M8 Iraq field test - ouch...

[Venkman]

Almost on page 10 and so far noone offered any popcorn to the onlookers?

[edit] Woooooh - page 10 reached - popcorn anyone?

[erl]

Methinks the corn was popped right at the beginning!

[stnami]

...............many are still fighting in the ...

[Roel]

Also not a pro, I suppose, Erl. Ever heard of trying a camera? I'm very experienced, won several prices(w.o Budapest, 150 years photography) , and even Leica itself sponsored one of my books. So who the hell are you? Yes, sometimes one needs motorspeed. Sometimes.
Pro's know that. Therefore motordrives exist. And the bad ISO of the M is a fact. The rest...

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by Roel

So who the hell are you?

He's an Australian professional, and more to the point he's a moderator on the forum.

Glad to hear that you are very experienced. Maybe that experience should stretch to choosing the correct camera for a job. I'm sure even in the 1950s an M3 photographer would have realised that the M3 was not the best camera to use if you needed to use long lenses.

[stnami]

.the buggers are shooting back

[delander]

Roel, the members of this forum, professional or amateur know the M8 inside out, good bits and shortcomings. We workaround the shortcomings and love the good bits. There is no point in keep telling us how bad you think the camera is, we have heard it all before so many times and to put it bluntly are bored with hearing it yet again.

Jeff

[Saloti]

a) Interesting that this thread too now comes to a level at which we compare
apples with pears

b) There are a lot of people out there (fortunately for them and for Leica) who
simply WANT to shoot with a Leica M...

It is more than rediculous to criticize this camera (there is sufficient potential
for improvement anyway) because it does not deliver satisfying results in
contexts for which it definitely never has been developed.

So, let us take it a bit more easy. I am just a simple amateur, in certain professional
contexts I would never use a M, this is clear, in some contexts, however, I am sure
I would use the M-series.

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by Saloti

It is more than rediculous to criticize this camera (there is sufficient potential for improvement anyway) because it does not deliver satisfying results in contexts for which it definitely never has been developed

I agree. An idiot could see that an M8 is not the best camera to use if long lenses or macro lenses are required. Perhaps we need more idiots.

[Roel]

Stunsworth and others, I hope that you learn to read. Ofcourse the M is not suitible for long lenses. I wrote that Leica at the moment does'nt sell digital camera's for long lenses. I did not wrote that in my example I needed long lenses all the time. Mostly wide angel was enough. Therefore I had the M, and than one meets all the sortcomings. If you all heard over and over again of all this sortcomings, you'd better point your finger at Leica. And demand for example a better upgrade program, which was suggested by the firm to come, but already was cancelled. The test of mr. Kamber, who is a great and experienced photographer, showed painful the lacks, that appear also in more 'normal' situations. The final conclusion is that the M is not reliable and too old fashionned for pro work in these times. For a mark and reputation like Leica, a mark that I used and loved for twenty years, it is a shame. Even considering that they are tiny. 5000 euro demands not only an up to date camera, it at least demands a trustful one ( Including frame lines. Leica is already working on other frames, which proves that they are better aware of that point than the worshippers). Not more, not less.

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by Roel

I wrote that Leica at the moment does'nt sell digital camera's for long lenses

Leica Camera AG - Photography - Digilux 3

Not a camera I'd chose myself, but I believe that it fulfils the 'long lens' criteria - and it can use R lenses with an adaptor.

Also what about this one - though I admit the lens isn't interchangable and it's only a 12x zoom...

Leica Camera AG - Photography - V-Lux 1

[Roel]

And certainly not a camera a prof would choose. Are all the points taken now?

Kindly regards, Roel.

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by Roel

And certainly not a camera a prof would choose. Are all the points taken now?

Maybe you should take the advice you so generously offered to others earlier and learn to read. What you wrote a couple of messages above was...

"Leica at the moment does'nt sell digital camera's for long lenses"

Can't say I can see any reference to 'professional' cameras (whatever that means) there. The fact is that Leica _do_ sell digital cameras for long lenses as the above links show.

You say...

