what is this cr*p

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Somebody (not me I glued the IR filter into the CV;)) should try the lens out with a 092 filter. I.m convinced that it will have a very strong hot spot.

 

Oddly enough, I was just sent a 39mm Leitz "IR" filter (extremely deep red, almost black) instead of the UV/IR filter I thought I was ordering - but decided to keep it anyway, just for the heck of it. Given that my 15, 35, 50, 90, and 135 are all 39mm filter-thread, it seems like a nice size to have.

 

I'll pop out my tape-wedged UV/IR and give it a try on the 15mm today.

 

But be warned - I never get results as bad as your sailboat sample from my 15, with coding (WATE 16), with Leica UV/IR filter (Heliopan and B+W filters are stronger and produce more cyan drift). So my hot spot, if any, may just be less strong.

[sean_reid]

In my mind it is not a question of the quality of various Zeiss and CV lenses. Their performance abilities, in many cases, are well-established. Rather, it's a question of adapting one thing to work well with another. Leica lenses have the best "plug n' play" qualities for the M8 because (with some exceptions) the camera was designed to read and correct them.

 

Back to the CV 15.... The new model has filter threads and the groove for hand-coding - those make like much easier for the adventurous hand-coder.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[biglouis]

BTW, the best piece of advice I had about the CV15, and I think it came from Steve, was to use it at f5.6 set to inifinty focus. Once I did that I got fantastically sharp pictures and with the Milich adapter (even without a UV/IR filter) got very little vignetting and cyan drift.

 

I believe the lens reaches its optimum optical performance at f5.6.

 

LouisB

[AlanG]

It's a matter of definition, then. My own feeling is that experienced RF photographers may find the M8 quite intuitive. But, yes, RF photography itself has a learning curve.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

That was my point exactly. Most of those who find the camera to be simple have been using an M for years. If you take a person who is a competent photographer who is used to using a DSLR, but never used a rangefinder. And give him an M8, some lenses (coded and not coded, CV and Leica, various viewfinders, magnifiers, and filters) and the instruction manual, with no access to the Leica forum, don't you think it might get a bit complicated?

 

The flip side, you take someone who is also a competent photographer but has only used the M8 and give him a Canon 5D and various lenses from Sigma, Canon, Tokina or even Nikon MF lenses with adapters, will it really be that hard for him to figure out the camera?

 

As I said, I used one last weekend and my images came out fine. But I had to pay attention even though I am pretty familiar with Leica Ms and other rangefinders, I read the manual and have read a lot of the threads on this forum. So I put out the required effort to improve my odds of getting everything right.

Edited April 30, 2009 by AlanG

[sean_reid]

That was my point exactly. Most of those who find the camera to be simple have been using an M for years. If you take a person who is a competent photographer who is used to using a DSLR, but never used a rangefinder. And give him an M8, some lenses (coded and not coded, CV and Leica, various viewfinders, magnifiers, and filters) and the instruction manual, with no access to the Leica forum, don't you think it might get a bit complicated?

 

The flip side, you take someone who is also a competent photographer but has only used the M8 and give him a Canon 5D and various lenses from Sigma, Canon, Tokina or even Nikon MF lenses with adapters, will it really be that hard for him to figure out the camera?

 

As I said, I used one last weekend and my images came out fine. But I had to pay attention even though I am pretty familiar with Leica Ms and other rangefinders, I read the manual and have read a lot of the threads on this forum. So I put out the required effort to improve my odds of getting everything right.

 

I may be the wrong person to ask because I've been working with multiple systems for a long time so SLRs, TLRs, RF cameras, LF cameras, etc. are all familiar. I think, speaking generally, is that every kind of camera has a learning curve esp. if one is unfamiliar with a camera type.

 

The worst ones to figure out, often, are the little menu-driven compact cameras. I do very much like the simplicity of a focus ring, an aperture ring and a shutter speed dial. That's all old-fashioned stuff that just plain works and allows one to see or change settings at a glance.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[tobey bilek]

WB for conditions. Do not use auto unless it is a dire emergency or mixed light.

 

The corner of #1 are not green, they are cyan which is typical.

 

Corner fix may work. I know a radial gradient white to red will fix it. You will have to figure the start, mid, and end points.

 

I would photograph a white board and figure the correction on that because it is easy seen, then save and apply to the real photos. It may vary with f stop used. This is really all the in camera software does, but they figure it only for their lenses.

[footnoteblog]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In case it was missed amongst all the pontification that usually occurs here:

1) Download CornerFix

2) Shoot a reference image with IR filter using a white or uniform subject.

