Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ronazle

A new rangefinder camera

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But Bill - NONE of those factors would cause the people on this forum to over-represent camera failures!

 

Leaving aside the arguable point* that the forum attracts complainers, there is absolutely nothing inherent in your list that would bias the results in the way you suggest/

 

* one could argue that the forum actually attracts a higher proportion of Leica-loyalists who would under-report failures - but that is probably not true either.

 

With respect, Mani, you are misquoting me by clipping my original post.

 

In my original post I went on to say:

 

"You cannot draw ANY conclusions from what is posted here - we do not even know the sample size compared to the total population!"

 

You might as well say that most Leica owners have black hair - there is as much objective statistical evidence here to make that assertion.

 

As to your point that "...the forum attracts complainers," I could not possibly comment

- however, in my experience, people tend to be more vocal if something is wrong than if something is right.

 

Simply put, the posters on this Forum are not statistically representative, and any conclusions drawn - in either direction - would be erroneous. If you look on the front page you will find the following:

 

Members: 29,147, Active Members: 5,466

 

I do not know the definition of an "Active Member" in this context, but I suspect, purely from observation that the number of people who actually bother to express their opinions here in a given week is barely into three figures and that is being generous. So those who post on a regular basis are a small fraction of the "Active Members" let alone the registered ones, or the actual number of Leica owners worldwide.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well when you have a failure you first try to look on the internet if someone had the same problem then if you find a place that talks about it you post there. If your camera works you just go taking pictures... So yes, I also believe this forum over repreasents M8 failures. And no my M8 did not fail, but I am a geek, so I am here .

 

Well - that case is easily tested by looking at how many of the failures are reported on the person's first post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well - that case is easily tested by looking at how many of the failures are reported on the person's first post.

 

Rubbish. It is not tested at all. See above. You may as well say sick people travel in ambulances, so if you don't travel in an ambulance, you won't get sick.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With respect, Mani, you are misquoting me by clipping my original post....

Simply put, the posters on this Forum are not statistically representative, and any conclusions drawn - in either direction - would be erroneous.

 

Fair enough Bill - if I've learned anything from this forum, it's that the only way to win an argument is to misrepresent the other person's viewpoint.

 

But seriously - naturally one can't draw any 100% conclusions from the experiences reported on the forum, but sometimes it's all we've got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But Bill - NONE of those factors would cause the people on this forum to over-represent camera failures!

 

Leaving aside the arguable point* that the forum attracts complainers, there is absolutely nothing inherent in your list that would bias the results in the way you suggest/

 

* one could argue that the forum actually attracts a higher proportion of Leica-loyalists who would under-report failures - but that is probably not true either.

 

I think the opposite. I suspect that people experiencing problems with the M8 seek out others with similar problems in order to share information, compare notes and find answers. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this forum was highly unrepresentative - perhaps even a specific locus for discussions about M8 problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rubbish. It is not tested at all. See above. You may as well say sick people travel in ambulances, so if you don't travel in an ambulance, you won't get sick.

 

No Bill - I was simply saying that if a person has a problem and looks for this forum in order to vent that problem - then their first post will be the report of their camera failure.

The poster suggested that people will come to the forum precisely to vent their frustration about a malfunctioning camera. That means that their first 100 posts will not be 'My first snaps of the wife's dog taken with the M8 and Summicron 35"...

 

EDIT: Oh well - I see from coming back after writing this there's no point in discussing the point whatsoever. Everyone seems convinced that posters are attracted to the forum in order to complain, whereas my experience (in the couple years I've been a member here - my post numbers were somehow lost when the forum moved) is that the vast majority of posters are of the 'I LOVE my new M8'-variety.

But never mind. I have my 100% reliable R-D1s - I haven't had ANY problems with it, and I therefore conclude that everyone who says different is either lying, a troll, or doesn't even own the camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm personally intrigued by the possibility of Nikon producing an M-mount digi-rangefinder - even if the prospect seems rather far-fetched.

There's a lot of certainty in this thread about financial disaster for those who've ventured into this niche territory in the past - is it based on guesswork or hard fact?

 

I'm not sure if Nikon would want to make an M-mount anything. Sure they'd sell bodies but unless Nikon then wanted to make M-mount lenses to go with it, what's the point? I don't recall if Nikon made any additional "S" mount lenses with its commemorative rangefinder a couple years back. As a Nikon/Leica user, I'd rather see Nikon resurrect the FM body and put a digital chip in that.

 

Sure it would be nice if somebody resurrected the RD-1. But I can't see a CL-sized digital rangefinder happening unless it was with a smaller than DX sized chip. But who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Competition as always a good thing. I shoot canons for my pro sports and concert work Very happy to see the nikon d3. I too would love to see a zeiss or nikon rangefinder. Can anyone really think the m8 is as good as it gets. Lower light noise at 1250 on up and audible noise and 1800 bucks for a lower noise camera after 4800 or more well you all know my feelings about this. Competition will make Leica work harder and hopefully lower prices and get there service act together. David

David, thanks for addressing the main thrust of my thread. While, given my rambling comments, the point may not have been clear, it was a plea for competition. Without the Japanese Leica copies and the original Zeiss Contax, we probably would still be shooting with screw mount Leicas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jimmy pro

