictures. There is no more 'functionality' than this. There is only ease of use.
Some find manual focus, manual exposure cameras to be the easiest and most reliable route to good pictures, because they hate what they see as unnecessarily overcomplicated cameras.
Others find auto-everything cameras to be the easiest and most reliable route to good pictures. I wish them the very best of luck, but I'd prefer a camera stripped of all but what I want.
This is never going to happen. I have already indicated my distaste for the self-timer and C modes on the M8/8.2/9. But at least there's a lot less of what I (and others) see as unnecessary cr*p and crutches on a digi-M.
Cheers,
R.
ramosa
B&W
indeed, the simplicity and the subtlety.
Ben Z
Veteran
...In the logic, I'm afraid. By the same logic that a diving boot is less suited to running than a running shoe, a Leica M8/9 would be less suited to macrophotography or telephotography than a DSLR. Your conclusion that a Leica is more suited to taking a picture does not follow from the logic you set up. Sorry. I know from your books that you've always chosen different types of cameras for specific tasks, which is what I would expect. I have a Visoflex and can press my M8 to do macro and long-lens photography, but it's not my first choice. Neither is it my choice to use a Leica to capture shallow-DOF candids with a short tele wide open on erratically-moving subjects like skittering children. Modern AF is the running shoe in that race, the M8 is the diving boot. OTOH when I'm walking the streets of Rome or Paris, hopping on and off busses and metros in crowds or sitting at a cafe, I much prefer an M outfit in a little 6x9x4 bag than a 5D with 3 zooms in a backpack.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dest Ben,
Not exactly. Your point about the best camera for the job is well taken, but a complex DSLR is almost always the diver's boot for me, because the AF focuses wherever it damn' well pleases, even after piddling about with AF points. I find it vastly easier to use old-fashion prefocusing and anticipation.
As I said before, this is a personal choice, and I freely accept that there are those who find other approaches easier/more successful/more productive/more intuitive. But to pretend that this is always the case for everyone for e.g. photographing children is, to borrow a word from the post I was answering the first time, hogwash.
Incidentally, why is a modern DSLR better suited to macro than a Viso on an M9? Quicker, yes, but I'm rarely in a hurry with macro. Better? Disputable, especially with the 100% framing of a Viso.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Digital cameras use the same basic hardware for producing images: a sensor, mechanical shutter, and aperture. Most incorporate a metering system, viewfinder, and gain control for the sensor. They are fairly simple devices, no more complicated than an AF P&S or AF-SLR. These Digital cameras are driven by firmware, which defines the HMI. This "feauture rich" firmware can get in the way of quickly and easily configuring the camera for use.
The M8 and M9 is a simple and direct port of a Leica M7 into the digital age. Some of the "bare-bones" features, such as lack of advanced noise reduction post processing in the camera, was most likely do to power, size, and weight trade-offs. I for one appreciate the inerface to the camera. So did the person that I let play with the camera at the local skating rink. He recognized the Leica, asked if it was a film camera. He wanted to get back into rangefinders after a 10 year absence. He'll be looking for one.
The M8 and M9 is a simple and direct port of a Leica M7 into the digital age. Some of the "bare-bones" features, such as lack of advanced noise reduction post processing in the camera, was most likely do to power, size, and weight trade-offs. I for one appreciate the inerface to the camera. So did the person that I let play with the camera at the local skating rink. He recognized the Leica, asked if it was a film camera. He wanted to get back into rangefinders after a 10 year absence. He'll be looking for one.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I never understand it when people suggest that Leica should make a digital camera without an LCD screen. It's just never going to happen. Outside of a very small niche market for such a camera, there would be no one to buy the thing.
We already like to complain about the high cost of the M8 and M9. Imagine how much this LCD-less camera would cost with its development expenses spread out over an incredibly small user base.
Outside of aesthetics, I can't think of a reason to not have an LCD screen. You certainly don't have to look at it, if you don't want to - other than when you change ISO, etc.
We already like to complain about the high cost of the M8 and M9. Imagine how much this LCD-less camera would cost with its development expenses spread out over an incredibly small user base.
Outside of aesthetics, I can't think of a reason to not have an LCD screen. You certainly don't have to look at it, if you don't want to - other than when you change ISO, etc.
Ben Z
Veteran
I would never pretend it's the case for anyone but myself. Others can answer for themselves. Prefocusing/anticipating works for me (albeit, much better with a manual SLR than a rangefinder, where the only focus determinant is the central spot...and yes, I know about focusing on a stationery object and waiting for the subject to hit the mark) but only works well for me with a subject moving in a path that can be anticipated. Children or animals skittering here and there, not so much.
I'm sure you're aware that there was really never a true, computed macro lens made for the Visoflex (that includes the 65mm Elmar, it was not computed as a macro lens). There certainly is nothing in the class of the Leica 100/2.8 APO Macro. And perhaps your vision of macrophotography doesn't require speed, but someone who shoots insects for example, will probably find the quicker-ness of an SLR a major benefit. And although Leica never made one, top-end Nikon and Canon SLR and DSLR's are all 100% framing. (Actually I think the DMR screen crop is 100%).
sig
Well-known
Dear Roger,
I was trying to make a comment about the big market some people here see for cameras with less buttons (that is the interface for functionality I am not allowed to call functionality) but more expensive. I do not think it (the market) is very big.
There are a lot socalled unnecessary cr*p I never use too, I just ignore it,
Hopefully this is a justified comment.
Thanks
Cheers