Price increase M8 and WATE

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I realise I ought to perhaps sell my 5D too, but I want to see what the R10 has to offer - and it's price. For the last couple of years I've used Leica lenses on the Canon DSLRs that I've owned, it would be nice to use them on a Leica body again <grin>

[Shootist]

Agreed, and I also agree with quite a bit of what you suggest, but to make the form more like a DSLR is missing the point of what makes the M8 unique in the digital marketplace.

 

Also I'm guessing that the majority of M8 buyers are coming from an M background. This is just a guess on my part, but I've seen no evidence to contradict it.

 

Again this is just my personnel opinion.

 

 

Yes I think they are also, although there are others that have never owned a M film camera that jumped on the M8.

 

Personally I never used a grip base on any of the film M's I've owned and never had a problem holding the camera. But with the M8 I have the grip base added to both of them. I think it is the cover Leica used on the M8. It just doesn't give me the same grip of the camera body as the covers on the older M's (never owned a 5, 6 or 7 M so I don't know what there covers are). I even bought a grip base for my M3 and found I didn't like it. I never get the feeling that the camera may slip out of my hands with the M3. I do/did have that feeling with the M8 until I got the grips.

 

No I don't want it to be like my D200 or any other SLR camera either.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[ho_co]

Howard one of the issues of the MATE was the design and that it also caused a lot of mechnical problems from what leica mentioned. Besides one of the elements formula they can not get anymore there other issue was the mechanics of it and it was so complex. i did see on the tour a cut away of the MATE and i have to say it was prue genius in design but really complicated also. BUT i still love your thinking here and i would love to see it in reality on the WATE , just not sure Leica wants to get into that kind of design again. But you never know they are engineering fanatics.

 

On the other hand i really don't know why the price has gone up, that is somewhat a shocker.

 

Guy, thanks. As you say, they had two versions of the MATE and were still finding problems. It was a great technical achievement, but over-stressed. Following Puts' argument that the company should move to easier-to-produce designs, it would likely have been on the chopping block anyway.

 

And you got my point:

1) Why on earth this big a price increase?

2) Well, what if it meant [and my heavy-duty speculation]

 

But it would be nice, kinda sorta, wouldn't it?

 

--HC

[ho_co]

Forgive me for sticking my nose into other people's business (after all I don't have an M8) but this is really a good one. Or maybe you just forgot to stick an army of smilies onto that statement, in which case I apologize for the rant.

 

So, L despises kludges and inelegance. Is that so.

Well I dare say the whole M8 concept is a kludge to begin with, followed by many lesser kludges to iron out the mushrooming little or not so little problems. Internal switches that respond to the position of the frame preview lever in order to "detect" the focal length - give me a frickin break. And even that doesn't work with WATE.

 

When you discuss such issues at great length, isn't there sometimes that little voice that says "rangefinder and digital simply don't go together that well, so maybe we're asking a bit too much"?

 

I have been working with an M4 for quite a number of years and found myself on the brink of springing for an M8 but eventually opted out. Haven't regretted the decision so far.

 

Time to don the flameproof suit. Have a go!

Cheers,

 

Dieter, there's nothing to attack in what you said. The problem, if I read you right, is simply that you're confused.

 

Check out the function of the toggle switches used in the M8; check out the functionality of the MATE.

 

The correction of the IR problems also required a kludge, but that doesn't mean that Leica likes kludges. According to the LFI interview, Herr Lee got quite angry when the oversight was unearthed.

 

Your choice of whether to buy an M8 is yours alone, but consider KM-25's conversion: He made excellent arguments against the M8, explained that he is happy to stick with film and is engaged in a long-term film project with Leica. And then a couple weeks later he bought an M8 and posted his delight with it.

 

You will never regret your choice not to buy and M8 until you do so and realize the amount of time you've spent without it.

 

--HC

 

EDIT:

PS--I wrote that before seeing KM-25's response to your comments; I'm glad he submitted his opinion directly here.

[ho_co]

Maybe Leica mis-judged the market and expected more M users to jump into the M8 than they did?

 

It seems that they have attracted a whole new set of clientele as well - those who haven't used rangefinders before, and therefore don't care that the M8 is sort of like an M3

Andy, tell me if you've got hard data, but my feeling is that a very large number of M users went M8. I think they got more new users than they expected, but my guess is that they did as well as they expected and maybe better in carrying M users to the new camera.

 

I think there were a lot of us previous users just waiting to go digital with Leica.

 

I wonder if there's a big sign in the design department to cramp their creative style: "Remember the M5!"

