geoffreyg Posted March 29, 2008 Share #141 Posted March 29, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Interesting question. The range of responses is also interesting. When I first got the M8 (15 months ago), I was in deep love. Back to RF, portability, fantastic image quality. When it died, and went away for some 2-3 months, fondness went away for a while. Now its back, and we're making up, slowly. The range of lenses bought to keep it company are rather astounding - 15 CV, 28, 35, 50, 75 CV and older 90 - but good deals were had on all of them, so I guess its OK. A local camera shop sold the 35 and 50 for little money. The real issue is the "keeper ratio". It takes wonderful quality informal shots, and I'm happy to take it along in places where I wouldn't take a larger camera. So there is a whole group of good shots to keep that wouldn't exist without it. That said, I'm having trouble getting very serious shots with the M8, still preferring the medium format (and film) for that. Better composition and control of the image on the ground glass. Its not the competition from the Canon that is the issue for me, but rather from larger format and more careful (and thoughtful) composition. Seems like now, there are two "keeper" piles: the good quicker shots, that wouldn't be without the M8, and another one for more controlled fine art shots. It would be nice for this not to be so, but there it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 29, 2008 Posted March 29, 2008 Hi geoffreyg, Take a look here Leica M8 - Would you buy it now?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stunsworth Posted March 29, 2008 Share #142 Posted March 29, 2008 That said, I'm having trouble getting very serious shots with the M8, still preferring the medium format (and film) for that. Better composition and control of the image on the ground glass A limitation of the an RF system for you I guess rather than a problem with the M8 in particular. If you're more comfortable with an MF camera for those shots then that's what you should use (yes I know that's obvious <grin>). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ridder Cornelius Posted March 29, 2008 Share #143 Posted March 29, 2008 Ironically after mentioning in a thread a couple of weeks ago that my M8 was doing fine, it broke down the day after, came to a complete halt so I sent it back to Solms. Once it gets back I don't know yet what I'l do with it, keep or sell... anyway I bought a Nikon FF last week with the 24-70 2.8.... and this works out fine too, other than the size and weight I am pleased with this as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 29, 2008 Share #144 Posted March 29, 2008 A limitation of the an RF system for you I guess rather than a problem with the M8 in particular. If you're more comfortable with an MF camera for those shots then that's what you should use (yes I know that's obvious <grin>). Originally Posted by guy_mancuso That said, I'm having trouble getting very serious shots with the M8, still preferring the medium format (and film) for that. Better composition and control of the image on the ground glass Steve that is not my quote BTW , it was Geoffreyg. I have not shot film in at least 10 years or more. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 29, 2008 Share #145 Posted March 29, 2008 Steve that is not my quote BTW , it was Geoffreyg. I have not shot film in at least 10 years or more. LOL Not sure how that happened, I just pressed quote and edited the original text. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker Posted March 29, 2008 Share #146 Posted March 29, 2008 Really! And yeah, where are you shooting indoors that demands somthing longer than a 135 (180mm equivalent)? Trying to do head and shoulders portraits of stage players from the nosebleed balcony? Yes really, and please keep your sarcasm to yourself. I have the lenses, you don't. I have the filters, you don't. There are situations where flash is not allowed and photographers are only allowed a certain distance from where to take a photograph. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker Posted March 29, 2008 Share #147 Posted March 29, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Either sell them, or leave them on the shelf. The problem will come if you have an M8 which needs them, and an M9 which (maybe) doesn't. Sell to who? I'm sure most people would want a newer M9 that has the IR issues fixed rather than go buy UV/IR filters and have a workaround on the M8. And the worst part, if you have both an M8 and an M9, changing filters from one lens to another does seem very troublesome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 29, 2008 Share #148 Posted March 29, 2008 Not sure how that happened, I just pressed quote and edited the original text. I figured as much. No problem Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted March 29, 2008 Share #149 Posted March 29, 2008 Sell to who? I'm sure most people would want a newer M9 that has the IR issues fixed rather than go buy UV/IR filters and have a workaround on the M8. What you're implying here is that the M8 will have no value when the M9 is released (if it is, and