Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
stunsworth

Another view on the M8

Recommended Posts

Similarly, when you change the aperture from f/8 to f/4, you double the amount of light that strikes the focal plane because the size of the aperture at f/4 is twice as large as at f/8. (Obviously, moving the other direction, from 1/125 to 1/500 or from f/8 to f/16, results in a halving of the light.)

 

Slightly inaccurate I admit (confusing size and area & it is not the focal plane but the image plane) but I do not see really what problem you have with the statement f/4 = 2x more light than f/8 etc. What am I missing from this equation?

 

Not that it improves the quality of his M8 review which in summary reads as 'the M8 is not a very good DSLR'. Of course according to Flickr the M8 is an expensive point and shoot - which is fine with me.

 

If you do not love camera's then you will never understand all this Leica stuff anyway. Pick up a 1960's tele-elmarit 90mm, mount on the M8, and you have your instant magical time machine. Mount a cron 28 asph or 50 lux asph and suddenly you have portraits with 25 pixels per follicle resolution and incredible 3-D depth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest rweisz
Apparantly rweisz can't think.

 

Excuse me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

Personally i see no reason whatsoever to read any review on the M8 when i sat here and lived every moment with it for well over a year. Frankly i can't write very well but hell I could give you a better review of it than most any reviewer out there because i own the damn thing and that goes for 80 percent of the members here. Anyone of us can give a more accurate report on it. Reviews are great and all but if there not accurate than there misleading and wrong. Bottom line it does no one any good and actually hurts folks that are coming into any system to get bad info. i just bought a Nikon system and i read a few reviews and some forums but i take in about 25 percent what is said as fact and the rest as BS.

 

I want to hear from folks that use it everyday and are experienced with a system. My 2 cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just posted the following comment on the end of the review;

 

The reviewer makes some valid points to be fair, as well as other not so valid ones. But he has forgotten that the primary reason for the M8 was to provide a solution for the many M users out there who really wanted a digital body to mount their expensive M glass onto. Epson made an M mount digital camera but that's now discontinued.

 

The M8 shouldn't really be compared to other digital cameras. It is a specialist camera, yes, and most users will be fully aware of how to expose and compose correctly, as well as the need for post processing etc. This isn't in any way a point and shoot auto everything Canon G9.

 

Fact is, if you want an M mount digital rangefinder then the Leica M8 is the only camera in the world. For the record I don't own an M8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... but I do not see really what problem you have with the statement f/4 = 2x more light than f/8 etc. What am I missing from this equation?

 

You're missing the fact that f4 lets in _four_ times the amount of light compared to f8 not two times.

 

F5.6 lets in twice the amount of light, not f8.

 

The fact that the person who wrote the article had no grasp of this very simple and basic aspect of exposure undermines much of what he writes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guy_mancuso

I agree James and just to add the M8 is a users machine, you need to work it and many outside reviewers see that as bad. They just love Auto everything and see that as a plus and a M8 as a minus because it does not have that. Most do not have that M mentality or what I like to say that old school of working the machine and it not working you.

 

The M system is completely different thinking and many just don't understand it. Take it for what it is worth to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree James and just to add the M8 is a users machine, you need to work it and many outside reviewers see that as bad. They just love Auto everything and see that as a plus and a M8 as a minus because it does not have that. Most do not have that M mentality or what I like to say that old school of working the machine and it not working you.

 

The M system is completely different thinking and many just don't understand it. Take it for what it is worth to you.

 

Very well stated Guy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a similar to my post on an another forum about this junior review..

 

When I first started w/ the M8, having been use to my film M's, there was a bit of a curve to climb to get use to it. So I can understand where this guy is coming from.

 

That being said, this reviewer comes across as someone that did spend time with the M8, but went into the review with the intent on comparing it to a consumer level dslr. The entire review read like a 'Consumer Reports' review of a new Porsche Carrera GT. Meaning, it was reviewed for its practical uses, not for what it's capable of doing in the hands of a seasoned rangefinder user. He may have spent time with M's, but I honestly don't believe he loved his time with them. To make my point, his note about the bottom plate and why it should even be there was the silver bullet. That was the *first* thing that I loved when I first saw the M8. You put the damn plate in your mouth like every other M you've used in your life!

