Are Leicaphiles psychologically equipped for digital?

[Guest Seb V]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been reading the M8 posts avidly since the camera's release. I watched the euphoria turn to disappointment and I thought to myself, "Now Leica is really gonna get it in the pants."

My first ever Leica was an MP and, turning it in my hands, it exuded craftmanship and indestructability. I was, at last, owner of the PERFECT camera. Leica, in it's arrogance even called it 'Mechanically Perfect' and in the age of plastic disposasbility this object was an island of integrity. I even loved the 2000 GBP price tag, because it seemed to be proof of it's craftsmanship.

Then it developed the dreaded dusty viewfinder, in fact I believe I was among the first to discover it - and, even though Leica sealed it and returned it within 3 days - in itself a miracle of customer service - the camera lost some of it's 'Perfectness'. Soon others reported the dust fault and the MP for a while got panned by other Leicaphiles for daring to emulate the great M3 and failing.

But the reality was: dust got into the viewfinder, it was cleaned, sealed and returned in record time and nothing ever went wrong with it since. A dusty viewfinder. That's all.

Now the M8 is out and it's being judged next to it's illustrious predecessors and if it isn't perfect, it's going back.

Never mind the fact that Leica has delivered what everyone has been clamouring for for 5 years, or the fact that it has done so while on the brink of bancruptcy, it isn't perfect so it's useless.

I even found myself reading the tales of M8 woe and snorting my 'I told you so' snort while stroking my faithful M7 (gone back twice for really-not-that-big-a-deal flashing exp. comp. light problem that has disappeared with time.

Before that I had the great G2 Millenium Kit and frankly, there were so many lights flashing and bits whirring I wouldn't have known if something was 'not quite right' - it would have had to have stopped working altogether to warrant going back to Contax.

Let's face it, a lot of us here will never forgive the M8 for not being an M3 and if it didn't have the IR problem, we would have gone down the list to find dust on the sensor, noisy shutter, can't-take-it-up-K2-because-battery-life-only-4-days-on-single-charge problems.

I will definitely get an M8 just as soon as I have paid off the builders and the tax man and the overdraft. I look forward to for sale posts of the M8 next year: FS - M8 pre-IR fix, 2000GBP.

[sdai]

Seb, I've been using digital cameras since '95 and believe me, this is not the worst ... and I have no doubt that Leica can get it right ... just a matter of how and when. That being said, 4750 US for a IR camera will never be my cup of tea ... for occasional IR shooting a Sony V3 could cut the mustard just as well ... a grab shot on Toronto's Front Street:

[fotografr]

There's been quite a lot of talk about using the M8 as a IR camera. Here's an interesting discussion about that from LL:

 

Leica M8 – Infrared

[Zurenborger]

Very interesting thought Seb (seriously)I have been following these threads long before joining this frivolous community and it strikes me that the Leica photographers as represented here in the LUF are, well different. They acknowledge the problems, they criticize them as well, but on the other hand they remain firm believers of Leica, they (some) constantly appeal to stop these discussions only to start one themselves minutes later. I think some are in absolute denial, looking forward to a product for so long and then being disappointed with the quality can't make things easy on anyone.

After having bought 2 electronically cameras from leica, both which were faulty (R8 and M7) I really didn't expect the world from a first edition M8, after all Leica is not actually renowned for producing top class electronical cameras. But I still went for it, knowing that whatever was wrong with it, Leica would fix it in the end, as they did with my R8 and M7. After taking receipt of my M8 I am more than pleasantly surprised by it's results, usage and form.

I haven't noticed any negative effects in my images yet, none which can't be removed one way or the other at least, it's not a high quality product yet .... but surely this will come.

 

I am a happy a content M8 user!

 

One thing that could be placed under discussion is the honesty factor and the Reviews, although I know from experience that on-line reviews are usually trash anyway and mostly sponsored one way or the other. Another minor point of critique is the policy of this forum to delete posts which show anger at these points. I can understand that some people will get really angry after what happened and they too should be able to share their frustration, be it to the point or not ... well minor things...

 

Again, glad I bought the M8, and now back to my digital learning process with CS2 .... (they should offer academic classes for CS2)

[chris_tribble]

I too have been watching the discussions across the forum and have just begun to realise how huge the leap is for those who have never used digital before and have been waiting for the M8 before they moved to working digitally. Having gone through the transition from wet processing to scanning negatives and transparencies in 1998, and then the transition into digital capture (Canon 20D > 1D Mk2 > 5D) from around 2003/4, I've had to come to terms with the learning curves of Photoshop 5 through to CS2 / Silverfast / Adobe Camera Raw / C1 as well as the steps along the way with digital output and at least 4 generations of Epson printer...