3) Load the reference image into CornerFix and create a CV 15 correction profile.

4) Run these NEF files (I assume they ARE raw btw) through CornerFix using the profile you created.

5) You may need to tweak & repeat 4 by adjusting the strength of the correction.

 

Karma should return at some point after this ... hopefully.

 

Here are my CornerFix profiles:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/80810-idiots-guide-cornerfix-2.html#post855668

[AlanG]

Most photographers can figure out most features in most cameras relatively easily. It is just that the M8 has some unusual aspects due to the IR filter/lens coding and lens menu that people using other cameras do not have to deal with and would not expect. So they somehow need to be informed aware of this. Yet the Leica M8 site does not really explain this and I don't think you can easily garner everything you need to know from the manual or there wouldn't be so many questions and opinions on this forum. So while it may be a simple manual, it could possibly benefit others by having a bit more information in it.

 

Anyway going from a Nikon AF film body to a Nikon AF digital body is probably no harder than going from an M7 to an M8.

[plasticman]

It's just that instead of learning which buttons to press for AF and all the various custom settings of a dslr, you have to learn about coding the lenses, using IR filters, possible reflections from those filters, lens selection menus, focusing with the rangefinder, testing your lens and rangefinder for alignment and getting them adjusted if necessary, composing with accessory viewfinders, issues with third party lenses...

 

I'm completely mystified. Why on earth the obsession with the M8? A camera which is clearly not adapted to your workflow, your ergonomic preferences, technique or apparently anything else. There seems to be nothing whatsoever you like about it.

And yet you are here consistently harping on turning it into any other camera on the market...

It's fascinating. Which part of the M8 is it that keeps you interested?

[AlanG]

I'm completely mystified. Why on earth the obsession with the M8? A camera which is clearly not adapted to your workflow, your ergonomic preferences, technique or apparently anything else. There seems to be nothing whatsoever you like about it.

And yet you are here consistently harping on turning it into any other camera on the market...

It's fascinating. Which part of the M8 is it that keeps you interested?

 

I have not had anything against the M8 except the exaggerations and hype. The camera itself does about one what would expect from it within its performance envelope. And it has its quirks. I've been using one a bit and it worked well but I think it could use some improvement before I'd buy one. (Although if I had some extra money, I'd take the current model as it is a nice small fun camera with the 35 f2 and I enjoy shooting with it.) So I'm trying to give it a fair shake. Most people seem to know that Leica has to do something to upgrade the M8 before long ...beyond sapphire crystal, frame lines, and the new shutter. It is already very dated in features and performance for the price. And while many are happy with it as is, I'm not sure if they can advance the current design in the future. If they don't advance it, sales will fall off. That's the facts, Jack!.

 

I think they could consider keeping a similar model in production but are at the point where they need to modernize the entire system for the future as many of the legacy issues are handicapping the system's performance. (Mechanical rangefinder coupling variables, lack of real communication between the lenses and bodies, 1.3x sensor, IR filters.) I'm not even talking about adding new features such as live view or a clip on EVF.

 

If they can't make it possible to use current W/A lenses on an M with a FF sensor without IR filters, then what? For instance I really can't see how having a large 24mm 1.4 that is equivalent to a 31mm lens in use, is a better solution than having a full frame sensor and a 28mm f1.4 retro focus lens and eliminating the need for accessory IR filters and software compensation. And if the FF sensor has better high ISO capability, then a smaller retrofocus 28 f2 might do the trick.

 

And if they are worried about the lens blocking the viewfinder (as lenses already do) why can't they drop the lens mount a little lower or to the side, or raise the viewfinder a little higher or make it pop up when in use? There have to be some possible alternative design ideas for a rangefinder system after all these years now that the elimination of film can free up the body shape. The camera could be a little smaller in some places and perhaps a little larger for the viewfinder.

 

That is simply opinion and if it isn't good enough for you, you'll just have to remain mystified about my "obsession." I could collect bees for a hobby.

Edited April 30, 2009 by AlanG

[SJP]

I'm completely mystified. Why on earth the obsession with the M8? A camera which is clearly not adapted to your workflow, your ergonomic preferences, technique or apparently anything else. There seems to be nothing whatsoever you like about it.

And yet you are here consistently harping on turning it into any other camera on the market...

It's fascinating. Which part of the M8 is it that keeps you interested?

x1 I was wondering the same

 

Can anyone explain how Leica should be expected to make an all manual digital rangefinder without assuming that their customers understand the basics of taking a picture with such a camera? It is up to the dealers to check whether the potential Leica customers are doing themselves a service by purchasing one.

