dkCambridgeshire Posted September 13, 2006 Share #1 Posted September 13, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) In this week's British Journal of Photography 13/09/06, the 'NEXT WEEK' taster column on page 31 states: "HERE FIRST FOR LEICA" ... and mentions a world exclusive showcasing Magnum's Simon Wheatley who's been using the Leica 'M' series digital rangefinder to photograph London's underground music scene ... Thus await 20/09/06 edition to see if the actual camera and images might be featured ... the taster is possibly deliberately ambiguous ... can't imagine that the magazine would have exclusive rights to the first real M8 review ... or does it? Dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 13, 2006 Posted September 13, 2006 Hi dkCambridgeshire, Take a look here Leica M8 ... BJP SCOOP ???. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sean_reid Posted September 13, 2006 Share #2 Posted September 13, 2006 No, it does not. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted September 13, 2006 Share #3 Posted September 13, 2006 I think that Magnum guys have rights to pretty much anything they want. But gimme that E-400... that's the way to get the smallest body possible... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted September 20, 2006 Author Share #4 Posted September 20, 2006 In this week's British Journal of Photography 13/09/06, the 'NEXT WEEK' taster column on page 31 states: "HERE FIRST FOR LEICA" ... and mentions a world exclusive showcasing Magnum's Simon Wheatley who's been using the Leica 'M' series digital rangefinder to photograph London's underground music scene ... Thus await 20/09/06 edition to see if the actual camera and images might be featured ... the taster is possibly deliberately ambiguous ... can't imagine that the magazine would have exclusive rights to the first real M8 review ... or does it? Dunk Just got my copy of BJP ... it has published 5 of Simon Wheatley's pictures taken with the M8 ... the accompanying article is more about the photographer and his approach than the camera ... but there is also a longish column by Jonathan Eastland ref his first impressions of the camera ... Dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimF Posted September 20, 2006 Share #5 Posted September 20, 2006 Yup, see my thread in the Digital M board. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickEgg Posted September 20, 2006 Share #6 Posted September 20, 2006 How did the images look? I'm curious to know!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted September 21, 2006 Share #7 Posted September 21, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Disappointed they said it was noisy. Contradicts what I have read previously. Also criticised the base plate, which is not a surprise. Is the base plate necessary when shooting in a reasonably clean environment - weddings/studio etc ? Would make it easier to change nbatteries and SD card if it could be left off. How easy is it to change a battery on the M8 ? How can one bracket with the M8 ? Is it the same as the M7 ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted September 21, 2006 Share #8 Posted September 21, 2006 Disappointed they said it was noisy. And why is that so bad? Don't you want a more filmlike look to the pictures? geewhiz. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dotandcom Posted September 21, 2006 Share #9 Posted September 21, 2006 In the UK, Amateur Photographer is to publish its test of the M8 next Tuesday, 26 September. The magazine's hype is off-putting ('scooping every photography magazine in Britain, and possibly elsewhere in the world...getting this story exclusively'), but their tests are usually fair and reliable and under the present editor, Garry Coward-Williams, Leica is always given generous coverage. I guess that the tone of the review and its conclusions will be important to Leica sales here, since the company is quoted as 'hoping to entice new customers to Leica'. All the best, Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted September 21, 2006 Share #10 Posted September 21, 2006 And why is that so bad? Don't you want a more filmlike look to the pictures? geewhiz. Errr, No Albert, you're got the wrong end of the stick again. Noisy, as in the Mayor of Hiroshima saying "what the F was that bang?", not pixels geewhiz..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted September 21, 2006 Share #11 Posted September 21, 2006 Umm... seriously we worry so much about the noise factor that we tend to ignore the picture itself. The point is whether or not you got the picture or expression you intended. The average viewer at the photo gallery isn't going to analyze how much luminant/chroma noise your photo has on display. