johnastovall Posted November 25, 2006 Share #121 Posted November 25, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) snipped Is that a whine? I'd call it more an expression of a sense of real loss. That has just as much a place on these forums as expressions of support and enjoyment of the camera (I've posted some of those expressions and images as well). snipped Steven Well said Steven. When I canceled my M8 order it was with sadness and a real feeling of loss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 25, 2006 Posted November 25, 2006 Hi johnastovall, Take a look here Announcement Published on Leica Website . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sungnee Posted November 25, 2006 Share #122 Posted November 25, 2006 Look, I'm sorry to say this, but the M8 is NOT a point and shoot. Go get the Leica / Panasonic 4/3 SLR...if you can't work with the images. Hear! Hear! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted November 25, 2006 Share #123 Posted November 25, 2006 Steven I certainly respect the right of people to choose and I'm sorry those returning their cameras or cancelling their orders are not happy with the camera. I know what it's like to be disappointed with a product - just recently, I cancelled my order for a Porsche 911 turbo because that car does not meet my expectations of it. Making people happy is all about managing their expectations. If you deliver more than they expect, they're happy, if you deliver less than they expect - or even what they expect - they are unhappy. For the M8, It was easy enough to fall into the trap of thinking that, somehow, this would be a no-compromise imaging solution. As it turns out, we know that it is compromised, compromised because the laws of physics the thing has to work with and the legacy of the lenses it has to work with do not sit happily together. I had the privilege of talking to people at Photokina who had worked on the development of the camera, including Otto Domes. These people are not incompetent, they are not delinquent in any way and they do the best job they can. Their enthusiasm for the camera was palpable and Leica have brought it to market under the most difficult of commercial conditions. I think they deserve my support for doing so. That said, I'm not blind to the camera's faults and Leica could have done more to set our expectations earlier so there would be less unhappy people. Right now though, we are not going to change the fundamentals of the camera. It is what it is and with the readout bug fixed, filters and firmware, we can look forward to a camera which delivers most of what we reasonably expect of it. Those for whom that is not enough will go elsewhere or wait for something else to come along. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
osera Posted November 25, 2006 Share #124 Posted November 25, 2006 Mark, Very well said. FWIW, I agree completely. The M8 works exceedingly well, FOR ME. Not sure if I agree re: the turbo, as I haven't tried it. For me, the coupe suits my style just fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted November 25, 2006 Share #125 Posted November 25, 2006 Everything involves compromises, risks versus benefits. Since we seem to be stuck in car analogies, my LandRover does some things better than any other vehicle, but others either not so well or not well at all (try taking an LR3 into an underground parking garage and you'll find out one of them!) Cameras are the same - my father always had me use his Exakta VP SLR with the sun at my back (and if there was no sun, there were no photographs!), and at that time you just didn't take photographs any other way. None of us should expect everything to work perfectly all the time, especially when we are using something very new. It is unrealistic and childish for us to stamp our feet and cry when we find the real world isn't always perfect. The files I have seen from the M8, coupled with the familiarity of the M system and the ability to use the lenses I have tell me that I should be willing to make those compromises necessary to use this camera. There is no question that the IR issue could have been more adeptly handled, and I doubt it would have made many ripples if Leica had been forthcoming about it before release. The quick recognition and fix for the banding and green blob problems are fine, but could be improved by a swap at the dealer for a new body. My expectation is that this will become a non-issue very quickly as the capabilities of the M8 win it a fine reputation. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blakley Posted November 25, 2006 Share #126 Posted November 25, 2006 Simon, you can't just tease us like that. What was the conclusion - M8 or M7? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
