M8 Iraq field test - ouch...

[delander]

Originally Posted by Roel

No, it's the quality and possibilities of the M camera. Far below the standard of what one needs nowadays.

OK that might apply to you but it is not the general truth you make it out to be.

Jeff

[erl]

One thing is for sure. The pictures coming out of the M8 sure beat the arguments about it!

Yawn. I'm off to bed. Will the last one standing please turn out the light.

[Roel]

I'm saying that if they can, they try to avoid zooms. Because we all know that prime lenses are better. But let's stay with the primary subject. What is surprising me is that while everyone here knows about the failures of the M, which is now tested and confirmed by professionals, everyone tries to enervate, minimize or even ignore this failures, instead of trying to put pressure on the firm to solve these lacks against a normal price. Of course they can solve at least some. I think, concerning the price of the M8, and the own suggestions of Leica c.t the upgrade program, they are obliged that more or less. To improve a firm, it needs critical and demanding customers. That's the last thing I will write about it. The lacks are proved.

[sean_reid]

[quote=Roel;581837One of the politicians is doing something that needs to be shot with motordrive speed.[/QUOTE]

Wait a second...*needs* to be shot at motor drive speed? Did we not have excellent photography of politicians before the motor drive? Have we surpassed Robert Frank's pictures of politicians? I understand that high-FPS shooting is standard practice for many photographers but I would disagree with the assertion that one *needs* to work this way. It's a choice. Photographers who primarily use AF and a high FPS rate obviously might not want to choose an M camera of any stripe. But we don't all work that way.

I've said this before, but one factor that, I believe, greatly confuses Internet discussion is over-generalization. Photographer A needs and values "X". Fair enough, but it doesn't follow that all photographers (even in the same subfields) need and value the same.

As soon as we look at any camera with over-generalized ideas of what other photographers need, we can quickly end up in a mire. Each of knows our own needs but we're not experts at what other photographers want or need.

So, with the M8, for example, one can fairly say "this camera does not work well for me at all". But we can't necessarily say "this camera will not work well at all for you".

Cheers,

Sean

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by Roel

I What is surprising me is that while everyone here knows about the failures of the M, which is now tested and confirmed by professionals

Actually, like any camera, both the strengths and weaknesses of the M8 have been confirmed by a lot of photographers, professional and amateur.

Again, I think what's bothering some people here, understandably, are the over-generalizations. I don't think any of us would argue that a Leica M (of any stripe) is the best tool for any and all photography.

Cheers,

Sean

[fotografr]

Originally Posted by sean_reid

Each of knows our own needs but we're not experts at what other photographers want or need.
So, with the M8, for example, one can fairly say "this camera does not work well for me at all". But we can't necessarily say "this camera will not work well at all for you".

Sean

Sean--I wonder how many times and in how many ways we will have to keep saying this before it sinks in. The unwillingness of a few people here to understand and accept that logic is the root cause of a lot of unpleasant discourse.

[Saloti]

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. 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.

Roel,

my understanding truly is that -indeed- the times of Leica M being THE "reporter-camera" is over, although a few of them still are out there using it. Also we all know that reporters
working under extreme conditions very often like to have an analog M in their pocket,
for evident reasons.

I do not believe that ever a digital M-Leica will play any major role in this market segment,
this would mean attacking Nikon & Canon. Whether a new digital R-line will be able to
do this, no idea, it would be a long way to go anyway.

Leica M can only address to a "sophisticated" amateur or semi-professional target group
and/or to simply very wealthy people who "must have" this premium product (whether they
understand it or not).

The fact that we find Leica ads in special interest titles promoting the "cheap" Summarit
line and sets (Leica M + Summarit lenses), however, shows that existing users will not
allow the company to return to sustainable profitability.

In summary: not only you but also a lot of forum members do see the critical issues
with regard to Leica M, however, nobody would dare to have an offroad experience
with a Ferrari........................

[fotografr]

Originally Posted by Saloti

Leica M can only address to a "sophisticated" amateur or semi-professional target group
and/or to simply very wealthy people who "must have" this premium product (whether they
understand it or not).

I agree with most of what you said, with the exception of the above statement. People tend to think the term "professional photographer" applies only to photojournalists working for press agencies and news organizations. There are many other kinds of professional photography for which the M8 is highly suited. This includes both formal and environmental portraiture, documentary photography, landscapes, architecture, event and wedding--to name just a few. I don't think Leica have, or should, ignore these segments of the professional photography industry.