Mark, I think that cuts both ways. You're right that the M5 was too big a change for the traditionalist to accept, and by extension it's strongly arguable that an M8 that didn't look like an M4 would have been a very big stumbling block. But on the other hand, IMHO the M5 was the best definition of Leica's design and construction competence to date (I'll be glad to defend that but it's off-topic here), and the M8 pushes the limits of the doable in the same way as the M5.

 

If you want the look and feel of an SLR, buy a bloody SLR, there are zillions of them out there.

That's it, Steve. For everyone wanting a digital Leica, the camera had to look and act like a Leica. And "Leica" means M3, M6 etc.

 

Personally, I don't think Leica could have done much differently in the M8. The lenses set the limits on the depth of the body, and the 135/2.8 and 90 Macro set the limit on rangefinder configuration. But as far as that goes, the constraints on a new M camera were set by the size and shape of its predecessors.

 

--HC

[jonoslack]

Well, I never had a Leica before the M8 (apart from a month with an M6ttl and 30 rolls of film).

I love it - I don't want it to have projected framelines or more information or . . . .anything really, it makes me concentrate, it's the first camera I've owned in 20 years which has really challenged (and changed) my shooting style.

I think that Contax tried to make a 'modern' rangefinder with the G series, and, lovely though it was, it really missed the point.

I think the M8 has that magical combination of characteristics which really work - of course it has flaws, but it DOES work.

I love it.

[Guest sirvine]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yeah, I don't even want to think about the bugs with an electronic viewfinder---not to mention its longevity. And the Contax G viewfinder is so dim that I can barely stand it.

[ho_co]

Sol, Jono--Hear, Hear! That's what has made the Leica the successful camera that it is!

[DaveSee]

Andy that was sort of my point is really the M8 is a throw back RF digital camera that very much resembles the old look and feel of the M film camera's. This was exactly what they tried to do but in the process picked up new M shooters that i really believe they did not count on , like me. I agree also the M9 will and probably should be back to the 21st century technology of look and feel of the modern DSLR's. It still will have the leica style though just modernized

While mentioned in your earlier post, and there too calling the M8 a "throwback", the notion that the M8 is a "transition device for film folks who use earlier M cameras" is not very accurate, nor fair: there is a reason a designer like Alessi would say the M body is a design "near perfect"... and for those of us who have become familiar to "the touch", or "hand" provided by film Ms, and to a great extent the M8, this design has its fans. If this M8 camera is a throwback, I'd only agree that it enables the use of lenses spanning 50 years. Yet some will always want more buttons, LCDs or "electronic" VF... precisely what the M design avoids, thankfully.

 

As to the WATE cost greater than 3 ZM lenses, it's /one/ lens, thus 2 less lenses to carry or change in the field. To some, this is important.

 

As to the increase in cost for both the M8 and WATE: for different reasons, some mentioned earlier, I am not surprised at the tactic, especially now with the new Summarits... the WATE is complex, the M8 is one path the future Leica bodies will offer, but I'm simply considering the range of market, products and value... there is now room for something between the M8 and D-Lux lines, at, say, 3000 EU( a more robust photojournalist rig with a 24/50 TE-like lens?).

 

rgds,

Dave

 

PS-Guy, you know you're pushing the MF/RF debate, especially when you consider how nimble the M8 is for the imaging capability.

[Albert4321]

B&H (& pop flash) has update the WATE price to $5395. It was $3895 few days back.

[Shootist]

Not sure why the phrase "Electronic Viewfinder" seems to always come up but that is one thing I would NOT want in any M style camera.

But as I mentioned before it would be nice to have LED/LCD/Electronic FRAME LINES incorporated into the a true Leica view/ranger finder. With that you could get rid of the third window on the front of the camera as that is only used to help illuminate the frameline grid.

[marknorton]

The light to illuminate the framelines has to come from somewhere, so if you eliminated the middle window, you would have to have power consuming LEDs instead. LCD based frame lines would be derived from a grid of black pixels with lines opened based on:

 

- lens mounted

- focussing distance

 

The attraction of a frame line which is a single complete rectangle and which accurately indicates the frame is undeniable.

[DaveSee]

Not sure why the phrase "Electronic Viewfinder" seems to always come up but that is one thing I would NOT want in any M style camera.

But as I mentioned before it would be nice to have LED/LCD/Electronic FRAME LINES incorporated into the a true Leica view/ranger finder. With that you could get rid of the third window on the front of the camera as that is only used to help illuminate the frameline grid.