"The final conclusion is that the M is not reliable and too old fashionned for pro work in these times"

.. and yet there _are_ professionals who use the camera. Several here in fact - and I know others personally who aren't members of the forum.

Sorry, but it seems as if you are trying to extend your personal dislike of the camera into some kind of universal truth. "I don't like the camera, therefore it is useless". This is patently wrong as there are many of us here and elsewhere who use the camera, and enjoy doing so.

[wstotler]

Originally Posted by erl

On yet another hand, I have shot under the difficult light etc conditions you allude to but was using an M8. I was permitted relative free movemet but other photogs with "bazzookas" were heavily restricted by the authorities.

I've found this to be true. Coupled with the appropriate "shooting attitude"/demeanor (I've been working on this over time), a "note the M8, label it non-threat, label the photographer a non-threat, and ignore both" type of invisibility is indeed possible.

In many day-to-day situations, that is. I imagine that in active combat conditions--under fire, for example--this advantage matters not one bit. If they see you they shoot at you, camera or not. And in that case, the Iraq article looks to me to be spot-on.

To use another British auto industry comparison here (saw the British Leyland reference above and couldn't resist) if the Leica M3 was a Land Rover Defender, suitable (unmodified) for off-roading in Kenya, the M8 is a Range Rover, suitable for nights out in Ipswich or going off road on the grounds of your estate. Point being while the Range Rover might be mostly OK in Kenya, you'll probably want to take the Defender instead just to be sure you're covered. (With either, you'll want some bumper stickers in the boot that you can slap over cracks in the windshield.) Defender = M3/M2/MP. Range Rover = M8.

I'm not apologizing for Leica--the M8 has its flaws--but the Iraq/photojournalist environment is a real challenge. Nobody has said it directly, but I think a lot of gut reaction to the Iraq article is that the M8 is perceived to be a contender for uses like this and it's not. It's a loss of prestige for the M8--it couldn't earn a reputation (not yet, anyway) like its predecessors did. (Maybe it's the photographer using it--but, really, probably not. He clearly documented method and results. Sure didn't feel like he was mis-using the M8. The M8 seems to be a less desirable tool for that job, compared to other tools available--kudos to him for *trying* to make it go.) Smarts a little. Not a lot. But a little.

Thanks,
Will

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by wstotler

II'm not apologizing for Leica--the M8 has its flaws--but the Iraq/photojournalist environment is a real challenge. Nobody has said it directly, but I think a lot of gut reaction to the Iraq article is that the M8 is perceived to be a contender for uses like this and it's not.

Indeed, and I don't think anyone would argue with someone who found the M8 wasn't for them in their working environment, even if in the case of the original blog many of the issues described have been known for 18 months or more.

What annoys is the fact that that is then turned around by certain parties into a statement that the camera is of no use to anyone. That is patently rubbish.

[Roel]

Go work for a press agency or a newspaper. Work every day in news events. If you have M it is rare. Practically no one else works with it. There are photographers who tried the M. And brought it back because of the things that are mentionned here. It is not suitable for this work. Ofcourse for some little parts in it, but therefore you do not pay 5000 euro. And once again, the Iraq situation is not the only circomstance where the M shows its failures. That was also mentionned earlier. Indeed, bad readers. The big advantage of the camera is its size. Also mentionned. It's far not enough. That is clear now I think.

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by Roel

Go work for a press agency or a newspaper. Work every day in news events. If you have M it is rare.

And it has been for 40 years or more, certainly for the last 30 with the introduction of AF and bigger, faster zooms. Doesn't mean there were none, but they were a small minority.

[delander]

Sorry Roel, I never use my DSLR ruthless picture taking machines anymore. Just the M8.

I'm happy.

Jeff

[Roel]

And that minority ( bigger than you think) was more than satisfied. Those who are left are not content at all nowadays. That's why they sold their stuff, or did'nt buy the digital one. It has not much to do with zooms. Most good photographers avoid zooms. No, it's the quality and possibilities of the M camera. Far below the standard of what one needs nowadays.

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by Roel

Most good photographers avoid zooms

Sorry, are you saying that most people who work for agencies or newspapers use prime lenses? Or are you saying that they're not good photographers?