 

What seems to be happening at the moment is that Leica is giving us a digital camera that offers us MORE than we might have hoped for. We get the very large colour gamut, and we get the mechanical precision of the Leica RF system, and the chance to start using our Leica lenses again. But many are also having to learn new ways of living with a digital workflow.

 

This is a significant challenge. Leica photographers (like all others) want to make images. In the past, once the critical moment had been captured, many had either been able to depend on their lab to get things right in post-process, or had developed the skills to do this for themselves in wet darkrooms. A problem that seems to have arisn for many who are contributing to the different threads in the Digital Forum is that their old skill set no longer applies and they're waking up to the fact that there's a brave new world out there. Some won't like it. Others seem to be revelling in the challenge.

 

No denying that Leica needs to get parts of the realisation of the M8 project better -- but we too have to get our acts together if we're going to be able to take advantage of the radically different new tool that they've offered us.

 

Can't wait for mine to be available (though I know I'm going to have to)...

 

Best

 

Chris Tribble

Christopher Tribble: documentary photography, training, education, linguistics

[clayh]

Leica's real problem is that their customers ARE accustomed to digital. Like high-end and pricey Canons and Nikons DSLRs. This creates a certain set of expectations in a comparably priced camera. It is less a question of perfectionism than it is just common-sense economic value judgments that they are up against.

[nrj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Part of the problem for me and I imagine for some others is that Leica did film M cameras so well. I own an M6 plus Leica lenses I've used for a long time and like a lot. Up until recently I've dabbled in digital, mainly to learn photoshop and printing, using a Canon G6. I was not much interested in bulky or heavy dSLRs for my work or the price of a new Epson R-D1 at launch, in fact I decided to get a good film scanner to scan 120 as well as 35mm. The fact that the G6 can produce surprisingly high quality A3 prints at low ISOs did persuade me to anticipate getting a digital to use my Leica M lenses on though, especially at higher ISOs. For me price was a factor and others' M8 anticipation meant I could get an R-D1 for a good price secondhand (I've owned it about a month). I reasoned I'd get an M8 in a couple of years. If I'd jumped straight for an M8 I'd have bought very high expectations to what a Leica M could do based on my film M. Basically I'd expect to take the camera anywhere and shoot in any conditions, especially with high intensity light sources in the frame, and get a good result from the camera, even if I wanted to do more in post for creative reasons. The fact that the present M8s can't do that is a big deal for someone like me - Leica M means very high quality in almost any light under almost all conditions in a small and relatively light package. I can also see the reasonable expectations of those wanting a package like this and moving from high quality dSLRs. Other people will likely have other reasons behind their expectations. The common perspective I suspect we share is that of expecting a digital leica M to produce the goods I've just outlined for a film M, for that I am/was psychologically prepared. I don't know if my liking for Leica's lenses makes me a Leicaphile but I do think the company has lost something in the last few weeks. I hope they pull through even if it takes an M9 to do it.

 

Nik

[johnjs]

Leica's real problem is that their customers ARE accustomed to digital. Like high-end and pricey Canons and Nikons DSLRs. This creates a certain set of expectations in a comparably priced camera. It is less a question of perfectionism than it is just common-sense economic value judgments that they are up against.

 

I've also watched with interest, without comment until now, this drama play out over the last few weeks. At the same time, I'm amazed Leica released the camera in this state of development, and the reactions both positive and negative. Apparently there's alot of emotion on the line here with this camera, as I guess there is with the M-system and Leica in general. I know I felt it when drawn here a couple years ago with my D2, which was often derided as being an in-authentic Leica on this forum. Let's be honest, there's a certain Leica snobbery which can be both appealing and distracting, and I don't think it has alot to do with the company itself, it's more the customer base, I think. Now that aura of photographic pre-eminence is shattered by releasing a camera which has a hard time with certain black objects - it's literally laughable coming from the photography gods. I'm not quite sure where I come down yet on this whole issue and Leica camera products in general. I will always have alot of respect for Leica lenses, both M,R, and the sporting objectives as being some of the best in the world. It occured to me the other day, in thinking about this whole situation, and reading alot of the reaction here, that I'm quite happy with my little unauthentic 5 megapixel D2 (and my authentic D200), but I'll probably never buy into Leica's premiere systems, either R or M - as an amateur satisfied with decent image quality, the bang for the buck isn't there. For me. That's not to say someone else isn't thoroughly justified in going Leica all the way. I do realize that there are many professional and extremely experienced photographers here, and getting this camera to sing is an interesting and challenging undertaking for them, and I've enjoyed reading alot of it. No doubt that the M8 even in it's present state is capable of incredible pictures.