[dcoombs]

I have not had anything against the M8 except the exaggerations and hype. The camera itself does about one what would expect from it within its performance envelope. And it has its quirks. I've been using one a bit and it worked well but I think it could use some improvement before I'd buy one. (Although if I had some extra money, I'd take the current model as it is a nice small fun camera with the 35 f2 and I enjoy shooting with it.) So I'm trying to give it a fair shake. Most people seem to know that Leica has to do something to upgrade the M8 before long ...beyond sapphire crystal, frame lines, and the new shutter. It is already very dated in features and performance for the price. And while many are happy with it as is, I'm not sure if they can advance the current design in the future. If they don't advance it, sales will fall off. That's the facts, Jack!.

 

I think they could consider keeping a similar model in production but are at the point where they need to modernize the entire system for the future as many of the legacy issues are handicapping the system's performance. (Mechanical rangefinder coupling variables, lack of real communication between the lenses and bodies, 1.3x sensor, IR filters.) I'm not even talking about adding new features such as live view or a clip on EVF.

 

If they can't make it possible to use current W/A lenses on an M with a FF sensor without IR filters, then what? For instance I really can't see how having a large 24mm 1.4 that is equivalent to a 31mm lens in use, is a better solution than having a full frame sensor and a 28mm f1.4 retro focus lens and eliminating the need for accessory IR filters and software compensation. And if the FF sensor has better high ISO capability, then a smaller retrofocus 28 f2 might do the trick.

 

And if they are worried about the lens blocking the viewfinder (as lenses already do) why can't they drop the lens mount a little lower or to the side, or raise the viewfinder a little higher or make it pop up when in use? There have to be some possible alternative design ideas for a rangefinder system after all these years now that the elimination of film can free up the body shape. The camera could be a little smaller in some places and perhaps a little larger for the viewfinder.

 

That is simply opinion and if it isn't good enough for you, you'll just have to remain mystified about my "obsession." I could collect bees for a hobby.

 

Mr Goldstein, all this makes sense in the abstract, but frankly you are asking for a completely different camera. One which may not be producable (if that's a word). I bought the M8 with my eyes wide open, having used SLRs and rangefinders all my life. It gave me a digital version of my M6 with some improvements and some "quirks". I am happy with the tool I've chosen and it's helped me improve my work.

 

Suggesting improvements is always useful, but I wouldn't be happy if they changed the basic character of the camera.

 

Doug

[pgk]

I have not had anything against the M8 except the exaggerations and hype. The camera itself does about one what would expect from it within its performance envelope. And it has its quirks. I've been using one a bit and it worked well but I think it could use some improvement before I'd buy one. (Although if I had some extra money, I'd take the current model as it is a nice small fun camera with the 35 f2 and I enjoy shooting with it.) So I'm trying to give it a fair shake. Most people seem to know that Leica has to do something to upgrade the M8 before long ...beyond sapphire crystal, frame lines, and the new shutter. It is already very dated in features and performance for the price. And while many are happy with it as is, I'm not sure if they can advance the current design in the future. If they don't advance it, sales will fall off. That's the facts, Jack!.

 

Without wishing to be pedantic, I think that you mean "That's my opinion, Jack!"

 

As for an M8 being difficult to learn, I would say that any photographer familiar with the basic concepts of photography - aperture, shutter, and focus - should figure it out pretty quick. As for IR filters etc, well following the instructions seems pretty easy, but, as with any other camera system, adapting items not originally designed for the M8, is never that straightforward. I shoot underwater and believe me, getting a 15mm to work well on an M8 is simplicity itself compared with getting a similar ultrawide to perform adequately underwater on a dSLR!

[AlanG]

x1 I was wondering the same

 

Can anyone explain how Leica should be expected to make an all manual digital rangefinder without assuming that their customers understand the basics of taking a picture with such a camera? It is up to the dealers to check whether the potential Leica customers are doing themselves a service by purchasing one.

 

I agree entirely, But a lot of people who try to use an M8 will not find it as simple to use as some of the very knowledgeable users think it is for themselves. That's all I was getting at when I said I'd keep this thread in mind the next time someone said the M8 was such a simple camera. Some 4x5s are also simple cameras from an instruction manual point of view.

 

--That's the facts, Jack!-- I'm quoting Bill Murray. Ok, in my opinion, if Leica keeps making the same M8 without advancing it in significant ways, sales will fall off. You think they'll pick up?

