zlatkob Posted July 9, 2008 Share #101 Posted July 9, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) M.K.'s "bashing" of the M8 was partial in that he ommitted to acknowedge it's virtues as well as its faults. If writing a crit on the camera and not just a whinge on 'how it let him down', then I believe he should have included it's virtues alonside the faults. He did acknowledged its virtues. From page 7 of his review: "I find the M8 useful in some situations. Naturally it shares the benefits of all rangefinders; it is quieter and smaller than an SLR. It is less noticeable in dangerous situations where this unobtrusiveness may mean the difference between getting the picture or not, or even getting home safely or not." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 9, 2008 Posted July 9, 2008 Hi zlatkob, Take a look here Leica M8 bashed by Michael Kamber. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
plasticman Posted July 9, 2008 Share #102 Posted July 9, 2008 I love the way that post begins with: "I think too many generalisations are pushed around here sometimes" and then continues with the most incredible list which parodies the photojournalist's profession. I mean: "It's not perfect, so what is? Actually, on that basis, journos should probaly resort to sketching." and: "It takes a certain mental attitude to be able to use successfully, so that rules a lot of journos out." And then the same old accusation that we've now read a thousand times from the M8 defenders through thick-and-thin: that "only a fool" would take the M8 into a war-zone. Well strangely enough, there are a lot of photographers who would hope and trust that this one-time sturdy workhorse M-system could be taken into the worst firestorm, and still come out (scratched and shaken maybe) but still working, just like the M6 that Kamber has used in warzones on many occasions before. Anyway erl - carry on characterizing the valid review as a 'whinge' (the internet's favorite and most often used put-down, when no real counter-argument works), it seems like you're happy with the camera. Many others are grateful to Kamber both for his review, and his excellent and fearless work - even if you see him only as a 'fool'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted July 9, 2008 Share #103 Posted July 9, 2008 I am reminded of Kenneth Williams. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted July 9, 2008 Share #104 Posted July 9, 2008 Have not read the article and any issues that may have come up to me would really not matter. My feeling wrong tool for the job at hand. I simply would not take any camera into a war zone with the thought of even walking out with it. Take the cards out and throw it away after i was done. ANY camera in a war zone in those dust conditions and just flat out being thrown around like a bottle of water would not be worth saving. Sure if it survived but I would not count on it for a second. You maybe able to save some lenses but not sure many bodies would take it. War zone to me is jumping in a pit with mud, dirt and who knows what else. Than throwing it to the ground if you have too run your butt off for cover. Now not saying he is right wrong or indifferent on his review and anything said about not holding up or failures and such i would not argue the point for a second. Hell you can drop a M8 a foot off the ground and throw the focusing roller off if you hit the right spot. As much as i love the M8 i would not take a expensive camera like this into this kind of situation get a couple cheap D300 and if they did not make it who really cares as long as you walk away with your cards. Give the guy credit for trying it but really what did he expect also. Not that some of the M8 issues are not clearly spelled out all over the internet in the first place. Right or wrong decision it really does not matter it was his choice bottom line. If he walked away with great images and the camera went south he don't care as long as he walked away alive and had his take. Why folks are stressing over this is also beyond me. The M8 is not perfect folks we all agree on that, it is capable of producing the best images around no question , but it is also suspect in many ways too. Personally i would not take a 3400 dollar 28 cron into a war zone unless my insurance covered complete loss and replacement cost. Which trust me they won't for a second going into a war. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ammitsboel Posted July 9, 2008 Share #105 Posted July 9, 2008 I think the M8 should be used at war zones too, just like the other Ms. I don't like the idea, in my opinion, of being too careful with it. The electronics should of course be up to it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted July 9, 2008 Share #106 Posted July 9, 2008 I would not take anything of that value into a war zone just because no insurance coverage unless the client is willing to replace it. People forget this is a business too. But that would be me and his situation is maybe different Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted July 9, 2008 Share #107 Posted July 9, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm not trying to prolong this thread (its a bit past its sell by already) but.... Would you but a Ferrari and drive it at 30mph? Why buy an M8 and use it for jpegs? Just my opinion, but as far as I am concerned the M8 is a precision instrument capable of extremely good results, but only if its used to its full advantage. Personally I think that the idea of using such a camera to shoot jpegs in a war zone (insured or uninsured!) is fundamentally flawed. Things were/are different shooting film, but digital has moved on.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted July 9, 2008 Share #108 Posted July 9, 2008 Guy, the reason Michael Kamber took the M8 into war is that he's been taking film Leicas into conflict situations for 20 years. His expectations for the M8 were based on long and successful experience with film Leicas in the same rough situations. In other words, film Leicas for him were "the right tool for the job" for a very long time. This is from p. 2 of his review: "I first used Leicas in combat in Haiti in 1987. I have used film-based Leicas on dozens of documentary projects as well as to cover conflicts in Afghanistan, Liberia, Somalia, Darfur, Iraq and numerous other countries. I have covered Iraq in 2003, 2004 and 2007 and 2008." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted July 9, 2008 Share #109 Posted July 9, 2008 Would you but a Ferrari and drive it at 30mph? Shit yea I would drive it at 10 clicks because at 160 no bastard would see me in the god damn car,,,,,,,,,,,, !!!