 

-Best, John

[mwilliamsphotography]

The ongoing assumption is that of pervasive Leica snobbery. High expectations followed by incredible scrutiny of every detail.

 

I didn't inspect, poke and prod my $30,000. H2D39 as much as I have this camera.

 

But then again, I didn't have to. It delivered right out of the box.

 

I think both the expectations, and some of the puffed up claims by users concerning this camera are unrealistic. It's a crop frame, 10 meg. 35mm style digital range-finder. No more, no less. The $5,000. is payment for a M in look, feel, heft and build quality.

 

What most didn't expect was problems of the magnitude revealed with-in a few days of delivery. No one listened to Leica when they pointed out the issues inherent with a digital rangefinder. The RD-1 supposedly proved them wrong. But that's a 1,5X crop ... another thing few Leicaphiles would accept. So, it was basically ... "deliver a digital M, or die Leica" ... the Leicaphile mob brandishing pitchfork and torches outside Castle Solms.

 

Now it's put up or shut up time. Will you put up with the flaws? I personally can't decide, and I can afford to toss $5,000. at this camera just to indulge my passion for range-finders ... after coughing up cash for three MF digital backs and a Imacon 949 scanner ... this is pocket change.

 

For others, it is the purchase of a lifetime ... the most they ever paid for a camera. They have a right to be miffed about being put into a dilemma where there is no real alternative if you want to use your M glass on a compatible rangefinder with a relatively decent meg count.

[drjon]

I posted this twice before aganist other threads a few days ago but it may be of interest in this thread.

 

The M8 demonstrably suffers from IR contamination. This almost certainly arises from the use of a very thin glass cover in front of the sensor which provides insufficient blocking of the IR spectrum. Even in natural light, IR contamination can be an issue, but it is clearly a significant problem for those users requiring highly accurate colour rendition, especially under artificial lighting which normally contains relatively high concentrations in the IR spectrum.

 

Since nearly all real world objects reflect IR to a greater or lesser extent, dealing with the M8's IR contamination would require reducing the amount of the IR spectrum arriving at the sensor. I concur with those who believe that profiling or other software-related tweaks cannot provide an overall solution - Leica would be well advised to steer well clear of such solutions.

 

If I were Leica, I would not touch the sensor itself as, based on my own results and those I have seen posted on the web, they have a winning design here - this camera (using the M lenses) can produce wonderful pictures with that special Leica character. This leaves only two options, increase the IR blocking properties of the glass cover in front of the sensor, or mount an IR blocking filter in front of the lens. Neither of these two solutions should be an issue of principle for users - provided that transmission of light in the visible spectrum is completely unaffected.

 

Again, if I were Leica, I would not mess around with the glass cover; this could change the character and overall quality of the results currently seen from the camera which I for one like very much. This leaves only the use of filters in front of the lens. Such an approach has the advantage that those users who wish to take advanatage of the M8's IR sensitivity are free to do so.

 

I have no problem using filters on my lenses, I have always done so as do thousands of others; as I say, this should not be an issue of principle. However, I would expect Leica to provide M8 buyers with high quality IR cut filters at a discounted price and have such filters manufactured for Leica to Leica standards.

 

The only urgent firmware changes which I would suggest are those related to AWB - the M8 is easily disturbed under mixed lighting and the AWB does need improving - hardly something new for newly released digital cameras.

 

Leica have clearly made a mis-step primarily in marketing terms which, for a Company with their culture, they were bound to make sooner or later. I sincerly hope that they will not change their culture, there are precious few Companies left like Leica. They have made a mistake, but not one which will cause loss of life. The history of Leica and of photography is not about to be re-written because of the magenta issue.

 

Leica will survive this and, in the fullness of time, the M8 will surely take its place alongside the other legendary Leica cameras - as will the photographs which will be taken using this camera.

[kamilsukun]

Are Leicaphiles psychologically equipped for digital?

 

Absolutely, yes.

Only, some in "Mechanically Perfect" psychology.