if it has solved the IR issue). If that's the case, be sure to give me first refusal on your old, valueless M8. I'll pay the postage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker Posted March 29, 2008 Share #150 Posted March 29, 2008 What you're implying here is that the M8 will have no value when the M9 is released (if it is, and if it has solved the IR issue). If that's the case, be sure to give me first refusal on your old, valueless M8. I'll pay the postage. That has to be the assumption. Think about it. Having UV/IR filters was *NEVER* in the original release/design. The usage of filters has been an after thought. In fact, there was even a very slow, largess attitude in even acknowledging about the UV/IR issues. And Leica was totally unprepared in planning their thin resources to deliver to folks the 2 free filters, many waiting months to receive them. What are you saying, that the M9 will continue to be a workaround solution for a botched design? PS: People who are too cheapskate to buy the UV/IR filters would most probably will also be to cheapskate to buy an M8 . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 29, 2008 Share #151 Posted March 29, 2008 Well I will be the first to tell ya I hate filters and when news of this came about, I was not happy in the beginning. But here is a fact that I realized later after you finally give it up and stop worrying about it , just buy the things and put them on all your lenses and get over it. What I learned after a year and a half is they truly protected my lenses. i use a lot of lenses with metal hoods and no caps. On resale of some of my lenses there is not even a dust spot on the glass. I know pain in the arch but they have saved thousands of dollars for me . You know how hard it is to sell a lens that has some marks on it to Leica fanatics that want stuff like it came out of the box. Almost impossible. So in the end not a bad thing. Now that is to say nothing of the images that are corrected properly and give excellent color with the filters on. For me they never come off ever. The filters work so anyone that says they don't really does not know much about color, sorry to say that but the M8 NEEDS that IR block in the filters. There is no true way of getting around it even Jamie will say the same thing with his wonderful profiles many of you use. Your still missing something using profiles only , it still cannot block the effects of IR. Nothing will do that except the proper amount of IR blocking for critical color. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted March 29, 2008 Share #152 Posted March 29, 2008 That has to be the assumption. Think about it. Having UV/IR filters was *NEVER* in the original release/design. The usage of filters has been an after thought. In fact, there was even a very slow, largess attitude in even acknowledging about the UV/IR issues. And Leica was totally unprepared in planning their thin resources to deliver to folks the 2 free filters, many waiting months to receive them. What are you saying, that the M9 will continue to be a workaround solution for a botched design? PS: People who are too cheapskate to buy the UV/IR filters would most probably will also be to cheapskate to buy an M8 . Hm. Let's try another assumption. *gazes into crystal ball* The mists are clearing, I see an eBay listing... M8 for sale, together with a load of now surplus to requirements UV/IR filters. Buy it now for £.... Ah, the mists have returned... Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 29, 2008 Share #153 Posted March 29, 2008 The usage of filters has been an after thought. In fact, there was even a very slow, largess attitude in even acknowledging about the UV/IR issues. That implies that Leica were unaware of the characteristics of the sensor they were using, something I find difficult to believe. My personal opinion is that the launch of the camera was rushed in order to get revenue and that the marketing people at Leica hoped that the IR issues wouldn't be troublesome for many users. I'm sure there were some very unhappy engineers in Solms when the camera was released. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rweisz Posted March 29, 2008 Share #154 Posted March 29, 2008 Sell to who? I'm sure most people would want a newer M9 that has the IR issues fixed rather than go buy UV/IR filters and have a workaround on the M8. And the worst part, if you have both an M8 and an M9, changing filters from one lens to another does seem very troublesome. It would seem like even if the M9 doesn't need the IR filters Leica should put the cyan correction in firmware and the ON+UV/IR option in the lens detection menu for people who use the two cameras together. If they don't it will be only to coerce people into selling there M8s and buying 2 M9's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rweisz Posted March 29, 2008 Share #155 Posted March 29, 2008 That implies that Leica were unaware of the characteristics of the sensor they were using, something I find difficult to believe. From any other company, I would find it hard to believe too. But Leica farmed out the components of the M8 in so many directions and there house