Yea, I did overstep a wee bit... and you're LED idea is interesting; however, IMHO I'd rather not have any more lights inside the VF than there are now. One feature of the "throwback" ambient illuminated VF lines and focus patch is the ability to render these lines and patch with a consistent intensity. In a low-key/available darkness environment, LED framelines would be too bright/intense to also work in brightly lighted environs.

 

rgds,

Dave

[hankg]

This is the major basic issue of the M8 , it was designed for film guys making the transition from film to digital

 

While it is true that the M8 was constrained by the digital unfriendly M platform I don't think Leica stuck with it to provide a transition vehicle for film shooters.

 

I expect that Leica had it's hands full with the digital component so didn't give any thought to 'improving' the M's ergonomic design -they were probably more concerned with just coming up to the bar the film M sets for ergonomics. So I think they stuck with the film M interface because its a good one and with the M mount because of the large installed base of lenses.

 

I do hope that Leica can use digital technology to improve frameline accuracy in a transparent way. In other words it should look like it does now just be more accurate. There are a few other tweaks like external old-fashioned analog controls for EV and ISO but nothing should be done to make the Leica M more DSLR like.

 

Because the majority of DSLR's share a common interface design philosophy doesn't mean it's the right one for digital for all users. I prefer simplicity and analog controls, however in the case of the frame line accuracy I'm not in favor of having to work at something I shouldn't have to give a thought to. So the M8 was successful in preserving most of what was good in the M. There is always room for improvement but one must be careful as a lot of times the improved versions of things are not improved at all. Which is why the viewfinders of most 30 year old SLR's are light years better then the dim tunnels most DSLR users today have to suffer with today -the same goes for the missing aperture rings on modern lenses. The Contax G viewfinder was an example of an 'improved' modern viewfinder that was actually pretty dismal compared to any old M. You get the picture.

[Shootist]

Yea, I did overstep a wee bit... and you're LED idea is interesting; however, IMHO I'd rather not have any more lights inside the VF than there are now. One feature of the "throwback" ambient illuminated VF lines and focus patch is the ability to render these lines and patch with a consistent intensity. In a low-key/available darkness environment, LED framelines would be too bright/intense to also work in brightly lighted environs.

 

rgds,

Dave

 

Leica and the M8 does that now with the LED's for the meter. That is what the blue small sensor just above and to the right of the Leica DOT is for. It reads the external light intensity and adjusts the meter LED brightness.

Otherwise in dark spaces the meter LED's would blow your eye out.

[DaveSee]

Leica and the M8 does that now with the LED's for the meter. That is what the blue small sensor just above and to the right of the Leica DOT is for. It reads the external light intensity and adjusts the meter LED brightness.

Otherwise in dark spaces the meter LED's would blow your eye out.

Hey! (Sorry to wander so far OT, but...) You're right. I'm not always "looking at" those little red glyphs--transition from an M4:D--yet, again, the transparency of the current mech makes it easier to use the framelines as a guide or suggested view, easily ignored... a bit like "seeing the green, not the fairway &c." in golf.. another activity of rising costs driven by technological alternatives, which changes little for those with a feel for the game:D...

OK, so I'm trying to get back OT!

 

And back OT: due to the mechanical nature of lens mount and cam to frameline and focus patch(plus lens character) even if increased cost meant improved frameline accuracy, would LED framelines /be/ more accurate, or just /look/ more accurate? And then there's the WATE and external finder... additional electronic coupling to this unit when using the WATE? I suppose it is large enoughto have a battery and LEDs!

 

rgds,

Dave

[sean_reid]

Personally, I don't think Leica could have done much differently in the M8.

--HC

 

There were things that could be done, and still can be done with an M9, etc. that would preserve the basic M form factor while improving the ergonomics of various key controls and displays for ISO, EV comp. etc. I also gave Leica some ideas about ISO/EV access that could be improved via firmware and was told that they were going to be adopted. When and if that will happen, I don't know.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[ho_co]

Sean--

I have no problem with your public recommendations about better access to ISO & EV settings etc. (Just don't want to lose the 'rollover' from top to bottom or bottom to top of the individual menus.)

 

By "couldn't have done much differently" I meant basic thickness and layout, not number or function of buttons. I, too, find some operations clumsier and less direct than necessary.

 

--HC

[marknorton]

B&H (& pop flash) has update the WATE price to $5395. It was $3895 few days back.

 

Makes you wonder doesn't it. This lens is now more than the cost of an entire M8, at least in the US. In the UK, this would clearly be intolerable situation for them, so the M8 is going up in price to keep ahead of the WATE.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jlm]

didn't the M7 also control the brightness of its readout but without the need for the cryptic blue dot sensor?