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrycioni Posted July 9, 2008 Share #110 Posted July 9, 2008 I speak from a tad bit of experience here - a different US war, but I took two M4s and two Nikon F bodies - as I felt that both had a place in the tool belt, no batteries, meters, autofocus or electronics to worry about in retrospect that was a bonus. Reading over and over again that the Leica M is somehow indestructible makes me wonder a bit about who is writing what I am reading. My M4 failed, they needed service. Most important they WERE NOT electronic adding a whole other layer of complication I did not have to worry about with while I ass deep in a rice paddy with the rap of an AK47 in the distance. Not a nice feeling for sure. Loading film into M4/6/7/Nikon F seems to me to be a bigger challenge than putting a card into an M8 and to that point putting cards into a D3 is totally easy to do and you have two slots you can load up (16 gig in each slot) - so from a tools for the job at hand perspective that alone would have me looking seriously at leaving my M8s back at base for use when they are better suited to the task at hand. This is not criticism of Mr. Kamber so don't go there. He is brilliant <period> Mr. Kamber's field experience is a good read from a good photographer, he has pointed out some of the challenges of electronics in extreme field conditions. The M8 is not a FILM M just like a Nikon D3 is not a FILM Nikon F. Both those film bodies are simplicity at it's best and could take a lot of punishment because of it. If you think the Canon's and Nikon's in those conditions don't have challenges please think again - they do. My problem is I want all those cool electronic digital features but I want it to operate like an M4 or Nikon F. That is not so easy a challenge for the OEM. Best to all. Terry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted July 9, 2008 Share #111 Posted July 9, 2008 Guy, the reason Michael Kamber took the M8 into war is that he's been taking film Leicas into conflict situations for 20 years. His expectations for the M8 were based on long and successful experience with film Leicas in the same rough situations. In other words, film Leicas for him were "the right tool for the job" for a very long time. This is from p. 2 of his review: "I first used Leicas in combat in Haiti in 1987. I have used film-based Leicas on dozens of documentary projects as well as to cover conflicts in Afghanistan, Liberia, Somalia, Darfur, Iraq and numerous other countries. I have covered Iraq in 2003, 2004 and 2007 and 2008." Thanks for pointing that out but digital is different and now we rely on batteries and electronics, so a lot has changed also. I can see wanting to do the M8 no question but I would want something to drop and run per say or do not give a hoot about or better yet worry about when the M8 has known battery issues and such . But that is me Not that I want to stir the pot here but maybe a bad choice overall but he did it and now he knows what to expect. I do give him credit for trying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimmy pro Posted July 9, 2008 Share #112 Posted July 9, 2008 I speak from a tad bit of experience here - a different US war, but I took two M4s and two Nikon F bodies - as I felt that both had a place in the tool belt, no batteries, meters, autofocus or electronics to worry about in retrospect that was a bonus. There're a ton of battery-operated, computerized, electronic gizmoes being used in combat today, and I'm talking stuff that people's live's depend on, not just frikkin cameras. IMHO battery independance is an excuse for useing a mechanical camera not a reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted July 9, 2008 Share #113 Posted July 9, 2008 Well I have several clients that make stuff for the military and most of it is communications stuff but they are built for these types of conditions also and it all is ruggedness designs. But they fail also. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamriman Posted July 9, 2008 Share #114 Posted July 9, 2008 I agree with the review. Its not a true M in the sense of reliability, but then again he knew that when he used the M7 in similar circumstances. Either way my M8 suites my snapshot needs so to speak. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted July 9, 2008 Share #115 Posted July 9, 2008 There're a ton of battery-operated, computerized, electronic gizmoes being used in combat today, and I'm talking stuff that people's live's depend on, not just frikkin cameras Yes, and I expect the cheapest and simplest of these gizmos costs nearly as much if not more, than an M8. If people had been prepared to pay £10,000 for an M8 I'm sure Leica would have been able to design a battle ready one. Look at the price of super rugged PCs if you want to know how much that kind of resiliance costs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted July 9, 2008 Share #116 Posted July 9, 2008 I don't have the images since my main system is being sent to NY for a show but I did shoot a handheld ruggedness laptop with GPS made for the military at there specs. Cost 25 k and I am talking 3x4 inches big. You can buy these for the consumer non military specs for around 3k. The ones I shot you could put them in water and they will work but more the point it was made for the conditions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wstotler Posted July 9, 2008 Share #117 Posted July 9, 2008 I simply would not take any camera into a war zone with the thought of even walking out with it. Take the cards out and throw it away after i was done. Insightful and accurate observation--makes the "can it survive" argument moot. I think people forget that most military equipment--really rugged stuff--is designed to be "disposable" in the sense that it's assumed it may be lost in combat. Thanks, Guy! Will Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted July 9, 2008 Share #118 Posted July 9, 2008 Guy - you do make a good point - I guess if I was even remotely brave enough to go anywhere near the situations Kamber puts himself in, I'd take a couple of D300s and ditch them when I needed to run like hell. But the point of the review was that Kamber never expected the camera to be a "battle ready one" - the situations he's describing are simply the ones any photojournalist might face under any tight deadline. I'm frankly disappointed that people who've had the time to read the review (and i respect the fact that some of us don't have the time) - but those that have read it are simply trying to throw up a smokescreen by pretending that Kamber put the camera through extreme battle situations. There may have been sand, dust and explosions, but the camera was not in prolonged firefights or hitting the ground in foxholes. I absolutely don't mean to belittle the achievement by any means - I just mean to point out that, in this case, the assignments were mostly in (very dangerous) urban areas, and not in trenches or under prolonged aerial bombardment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
honcho Posted July 9, 2008 Share #119 Posted July 9, 2008 It was an interesting read from the perspective of someone who depends upon his cameras for his living in a harsh and dangerous environment. I'm sure if the M8 were capable of delivering the goods, then MK would shout just as loudly in it's favour. Unfortunately, it can't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrycioni Posted July 9, 2008 Share #120 Posted July 9, 2008 There're a ton of battery-operated, computerized, electronic gizmoes being used in combat today, and I'm talking stuff that people's live's depend on, not just frikkin cameras. IMHO battery independance is an excuse for useing a mechanical camera not a reason. par for the course. You simply did not read what I said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.