[Saloti]

Originally Posted by fotografr

I agree with most of what you said, with the exception of the above statement. People tend to think the term "professional photographer" applies only to photojournalists working for press agencies and news organizations. There are many other kinds of professional photography for which the M8 is highly suited. This includes both formal and environmental portraiture, documentary photography, landscapes, architecture, event and wedding--to name just a few. I don't think Leica have, or should, ignore these segments of the professional photography industry.

Brent, you are right. I, as an amateur, very much focus on landscape and documentation.
I can perfectly imagine that a pro with this focus is/would be very happy with the M-
series. Thanks for this clarification.

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by Saloti

Brent, you are right. I, as an amateur, very much focus on landscape and documentation.
I can perfectly imagine that a pro with this focus is/would be very happy with the M-
series. Thanks for this clarification.

This won't be the first time I've noted this but there are indeed professionals who work with the M8 and I'm one of them.

Cheers,

Sean

[AlanG]

Actually, a Speed Graphic still has its place in news photography. I haven't seen any photos from Iraq that rival Joe Rosenthal's famous photo.

Personal | 0 | | David Burnett -- Photojournalist

Well, it seems he also has Canons as back-ups.

I also remember David speaking about a time in Vietnam when he was fumbling to re-load his Leica (screw mount I think) meanwhile missing shots of what turned out to be Nick Ut's Pulitzer prize winning and iconic photo of Kim Phuc. Yet photojournalists kept using Leicas.

Untitled Document

[sean_reid]

Originally Posted by AlanG

Actually, a Speed Graphic still has its place in news photography.

While I understand that many photographers love the motor drive, I was never able to find one for my 4 x 5 Crown Graphic. <G> I think maybe the film holder flip was the biggest engineering challenge but aligning the dark slide each time must have been tough for a motor drive as well.

Lest I sound like I'm dismissing high FPS work, let me say clearly that I realize this method works very well for many people. Are a lot of PJs routinely working in large bursts of exposures? ... of course. Is it SOP for many PJs? ...yes. But it definitely isn't the only way to work.

Cheers,

Sean

[thai.charlie]

Originally Posted by AlanG

Actually, a Speed Graphic still has its place in news photography. I haven't seen any photos from Iraq that rival Joe Rosenthal's famous photo.

Personal | 0 | | David Burnett -- Photojournalist

Well, it seems he also has Canons as back-ups.

I also remember David speaking about a time in Vietnam when he was fumbling to re-load his Leica (screw mount I think) meanwhile missing shots of what turned out to be Nick Ut's Pulitzer prize winning and iconic photo of Kim Phuc. Yet photojournalists kept using Leicas.

Untitled Document

And Nick also used a Leica M2 and 35mm lens to make his picture of Napalm girl.

I usually blame myself when I miss a picture, not the camera. If a camera's idiosyncracies contributes to my missing a picture, then I either try to figure out how to make it work for me, or I stop using that camera. I'm pretty sure Dave doesn't blame the Leica for making him miss the picture

[lxlim]

Originally Posted by Saloti

... the times of Leica M being THE "reporter-camera" is over,........................

I would not say that, Michael Kamber's words "..But I missed the Leica’s unobtrusiveness and precise focus. The small size and quiet operation are something I very much need. "

Reliability, ergonomics and other issues might distract us from the fact that the range-finder does still have a place in the PJ's toolkit.

Having a high FPS camera is useful but it might have earned him a bullet in the wrong circumstances. The M8 might have failed his exacting requirements but not the rangefinder.

Roel, I understand where you are coming from. The professional doing broad general news work need the most flexible tool that is also reliable and capable. The DSLR is that tool. The range-finder has become a niche tool but note what Kamber said, "..something I very much need.." and that is despite the advantages the SLR has over the range-finder.

The M8 is Leica's answer to its perceived main market which is really not News. I have used the M8 vigorously and professionally. Editorially, commercially and for corporate clients, none of them complained about the camera. I did not really know about the leica other than my perception that it was a rich man's toy. But people like Sean, Guy, Jaap and many others changed those perceptions through their efforts because of their affinity to the range-finder concept.

The news culture is really a herd reaction. Faster, bigger, stronger tools to do the job quicker. Does it really need a war and eminent danger to remind us that doing your job quietly and unobtrusively is also a necessary skill?

Certainly, take Leica to task for not living up to their legendary quality but temper your words for a company whose survival was in doubt not too long ago.