espressogeek Posted November 25, 2006 Share #127 Posted November 25, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Where do I sign up for the registration? I'm going to have this sucker repaired and then ebay it. I'm not hunting down filters for all of the stupid lenses I wanted. The sensor filter size thing is a joke. Epson didnt do it and my crappy D200 takes fantastic pictures with its crappy nikon glass and they are UNREAL sharp. I'll wait for the M9 or get a DMR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted November 25, 2006 Share #128 Posted November 25, 2006 expressogeek if you read the announcement you will see that you register in december somewhere Riley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geboman Posted November 25, 2006 Share #129 Posted November 25, 2006 The work I had planned around the qualities of the M -- unobtrusiveness (simply have decided that the 486 filters diminish this in a significant way, and appreciate that there are people who's opinions I have great respect for who disagree with this view) Steven Can anyone explain how the IR filters take away from the camera's unobtrusiveness? This is the first time I've heard that mentioned. Many thanks to all who contribute. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph S. Wisniewski Posted November 25, 2006 Share #130 Posted November 25, 2006 Can anyone explain how the IR filters take away from the camera's unobtrusiveness? This is the first time I've heard that mentioned. Many thanks to all who contribute. Directly facing the subject, the filter is unobtrusive. But at an angle, it looks red or magenta, and can look quite bright. So, to any non-centered subject, any observer off to the side, or even to a centered subject as you bring the camera up to bear, the filter is a real attention getter. I've gotten lots of dirty looks, and many comments and questions, when using such filters on a Nikon D100. One time, an altercation with security, and one guard told me the only thing he ever saw with that particular red sheen was a spotting scope for a rifle. The typical Leica shooter doesn't want attention, and being mistaken for a sniper or an assassin is about as far as attention gets. Over in this thread are pictures of my Nikon D100 and Bob Gravastar's RD-1 wearing such filters. Granted, they're both cases where we oriented the cameras for maximum effect... http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/9422-what-problem-ir-filters-4.html I had filked it in another forum, but the filk disappeared. It sort of went like this... You know Elmar and Planar, And Elmarit and 'Cron. Tri-Elmar and Summar And 'Lux and Biogon. But do you recall The most infamous camera of all M8 the red-nosed camera, Had a filter on it's nose. And if you ever saw it, You would even say it glows. All of the other cameras, Used to laugh and call it names. They never let poor M8, Join in their street shooting games. Then one foggy Christmas eve, Santa came to say. M that sees with infrared, Won't you guide my flying sled. Then all the cameras loved him, As they shouted out with glee. M8 the red-nosed camera, You'll go down in his-to-ry! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
docdave Posted November 25, 2006 Share #131 Posted November 25, 2006 There is simply no way to get around the fact that this M8 is a seriously flawed camera that was brought to market much too early. It needed more work on the sensor design to eliminate the need for filters. This camera is sure to go down as the digital EDSEL of the camera world. I see plenty of grand rationalizations from the legions of diehard LEICAPHILES on this forum, but for 5K I want a camera that gets the colors right! It is sheer luncy for LEICA not to offer NEW cameras to replace the first shipment. If you buy new, you should get NEW. Too many problems...way too many. I wanted this camera so badly. I was totally swept up by the early mystery and then the hype surrounding PHOTOKINA, etc.. What a letdown. This is just my opinion. Those that have it and can accept the limitations and compromises....fine...enjoy the hell out of it. I'm waiting to see if they get the sensor fixed for the M9 model, which will, undoubtedly, come out much sooner than expected. Cheers! DAVE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted November 25, 2006 Share #132 Posted November 25, 2006 There are some vocational photographers who may prefer to use a Leica M for their work. But nobody really -needs- to use one, particularly a camera that didn't even exist 30 days ago. There are many equivalent or superior cameras available for any imaginable job. The Ms have been principally instruments of enjoyment for a very long time. Regarding the announcement, clearly Leica is taking the issues seriously and is making efforts toward remedy. It's also clear that Leica made a bet with certain engineering design compromises. Whether or not that bet will prove to be good from a business perspective is yet to be seen. I cannot escape the expectation that it will not. Even if Leica manages to adequately remedy all of the M8's shortcomings in current or future models the "digital M"'s reputation has already been negatively tattooed. Sales of future digital Ms will face a stigmatized gauntlet that may, at that time, no longer be valid. This will cost Leica real dollars in a realm in which they have operated very poorly: public relations. Hey Ken--IMO, there are no superior portable digital cameras out there right now that I know of--and I've shot with and owned a lot of them. I've had the M8 for a few weeks, and it's doing things with detail and exposure latitude that make it--truly--a generation ahead of the other stuff that out's there now. Can you find me another camera with ability to push a low-ISO underexposed (exposed to the left!) shot more than 2 "stops" in a RAW converter in post without losing detail or sharpness, or without producing an unprintable file or hours in PS to fix? I haven't seen that other camera... it's the M8. Oh, and that I can handhold any of those