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolo Posted September 21, 2006 Share #12 Posted September 21, 2006 Umm... seriously we worry so much about the noise factor that we tend to ignore the picture itself. The point is whether or not you got the picture or expression you intended. The average viewer at the photo gallery isn't going to analyze how much luminant/chroma noise your photo has on display. Sorry Albert, I thought you were responding to my point. I was referring to the noise of the shutter firing as when I'm stood at the side of the altar at a wedding and trying to be inconspicuous, which has always been aided by that fine Leica feature of hushhhhh, no noise. As an aside, I'd probably agree with you if I knew what luminant/chroma noise was. Presume it's made by some sort of musical instrument that you can play ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 21, 2006 Share #13 Posted September 21, 2006 And why is that so bad? Don't you want a more filmlike look to the pictures? geewhiz. But digital noise looks totally different to film noise, it _doesn't_ make a digital image look more film like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimF Posted September 21, 2006 Share #14 Posted September 21, 2006 Disappointed they said it was noisy Errr. Actually Mr Eastland said that once colour balance and noise issues associated with prototype cameras were sorted he fully expected the M8 to be a big success (despite a few gripes about the design and handling). Not quite the same spin as your comment puts on it Gaz. In the UK, Amateur Photographer is to publish its test of the M8 next Tuesday, 26 September. Christopher, AP's feature on the M8 (which I expect to read on Saturday ) is NOT a review. The magazine specifically says it is a preview look using a pre-production camera. I would expect a full review to appear in December or so, depending when the production cameras go on sale. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted September 21, 2006 Share #15 Posted September 21, 2006 ah, sorry I'm getting mixed up with the metal shutter aspect. Well if they wanted to, Leica should probably ditch the metal shutter and go for a silent shutter that doesn't make a sound. And why did a metal shutter get used in the design. I suspect that it has to do with high speed TTL flash metering. Otherwise, the metal shutter isn't useful? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimF Posted September 21, 2006 Share #16 Posted September 21, 2006 Don' t quote me, but IIRC the metal shutter takes up less internal space than the cloth one and all its mechanisms. That's not to mention the possibility of little bits of fluff detaching themselves from cloth shutter curtains and winding up on the sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhsimmonds Posted September 21, 2006 Share #17 Posted September 21, 2006 Christopher I hate to disagree with your comments about "Amateur Photgrapher" magazine. I am still reeling from their devastating review of the DMR. However whilst it may have delayed the acceptance of this excellent product for a few months in the UK, the sort of people who were considerng the DMR waited until more balanced reviews worldwide were published, particularly by working pro photographers. Then the DMR images were everywhere and they made the AP review seem rather silly. I understand that DMR is now selling very well in the UK. I know that a number of Leicaphiles cancelled their subscription to AP and some dealers also voted with their feet by withdrawing their advertising support. Incidentally, I have heard that even some of Leica's competitors serving the pro market were astonished by that review and were immediately reluctant to put their products up for review by AP. I will keep my thoughts about their Editor to myself, but members may guess! Cheers, Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted September 21, 2006 Share #18 Posted September 21, 2006 Christopher I hate to disagree with your comments about "Amateur Photgrapher" magazine. I am still reeling from their devastating review of the DMR. I will keep my thoughts about their Editor to myself, but members may guess! Cheers, Dave Yes, AP is considered a biased magazine that very little merit to professional photographers. They don't like Olympus much either. Of course, amateurs... hmm, they prefer heavy cameras for full regalia display. Not me! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted September 22, 2006 Share #19 Posted September 22, 2006 Yes, AP is considered a biased magazine that very little merit to professional photographers. Hmm,. perhaps there's a clue in the title of the magazine. Personally I've found AP to be generally favourable to Leica - the editor uses the cameras - DMR review excepted. Also they've been very outspoken in their critisism of high pixel count p&s cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted September 22, 2006 Author Share #20 Posted September 22, 2006 Wish AP would not put those photographic insurance invitation forms into the magazine ... I worked out the premium rates% once ... they were very high ...and misleading ... when I complained to the magazine and suggested that readers could get much better rates via their household contents insurance all risks section I was advised that the advertising was nothing to do with the editorial team and that they could not be held responsible for misleading readers re same. dunk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.