was in such disorder leading up to the launch of the M8 that even something that blaring could've slipped through the cracks. Leica was just luck so many of there customers are loyal brand fans because if Canon or Nikon had pulled the same stunt, 2 free filters or not they would've had to recall them all. Then again Leica only had to sell 12K of them, not 1.2 million. No, what I find difficult to believe is that the so-called independet people who tested them prior to the rollout either let Leica con them into hushing it up or promise it would be fixed by the time the production models went on sale, or else, and this is the one I have the most trouble believing, they didn't notice it. How anyone could still be considered a credible authority after claiming he didn't notice the IR affect is beyond me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted March 29, 2008 Share #156 Posted March 29, 2008 No, what I find difficult to believe is that the so-called independet people who tested them prior to the rollout either let Leica con them into hushing it up or promise it would be fixed by the time the production models went on sale, or else, and this is the one I have the most trouble believing, they didn't notice it. How anyone could still be considered a credible authority after claiming he didn't notice the IR affect is beyond me. That is a serious accusation, and the espousal of a conspiracy theory right up there with Diana being bumped off on the orders of Phil the Greek. What price do you suppose Leica would have had to pay the many testers worldwide for them to have jeopardised their personal credibility and livelihoods by colluding in a cover-up? C'mon! Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bernd Banken Posted March 29, 2008 Share #157 Posted March 29, 2008 at the PK in September 06 Leica handed out a catalogue about the M system including the M8 (neu/new). Production: Heine/Lenz/Zizka 09/06/CEGW/B Pics from Simon Wheatley, shot with M8 show cool youngsters in street scenes in London I guess. Nearly all pics show this ugly magenta. I really can't believe that no professional from shooter, art director, Leica authorities and printers had no question mark about this color shift. The photographer as a person "in" the location should have recognized this colorshift, but did he see the proofs? So there was no preciseness in the chain of production of this catalogue, a very, very expensive mistake for Leica and a lost of confidence of customers. It reminds me of the first introduction of a Volvo car in the sixties when the first test drive of the car made clear that this car had four reverse gears and one forward gear, due to the wrong design of the rear axle and the differential..... Bernd Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffreyg Posted March 29, 2008 Share #158 Posted March 29, 2008 A limitation of the an RF system for you I guess rather than a problem with the M8 in particular. If you're more comfortable with an MF camera for those shots then that's what you should use (yes I know that's obvious <grin>). Yes, but the size and digital quality of the M8 is so.... wonderful. Can't we just have it all? Geoff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rweisz Posted March 29, 2008 Share #159 Posted March 29, 2008 That is a serious accusation, and the espousal of a conspiracy theory right up there with Diana being bumped off on the orders of Phil the Greek. What price do you suppose Leica would have had to pay the many testers worldwide for them to have jeopardised their personal credibility and livelihoods by colluding in a cover-up? C'mon! Regards, Bill Actually Bill it wasn't an accuasation at all, just an expression of incredulousness. Michael Reichmann publicly stated he saw the IR affects and mentioned it to Leica and claims they asked him not to publish anything about it. And one other dude who reviewed the M8, IIRC the guy who runs a pay site with reviews, said he didn't notice it. So I wasn't accusing anything that hasn't already been stated by the people involved, I just think it's a little odd that anyone still puts there faith in those people, not because there not allowed to mess up ever, but because generally in the media it's easy to lose credibility and very hard to get it back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy Posted March 29, 2008 Share #160 Posted March 29, 2008 What I learned after a year and a half is they truly protected my lenses. Completely agree. You have to weigh up the chance of occasional flare against, in my case, the near-certainty of scratching your front element through carelessness. Since I know my habits only too well, I've always stuck a filter of some kind over my Nikon SLR lenses (usually a UV one). So adding the Leica filter on the front was a no-brainer for me: something would've been there in any case, and better, in that case, to lose the anti-aliasing filter and what-have-you inside the camera. That said, the one thing I really don't like about the IR / UV cut filters is the weird pink colour that reflects off them. Makes them look like something from a William Gibson story... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.