Kamber's Leica M8 field test: Iraq

Michael,
Thanks for posting that. Be safe over there.
Cheers,
Bill.

“I have found the Leica M8 to be unreliable, poorly designed, and to deliver substandard results in most of the situations in which I have used it. I can’t think of any camera—or for that matter any electronic device I have recently used—that so thoroughly fails to live up to its potential and its heritage.”

Its often the problem that a first model is used to eliminate all the difficulties and it sounds like this Leica is no different— of course thats no consolation to folks who paid a small fortune for one. Thanks for the review Michael and I look forward to seeing your work.

The stupid problems started with the M7, as Michael correctly points out:

"However, based on extensive use of the M7 and M8 over the past few years, I must say honestly: Leica’s days of dependability are long since past.

In my opinion, Leica’s quality control today is well below that of other camera makers. This, coupled with poor field testing of new models and what is probably the longest repair wait of any major camera manufacturer, is a very serious problem for a working photojournalist. I have waited up to three months for lens repairs and four months for camera body repairs that had to be sent to Germany.

I purchased an M7 new in 2005. When I payed for it through a well-known Manhattan dealer, he said to me, “Well you know you have to buy two because they break down all the time. You’ll need one as a back-up.” I laughed, thinking he was joking. He was not. “My customers bring them back here all the time and I have to send them to Leica for repair,” he told me.

As he warned, I shot four rolls of film with the M7 before it locked up. Leica returned it after a few weeks but it quit on me in Sierra Leone and again in Darfur. The camera had to be sent back to Leica four times but still was undependable; the meter fluctuated wildly. After nearly a year, much of which the M7 spent at Leica’s repair facility in Germany, Leica refunded my money and I gave them back their M7. "

Quote from: http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,Iraq/Page6.html

Hey Mike,
I agree completely with your assessment. I bought an M8 last year before heading to Afghanistan, and was disgusted with its performance, especially in high ISO’s. I sold it immediately upon my return.

I’m back to using the Leica Digilux 2, a one-off model that looks and operates similarly to the m-series, with a fixed 28-90 f/2-2.4 lens. Although the camera is four years old now and only five megapixels, it can shoot RAW and produces a beautiful file… They are now available used for under a grand and are a good SLR alternative….

Damned shame…hope Damaso reads this before he buys one.

Speaking of the D2, can’t help but stupidly point out: The Leica Digilux 2 was developed in conjunction with Panasonic who have their own version of the camera which has a black body with a molded hand grip, some plastic controls, carries the Panasonic name but is otherwise identical. The most amazing difference is the price, the Panasonic being some $300 cheaper.

I, too, bought an M7 in 2006 after using M6/M6 TTLs for the past 10 years. On my first trip with the M7 it started leaking light through one of the camera strap eyelets on the camera after 70 roles of film. I of course didn’t know this until after I developed the film back home. I have had it repaired by Leica and now want to sell it to put the money towards an M8 but this review really makes me wonder. I am using the Canon 5D for digital and while the camera is great and robust and has a great sensor and makes outstanding images in low light it is way too bulky for proper street photography. I just got a Canon G9 point-and-shoot, hoping that it could be my street camera, but over 400 ASA and the noise is unacceptable, not to mention that there is a 3 second delay in RAW. So, I really want an M8 to be able to continue my rangefinder photography. I know that David Alan Harvey for instance, is using the M8 for all his 35mm work and no longer shoots any 35mm film. . . I guess he probably has more than one M8 though to compensate for the camera’s unreliability. . .

David Alan Harvey also shoots with the Nikon D300. I have my eye on 2 of these. Michael’s review kills the M8 for me. I’m thinking the D300 with small primes instead of the M8.

Davin, you could simply ask DAH, he’s easy and usually does answer smart questions: http://davidalanharvey.typepad.com/

My stupid opinion? No wonder the latest work of his I’ve seen is SO COMPLETELY WAY OFF, colour wise, in low light. Leica M8 @ AWB must be the culprit.

I think the Leica M8 was designed for b.w…..but thats no excuse. The only thing I can say is that Bruno Stevens sent me some great b/w shot with the M8, its the best b/w I have seen from digital. It probably has a lot to do with the post-processing, I think we are like where we were with printing b/w three years ago from digital, in another few years all this will get settled out anyway.

But I appreciate Michael’s candor.

I have to disagree, Andy.

The Nikon D3 is the latest example of the digital situation being about as “settled” as it needs to be, in terms of ability, image quality, low light performance, or any other photojournalistic measure — except maybe bulk and weight — if spoiled trustafarians sporting stupid scarves must complain.

Meanwhile, the Leica that most us grew up with, lived and died by, is now not even worthy of its name. Shame. Nothing but shame. Not to mention a rip-off beyond belief, money wise.

Why they have not made a serious effort to enlist you — and all the other legendary Leica users — to help them produce the BEST digital Leica there could ever be, is beyond my understanding.

I will never EVER comprehend why this Legend simply rolled over and is about to die.

Jesus, I wonder what the German word for Edsel is…

Peter,
I used the Digilux 2 overseas and loved it. I stoopidly loaned it to my baby brother. I haven’t seen it since and he’s not using it anymore. At 100 ASA it ruled. Maybe I’ll ask for it back.