other options, without IS at 1/16s? I don't think so. To me, I needed this thing yesterday--even before I knew I needed it. It kicks the 1ds2--quite a feat for a camera with less resolution. It kicks the DMR in terms of low-light ability and overall latitude. I paid less than half for the M8 than I paid for the 1ds2 (and the DMR!!), so it's a bargain to boot, and the lenses are pure investment, which I like. For the stuff I shoot--constantly dark, hard to AF stuff--this is a true breakthrough. So I actually think that 100% hoopla (the camera's pre-release publicity) - 20% mistake (the V1.0 issues with the "computer") = 80% better than other stuff out there. Despite how Leica handled the IR issue, I think this is going to find its way into the eager hands of pros and others who want the technical edge it provides. Leica should be proud of the M8, and I think this will help their success. How soon will it be before the others catch up? I don't know... we'll have to see. But it's laughable to me when I see other people say stuff like "oh, Leica doesn't make a sensor and they're using out of date technology" or "you know, my N or C xxx doesn't have any issues"... You know they *do* have issues, too. And the sensor Leica's got here, from what I've seen so far, is quite special... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidada Posted November 25, 2006 Share #133 Posted November 25, 2006 Jamie, I totally agree, I have never in 25 years had so much fun with a camera, the quality of high iso hand held shots is amazing, better than any other dslr I have used. Yes I want the fixes, but as is it is still the best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted November 25, 2006 Share #134 Posted November 25, 2006 My DMR has been extremely lonely sitting in the safe. Nuf said images coming later today for MAX detail. Oh I love this s...t. I am at the point of who cares it works like a charm throw the filters on and get to work, exactly what i have been doing. The rest well I will get it fixed but right now all i need to do is find the right profile for the IR filters and it will sing along with the DMR. I really think folks need to go shoot this damn thing and see what the hell we are talking about. We maybe nuts granted but were not stupid either:D :D BTW show me a perfect camera and i will switch today. There is none folks, after 35 years trust me on this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted November 25, 2006 Share #135 Posted November 25, 2006 There is simply no way to get around the fact that this M8 is a seriously flawed camera that was brought to market much too early. Dave, that is your opinion (and that of some others), but it is not a fact. Hear me out... Personally, I believe that the real story is one of how Leica braved the odds, and produced the camera that by all rights should have been impossible. Both views are opinions, since we don't know what went on behind closed doors. I am also terribly disappointed by the requirement for the IR filters, but when I read everything that has been written about this topic, and when I see to what lengths Leica is willing to go to correct the streaking and blobs issues (full recall, frozen deliveries, hardware modifications to all existing M8 cameras), I can only conclude that they *must* have done what they could with the IR problem as well. Nothing else makes sense. What they have not delivered is the camera we all wanted. What they *have* delivered is a camera with astounding picture-making abilities, and a single, horrible compromise. The rest will be fixed. This camera would perhaps not exist if they had not made this one compromise, so let's all make our own decisions whether or not to plunk down our money, and go from there. For some that means an R-D1. For others, it means more lenses for a 5D. For me, it means the M8, some IR filters, and some post-processing once in a while. And the best lenses in the world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eoin Posted November 25, 2006 Share #136 Posted November 25, 2006 I for one was and still am angry at the way the 'quirks' were hidden before launch and continue to be down played in Leica's statement. But in saying that having used the camera with a 35 Summilux asph and a 75 summicron AA for the past week on holiday, all I can do is marvel at the images it produces and bite my tounge at the absolutly lousy AWB when shooting from a shaded area when the subject is in direct sunlight. So many times I get these blue images amongst a batch which seem to have the WB correct. Apart from that I'm loving the uncomplicated ease at which I'm taking pictures again, back to basics apature and shutter speed focus compose and shoot. 