 

And of course I'm advocating for a completely different rangefinder camera. Haven't I made that clear? That is the entire reason I write these posts. I think what they have now has pretty much run its course and needs to change due to intrinsic limitations of the basic design. That is not to say they don't shoot nice photos. But Leica's future will have to be somewhere else.

Edited April 30, 2009 by AlanG

[johnbuckley]

Most photographers can figure out most features in most cameras relatively easily. It is just that the M8 has some unusual aspects due to the IR filter/lens coding and lens menu that people using other cameras do not have to deal with and would not expect. So they somehow need to be informed aware of this. Yet the Leica M8 site does not really explain this and I don't think you can easily garner everything you need to know from the manual or there wouldn't be so many questions and opinions on this forum. So while it may be a simple manual, it could possibly benefit others by having a bit more information in it.

 

Anyway going from a Nikon AF film body to a Nikon AF digital body is probably no harder than going from an M7 to an M8.

 

Alan - it's so funny you would say this as I have just been thinking the opposite. That is, how for me, leaving the world of Nikon's, with multiple menus and choices for everything, going to an M7 was like a return to that Olympus I loved in the 1970s. It was so simple. Am I the only person on the Forum who will admit that big DSLRs sort of terrify me. Like driving a tractor trailer. Yes, I could probably figure it out. But I'd rather stick with my little simple M8. ;-)

[AlanG]

going to an M7 was like a return to that Olympus I loved in the 1970s. It was so simple. Am I the only person on the Forum who will admit that big DSLRs sort of terrify me. Like driving a tractor trailer. Yes, I could probably figure it out. But I'd rather stick with my little simple M8. ;-)

 

I know how all the buttons on my DSLR work, but I almost always shoot in manual exposure mode, have 6 manual focus lenses (plus lots of AF lenses) and I generally know what exposure I need. (I never use a meter for interiors even with 10 strobe heads.) So I can relate. But I don't usually feel I have to think much about the process no matter what camera I use.

 

I've taken about 6 vacations throughout the world in the past 15 months and the only camera I brought was an automatic p&s. I probably did more thinking with that than with any camera I use.

 

I'm really not talking about what you or I or ten thousand users can do. This gear just has to evolve to keep the companies in business. Linhof has kept the basic Master Technika around for almost 40 years but at the same time made all kinds of other view cameras to fit different needs at different times.

 

Likewise, I don't see any reason why Leica can't find numerous ways to evolve the rangefinder design whether they keep something like an M8 in production or not. It won't necessarily have to be a more complicated camera either.

[plasticman]

Alan - I hope you don't think I'm trying to get rid of you - plenty of people on the forum have this attitude to me, as I definitely believe the M8 is a far from perfect camera, and they're rather tired of hearing me say so, I fear. But your position seems to be the equivalent of joining a HarleyDavidson forum, and continually prophesying doom for that company unless they switch production to cars. Like I said - I'm kinda mystified.

[epand56]

Am I the only person on the Forum who will admit that big DSLRs sort of terrify me. Like driving a tractor trailer. Yes, I could probably figure it out. But I'd rather stick with my little simple M8. ;-)

 

John, you're not the only one, we are two. At least...

[AlanG]

Alan - I hope you don't think I'm trying to get rid of you - plenty of people on the forum have this attitude to me, as I definitely believe the M8 is a far from perfect camera, and they're rather tired of hearing me say so, I fear. But your position seems to be the equivalent of joining a HarleyDavidson forum, and continually prophesying doom for that company unless they switch production to cars. Like I said - I'm kinda mystified.

 

Making cars was a good idea for Honda and they still make bikes too. The same with BMW. I sold my stock in HOG two years ago.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest John66]

The novelty of the M8 for me has completely worn off. I hardly ever use it anymore.

 

It might be "simple" to use, but it has become just plain annoying - irritating in fact. The whole system is no longer classic but an out of date joke - bloated, with oversized lenses that put the whole system out of balance. I can't believe those guys who rushed out to buy the 21 and 24 1.4 lenses are really that happy with the balance and viewfinder compromises. The whole package just feels and looks so wrong now.

 

I completely get the M film cameras with the old classic lenses, a true classic camera that was beautifully balanced. But the M8 in its current form - heavy, outdated, sluggish, unbalanced, unreliable and extremely expensive - is just a fraud.

 

Leica are going to have to move real big with the digital M if it is to survive.

 

The only great thing about the M8 is that it has pushed me back to using my MP for fun, and the odd job when I want that Leica film look, and it is truly satisfying.