ROFL! Ya, it works like this: whatever Leica doesn't offer is a pointless bell or whistle made for untalented brainless snapshooters. But the minute Leica decides to offer it, it's pure genius and an indispensible tool of serious photographers. Twas with AE on the M7 ( "impossible to put AE into existing M body" changed to possible by competition from the Konica Hexar RF, twas with digital with the M8 (M digital "impossible" changed to possible by comptetition from the RD1), twill be with AF on the R10 (well, sometimes even with competition from everywhere Leica has to cowtow to the idiosyncracies of its fans).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
M digital "impossible" changed to possible by comptetition from the RD1

That’s nonsense. Leica was already busy working on the M8 (and had admitted as much) before the R-D1 was introduced in 2004.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No Bill - I was simply saying that if a person has a problem and looks for this forum in order to vent that problem - then their first post will be the report of their camera failure.

The poster suggested that people will come to the forum precisely to vent their frustration about a malfunctioning camera. That means that their first 100 posts will not be 'My first snaps of the wife's dog taken with the M8 and Summicron 35"...

I actually did not say they would come to vent their frustration, more like looking if someone had the same problem and find out if there is an already known solution. Not everybody enjoys ranting in public as much as some seem to assume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nikon built a revival of the old S3 rangefinder around 2000-2001. For $3000 at a time when an M6 was still around $2000 +/-. Lost money on the project even at that price.

 

Is that really a track record that would encourage ANYONE to take on Leica in the RF market?

What makes you certain that Nikon built the S3 or the SP (2005) for the purposes of making money? They were both on the market for an extremely short time, and as I recall, it was extremely hard to get one because they were all being snapped up by collectors and nostalgic photographers. Obviously, demand was not an issue. Obviously, Nikon could have priced them much higher if they wished. Isn't it possible that they were testing the market for a DRF? I don't think they consider those cameras to be losses as much as R&D costs. I agree that most other companies may not be interested in a DRF, but I think Nikon has their eye on it. I also think that CV and/or Zeiss will come out with one eventually. At the very least, they have engineers developing prototypes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What makes you certain that Nikon built the S3 or the SP (2005) for the purposes of making money? They were both on the market for an extremely short time, and as I recall, it was extremely hard to get one because they were all being snapped up by collectors and nostalgic photographers. Obviously, demand was not an issue. Obviously, Nikon could have priced them much higher if they wished. Isn't it possible that they were testing the market for a DRF? I don't think they consider those cameras to be losses as much as R&D costs. I agree that most other companies may not be interested in a DRF, but I think Nikon has their eye on it. I also think that CV and/or Zeiss will come out with one eventually. At the very least, they have engineers developing prototypes.

 

 

How does releasing a meterless, limited edition, handmade, film camera targeted at the collector market test the market for a DRF? I don't get it.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough Bill - if I've learned anything from this forum, it's that the only way to win an argument is to misrepresent the other person's viewpoint.

 

But seriously - naturally one can't draw any 100% conclusions from the experiences reported on the forum, but sometimes it's all we've got.

 

No problem, Mani

 

Regards,

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you kidding! Do you even read any of the posts on this forum. IMHO the M8 is a breakthrough camera..offering unique and high value capabilities. Initial reliabilty is awful ...don t know any M8 s that either haven t been to Solms or should be. With that said once the initial problems/adjustments are made ..at least for me it has been highly reliable. Even with the inherent limitations in a mechanical rangefinder you can given time learn to get great results. Service is by far the largest issue with the M8 system.

 

Not a single problem since day one. Sorry your experience was different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How does releasing a meterless, limited edition, handmade, film camera targeted at the collector market test the market for a DRF? I don't get it.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

It tests the market for rangefinder aficionados and whether the Nikon name still carries any weight with them. It also builds anticipation.

 

You find it easier to believe that they made them for no purpose other than to lose money and please collectors? Businesses don't make ANY moves without thinking about how they could benefit from it down the road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had a great experience with the 2 M8s I have owned, no problems at all. I also have had nice experiences with the Leica NJ folks.

 

Every camera maker can have some niggling problems when a product is introduced. Nikon had the BGLOD (Blinking Green Light of Death) that affected early D70s where, suddenly, nothing worked at all (including power up) but the little light on the back just at there and blinked. I had that happen, pretty catastrophic compared to some of what we discuss here.

 

Anyway, just my 2 cents

 

Kent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It tests the market for rangefinder aficionados and whether the Nikon name still carries any weight with them. It also builds anticipation.

 

You find it easier to believe that they made them for no purpose other than to lose money and please collectors? Businesses don't make ANY moves without thinking about how they could benefit from it down the road.

 

Well, I agree with your last sentence! We will never know for sure why Nikon made them, but I can't imagine that VW made the Bugatti Veyron (on which, if it is to be believed, they lost about £750k per car) as a litmus test for the next Passat.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jimmy pro
That’s nonsense. Leica was already busy working on the M8 (and had admitted as much) before the R-D1 was introduced in 2004.

 

Why don't you post a link to those alleged admissions. The way I remember it, Leica was swearing up and down an M digital was "impossible with current technology" until the RD1 was announced, then Leica did a quick backspin and suddenly they were supposedly already working on it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...