..you (Leica) leave things in place to hang on to what photographers you may shake from the tree when you release a digital version of a camera that's been around for over 50 years.

 

He did have some valid points, and I do agree with a few of them (shutter noise, grain..etc..the usuals we all dealt with), but all in all, this review should not be suggested to anyone that has experience with an M (or any rangefinder for that matter). This review is for the photographer that wants to feel good about their RebelXTi purchase.

 

In the end, it's the photographer, not the camera that takes the picture. Not to compare the Porsche Carrera GT to the M8, but most seasoned automobile journalists stalled the car before ever getting rolling for their test drive on the track. The M8, and rangeinders in general, can't be driven like an economy rental car.

 

I didn't hit me till I read the comments here, and I went back and read his review again, that he BLEW past f5.6 on his statement on light multiplication. INSANE!!

 

I'm looking forward to the reviewers response from the users that take the time to write to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suggested reading:

 

The Thin Skin of Apple Fans - New York Times

 

Sandy

 

 

Wow, hilarious. I was just about to reply referring to this exact article as well.

 

I think in other circles its called "Drinking the Kool-Aid syndrone".

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Pros or Cons. Cons sometimes helps yourself appreciate the things you like even moreso.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're missing the fact that f4 lets in _four_ times the amount of light compared to f8 not two times.

 

F5.6 lets in twice the amount of light, not f8.

 

The fact that the person who wrote the article had no grasp of this very simple and basic aspect of exposure undermines much of what he writes.

 

Oops ...... egg over face.

OK I wasn't thinking straight I will now retire to the corner & sulk for the rest of the evening.

This f scale is stupid anyway who could of thought of something like that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're missing the fact that f4 lets in _four_ times the amount of light compared to f8 not two times.

 

F5.6 lets in twice the amount of light, not f8.

 

The fact that the person who wrote the article had no grasp of this very simple and basic aspect of exposure undermines much of what he writes.

 

Thank you! Let's also add that going from 1/125s to 1/500s (as he wrote) cuts the light down to 1/4 rather than cutting it in half! Somehow he forgot that 1/250s would have cut the light in half. Furthermore, f11 would cut the light in 1/2 from f8, not f16 as he wrote. Does repeating such mistakes sound like a typo, or like someone who doesn't get it?

 

This is photography 101 stuff for crying out loud, you should not see such nonsense published in articles coming from a self-proclaimed "photography expert."

 

We are not talking about a typo here, but repeated inaccurate statements about the basics of photography.

 

Steve's comment above is a typo, I know he meant "F5.6 lets in twice the amount of light (that f8 does), not f4."

 

I have nothing against a guy making a living, but if you do it by dispensing "wisdom," at least check your facts and know what you are talking about.

 

I'm sure there is someone out there chomping at the bit to argue the point...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This f scale is stupid anyway who could of thought of something like that

 

I'm sure you're aware of this, but an f-stop is the ratio between the focal length and the diameter of the aperture. It may seem convoluted, but it's really very logical.

 

Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this review obviously was written by a rangefinder newbe. Getting used to my M6 almost took me 6 month five years ago. I almost sold it again because I thought it was a mispurchase. Then I noticed that the style of my pictures started to change...

 

But some points are really ridiculous:

 

- he confuses the IR thing with the (formerly) unreliablel AWB [a thing which is clearly settled with FW 1.201

 

- According to this review the M8 has a tendency to overexpose. This is pretty new to me, after 3k shots. Maybe his particular body was misaligend?

 

- My M8 does not need 3 seconds until it´s ready.

 

@ jaapv: I´appreciate if more fools bought Leica stuff. Would be good for their revenue and perfect for the supply of slightly used bodies and lenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oops ...... egg over face.

OK I wasn't thinking straight I will now retire to the corner & sulk for the rest of the evening.

This f scale is stupid anyway who could of thought of something like that

 

What's stupid about it? It's simply the focal length of the lens over the diameter of the aperture. If you bring Pi in to calculate the area of the hole it makes perfect sense. It seems strange that someone shooting a rangefinder like the M8, where you have to set the aperture manually, would find f stops stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×