[fotografz]

Well, I'm sure the "buy one, don't buy one, etc.", comment is aimed at me a little bit ... LOL.

Yet, I notice it's the same handful of enthusiasts going on and on about this camera as it were the second coming. To be admired I'm sure, but also to be taken with a grain of salt when you consider the price tag both in money, inconvenience and ancillary user fixes needed.

So, I'll persist with acting as a counter point to assertions that IMO I find to be a bit over the top. NOT that I don't like the M8 and the entire M line up ... I've invested more in M gear over 30 years of consistently shooting Leica than most, and even once had a $200,000 collection of rare Leicas which, to the horror of other collectors, I actually used!

I respect the opinions and work of Guy, Sean and others here. David's printing skills are not to be questioned IMO. But I also respect my own experiences and those of the professional photographers I have had the good fortune to work with in my 40 year advertising career. As a designer, art director and creative director, I'll hazard a guess that I've bought more photography of more types than any one here ... and could name drop until Hell froze over.

Most of the assertions seemed based on a certain image criteria that some, but not all, subscribe to. Guy's love of Kodachrome is pretty revealing of that criteria. Digital smoothness being one of those attributes. This is one of the aspects of digital that has given rise to the "it's better than scanned MF film".

However, contrary to David's assertion that this should put an end to the digital verses film debate ... I continue to assert that it is NOT a contest because it is an apples to oranges comparison. They are two different ways to make photographs each with it's own set of charms and draw backs. I personally find it terrific that we as artists have a selection to draw from depending on our artistic objectives.

But if we must persist in using that criteria, I'll play a bit ... there is nothing shown here that one couldn't reproduce with one roll of film in an M7. Not only produce, but do it with more latitude and dynamic range. And in the case of the portrait do it with much better skin texture, tones and color ... while holding shadow detail in the hair and maintaining the highlight detail in the blouse.

Does this make me a digital-phobic throwback? I hope not since I have dropped the equivalent amount of cash in commercial digital capture to have paid for a place in the Hamptons... or a Aston Martin Vanquish S. That, my friends, is dedication to digital.

Why the counter-point opinion? Because this is NOT a cut and dry decision for most.
I personally have listened to seemingly unshakeable positives from very respected photographers, and seen others follow their lead ... only to have those opinion leaders suddenly change course. Few photographers could have been more of a Leica M supporter than the wedding photographer Jeff Ascough. He evangelized the M to no end, then suddenly abandoned it all for Canon DSLRs, and claims he'll never look back.

Over enthusiastic support of anything is what leads to overlooking the obvious. With-in two days of general distribution of the M8 all the glaring flaws missed by Beta testers were discovered by early adopters.

So, IMO consider with caution. This is not a film Leica that proved to hold it's value for decades. Be satisfied with it as it is, because it will be different in very short order. Those of us that make money with cameras can absorb the shock of digital depreciation, to others it is simply a loss.

As far as FUN is concerned, I don't consider working through a manufacturers problems to be fun. Shooting without concern to the gear is what defines FUN to me.