'Shooting l ife' is a lot more simple with no bulk to carry around. I have not kept up to date with all the happenings, but surfice to say I'd prefer a swap out when the time comes. Leica should foot the transport bill. I have 2 B+W IR/UV filters waiting at home so that's a moot point now. I still feel despite the quality this camera can produce, I've been taken for a ride by a company that choose to hide the flaws and now states that we can upgrade the design feature. Shame on you Leica, I deserve better treatment than the suggested path you have shown todate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted November 25, 2006 Share #137 Posted November 25, 2006 Where do I sign up for the registration? I'm going to have this sucker repaired and then ebay it. I'm not hunting down filters for all of the stupid lenses I wanted. The sensor filter size thing is a joke. Epson didnt do it and my crappy D200 takes fantastic pictures with its crappy nikon glass and they are UNREAL sharp. I'll wait for the M9 or get a DMR. you missed two things: 1) The M8 is an M, and has to deal with M lenses, and more specifically, M lens distances from lens rear element to sensor, and angle of incidence. The D200 is much luckier there, having more room to work with. 2) The R-D1 has corner IQ issue with wide angle lenses. The M8 does not. It has other issues instead. Get a DMR and be happy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted November 25, 2006 Share #138 Posted November 25, 2006 I agree that the M8 file quality is very high but comparing it to MF backs seems to be unrealistic ... there're many forum contributors here who are also MF back owners, I've read from Marc and at least one other contributor saying that the M8 still can not touch the medium format backs ... now if someone won't bother with such a test, I do have some time and interest following your posts. I haven't heard anyone yet suggest that the M8 produces the file quality of a medium format back. What David Adamson and I have said is that the files, to our eyes, are the equal of scans of medium format film. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted November 25, 2006 Share #139 Posted November 25, 2006 I think it's a few passionate supporters making the most noise about the superior aspects of this camera ... actually just a handful in the scheme of things. What's important is to not be bullied into making a poor decision for yourself. The greatest single truth about digital equipment is "those that wait are the most rewarded". Not since the ill fated Contax ND and Kodak DCS have I seen such hard end-user work put into making a camera do what it is supposed to do. Some people may love the results, but the path seems incredibly difficult, not to mention potentially even more expensive and inconvenient. It may well be that given the current state of technology this is IT if you need a pro level digital rangefinder. The question is DO you need it, and WHY? I think this camera makes nice files, partly because of the sensor design (a supposition, since I'm not an engineer), but also because of the excellent lenses in use. However, I shun the notion of exaggerating it's qualities beyond reason ... especially at the expense of other offerings available. Frankly, I've seen nothing posted by anyone including myself that makes a compelling argument for this camera considering the cost and hoops you have to jump through to get a decent image. Even though I argued with Jack Flesher about selling his M8 in preference for Canon, I think he may well be the smartest of the lot when the dust settles. Others obviously feel differently. I may even feel differently because I always wonder if following the path least traveled isn't more rewarding in the end. Then again, I've sometimes done that and the path led to a dead end. Time will tell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blakley Posted November 25, 2006 Share #140 Posted November 25, 2006 Marc, I sort of agree and sort of disagree. I haven't worked very hard - I played around for a while to confirm that the problems were real; then I shot B&W and I ordered some IR filters and put them on a few lenses. Once I did that, I got very good (not perfect) results right out of the camera through DNG + Capture One. When the new profiles are released, I expect this combination to "just work" for coded lenses (yeah, so I've gotta get some lenses coded... sucks a little but all in all not really a huge deal). I grant that the amount of testing you and others have done to identify and isolate the problems, and the amount of work Jamie's done to produce an interim profile, is prodigious. I feel lucky not to have to depend on the camera for my living at this point. But for most users who aren't professionals planning to use it for work immediately, most of the effort is just supressing impatience while we wait a little while. The camera is admittedly expensive. From my viewpoint the job it does with M lenses is so clearly superior to results from the only other alternative (RD-1) as to require little argument if the object is to use M lenses on a digital sensor. And then there's the other thing - the files and the resulting prints just look more like film than files from any other digital camera whose results I've seen. I like that and am willing to put up with some of the usual rangefinder weirdness and awkwardness to get the result. I've never been able to get an excellent 16x20 print from scanned 35mm film with any amount of tweaking, and I've already gotten one (out of three attempts) out of an M8 file with essentially NO manipulation - and in particular with no sharpening or noise reduction. I'm pretty happy with that, and it was a lot LESS work than shooting film would have been. I could probably do the same with a 1DsII (in fact just today I saw a really NICE 24x36 print from a 1DsII, so I know somebody can do it even if I can't) - but then I'd have to use an SLR, which I don't really want to do. So all in all, it hasn't been that painful so far, and the results are pretty nice... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.