The M8 issues have been reasonably resolved for the work I use it for. When I bought it I had no illusions of Leica's past grandeur and reputation but rather I focused on the strengths and weaknesses known. The solutions brought forth by the passionate users were adequate for my needs. Could the M8 have been better or more features suitable for me? Yes, I certainly wished it was and that it had. To be fair, nobody really knows how to built a surefire product that will kill all competitors. Leica, in bringing out the M8 range-finder pleased many but displeased many too. The M9 likewise will do the same.

[delander]

Originally Posted by lxlim

Certainly, take Leica to task for not living up to their legendary quality but temper your words for a company whose survival was in doubt not too long ago.

Great words and I agree entirely. Those who seem to take great delight in slamming Leica should bear this fact in mind.

Jeff

[ho_co]

Originally Posted by thompsonkirk

... Steve Unsworth wrote that:
"As sure as eggs are eggs if Leica had made the framelines accurate at say 2 metres rather than the minimum focussing distance there would be people complaining that their close up shots were being cropped. Would I prefer the framelines to be accurate at 2 metres? Personally yes I would. But it's easy to adjust."

I assume this meant the photographer is the adjustable component - not the viewfinder lines themselves? ...

Kirk--Some have suggested that the best way to accustom oneself to these framelines is simply to work with a given lens for several days. "It's easy to adjust" by getting a feel for what the discrepancy is with each focal length. BTW--The 90's have the least (though still sizable) discrepancy, and the 75's the most.

If the latter, this is a secret that's been kept from me. But now I'm suddenly wondering: Can an old-hand Leica tech (someone like DAG or Sherry Krauter) actually reset the parallax correction from a different starting-point?

Not at the moment. Leica would have to supply different frame-line foils. There has been some reasonable speculation that they may do that in future. (See http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...tml#post268062 for example.)

Originally Posted by Roel

Most good photographers avoid zooms.

Originally Posted by Roel

I'm saying that if they can, they try to avoid zooms. Because we all know that prime lenses are better.

Both generalizations and erroneous.

ALL primes are better than ALL zooms, eh?

Roel, you're out of touch with modern optics. These days, some Leica zooms are better than their equivalent primes (see EP's reviews). Some Nikkors are better than their equivalent primes (see various Nikon-oriented sites).



How many times on how many points do we have to remind you that what you "know" to be true may not be true for others (and possibly not even for you)?

We've read MK's article, and he makes excellent points. We've also decided whether we can live with the M8's quirks. And we don't need to be told by anyone else that we've made the wrong decision and should just look at Kamber's (or someone else's) review to see the error of our ways.

[plasticman]

Originally Posted by ho_co

We've read MK's article, and he makes excellent points. We've also decided whether we can live with the M8's quirks. And we don't need to be told by anyone else that we've made the wrong decision and should just look at Kamber's (or someone else's) review to see the error of our ways.

Hi Howard

Back from the conference and in many ways impressed by the restraint of the responses to my comments a couple of days ago (apart from the meaningless and puerile 'stop whinging' post by someone - a typical internet response which never won any discussion in real life).

Anyway, I think that the fallacy of your argument is that no-one is actually telling you - or anyone else - that you're not permitted to enjoy your M8. I really can't understand this over-defensive response to external criticism of the camera. Carry on enjoying it!
But contrary to what appears to be the belief of some, this forum is not the exclusive dominion of the M8's defenders.

Thanks to everyone who can understand and tolerate difference of opinion.

Mani

[Roel]

O, for Christ sake, Sean. I seldom work and worked with motor drive speed. I wrote earlier: sometimes one needs that speed. Sometimes. Are you blind? It's not a matter of choise in general. Besides of that: what do you know of the scene I was in? Your comparision to Robert Frank is therefore ridiculous here. ( funny, in the press my books were often compared to Frank's style). And the market for the daily work is very much quite different than in the fifties. If you are not aware of that...too bad for you. The point is: if one needs in certain circomstances motor speed, and most of the camera's can deliver that, but not the M8, than something is wrong with the M8. There are more sortcomings, remember? Read better! And that is now definitly my last writing here. Worshippers ...o boy.

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by Roel

...funny, in the press my books were often compared to Frank's style...

ISBNs? Are they available from Amazon? On-line reviews perhaps?

In my experience people often use fast motor drives because they lack the skill to know when to press the shutter.

[stunsworth]

Originally Posted by Roel

... if one needs in certain circomstances motor speed, and most of the camera's can deliver that, but not the M8, than something is wrong with the M8.

Personally I've never needed a faster motor drive than the M8 can deliver. Actually, I've never _needed_ a motor drive. So yes I agree that if you need a fast motor drive and you chose an M8 you've chosen the wrong camera - but that's surely the photographer's fault for being stupid and not reading the camera's specifications?