I still think Leica should have built an M8 around the Digilux 2. It’s deep enough for FF and sturdy enough, to me, to allow mounting different glass. That’s my opinion though.

Cheers,
Bill.

Ah, the moon in Zune, I remember it well-I was young and foolish then. I wonder why a company with a rep like Leica’s would turn out such a poorly designed piece of equipment. I can understand why Microsoft does it; they figure with their lock on the market, they can afford to let the public do its R & D for them, but there are plenty of alternatives to Leica that dont cost as much and are much more reliable than the M8 appears to be.

I wasn’t so much saying that Leica is necessarily going to be the one to carry the rangefinder into the future, but that someone will. Maybe Nikon sticks that D3 chip or something like it onto a RF….

Zoonds Akaky. My Zune post zoomed into oblivion, don’t ax me why. Happens here at LS, lately. Leica M8 comparisons spring to mind.

Anyway, Andy, I have the D3 chip in a M6 body pre-ordered. Please get in the stupid line!

Now that would be smart. M6 with D3.

I have it on good authority that the next generation of the Sigma DP1 will address many of the problems encountered in the first generation. Apparantly even Sigma was not too happy with the DP1. Highlights: better focusing, 20-50mm zoom.

Bring on the DP2 or whatever it’s gonna be. Street shooters might finally have something digital to satisfy.

Wow… what a review. and a sad one at that. I am a leica user myself and think very highly of the film equipment that I do own. I knew the M8 had it’s troubles, but that review adds up to something that as far as digital goes is definitely fubar… It’s sad because they should just acknowledge that they effed up and work on bringing something better to the market.

I am the fool who bought Peter’s camera. It was dark and Pete must have pulled some Gypsy shit cause I dont remember much. Spent the following morning searching for $5K i was missing and vomiting over the look of the camera’s files. It was April, i recall.

Has anyone told Leica of this thread? They ought to see it. They ought to know so that they have some chance of redeeming themselves at some point.

Hey y’all, just a friendly reminder: digital cameras are COMPUTERS, not cameras. It’s not exactly a paradigm shift in thinking, folks. We’re not dealing in traditional thinking in terms of optics, film, mechanical considerations. All of this stuff that my friend Kamber is talking about, it’s just the photo equivalent of computer software glitches, crashes, malfunctions, updates, patches, etc.

Add to that, the moment you try to put together a very expensive leica lens, made for analog (film) with a computer, you should expect malfunction. Leica M8s or whatever were probably made for rich Leica Weenies, not for seriously poor freelance professionals who know better and can’t afford to piss $$$ down the toilet. Ask any computer geek: let version 2.0 or later come out, then buy. Don’t get suckered into being a first adopter with ver. 1.0.

Let’s take the long view: from 2001 (war in Afghanistan) to 2009 (war coming in Iran), war coverage using digital cameras will be viewed by historians as the naive period, or exploratory phase. By the start of the next decade, camera makers will have gotten their shit together and we won’t need to have these discussions.

We are the photo guinea pigs.

Imagine we were discussing the iPhone, then today Steve Jobs just announced the newest G3 enabled phone at half the price? Who cares? In 10 years, phones will be toasting our bagels with cream cheese and at a 1/4 of the cost. Now, decide what’s best for your purposes, that will last you the longest, cut short the camera companies that dabble in history and nostalgia, and try not to get caught up in tech hype.

18 month obsolescence for all tech products, keep in mind.

Nice review, Michael. It is good that I don`t have a penny for buy a M8

TF, what you’re saying is true, but Leica isnt Microsoft; everyone knows that the first new thing out of the Gates mill is always crap and that Bill expects the technodweebs to find and fix the problems in the software for him. It’s a great idea, when you give it some thought. Why try to anticipate every possible glitch in the software when you can get the program just good enough and let someone else figure out what you’ve done wrong and how to fix it for free. Leica, on the other hand, has built its reputation on turning out a superior product, a product that takes an exploding airship, to use that New Yorker puff piece’s language, to really damage. Maybe it took the Hindenburg to really damage a Leica screwmount, but the Hindenburg blew up 70 years ago. It doesnt take that long to acquire a reputation for turning out shoddy products in this century.

Akaky,

Sorry that’s utter bollocks. Microsoft used to be known for producing shite code, but they too have understood that it is no longer the acceptable way.
Software development relies on one major factor, which influences how well a product works, the human. The human is a lazy sod who will do anything to ensure the product reaches the milestone and makes the marketing team happy by releasing it. This is where ALL issues regarding software often start, commercial pressure from management and marketing to get it on the shelves.

Leica is a new fish in this game, they might have been the top in the analogue days, but with the M8, they are now relying on humans to develop and write the interface to which the camera operates, and with any 1 dot oh release, the end beta tester is the poor mug who is sold the unit.

Have they screwed up with M8 1.0, for sure, but the real test will be if Leica will admit they had issues and resolve it in a faster/better manner.

“the real test will be if Leica will admit they had issues and resolve it in a faster/better manner”

Er, don’t hold your breath on that one Daniel !

Now I understand why photographers like Tom Stoddart are still using the M6 and haven’t joined the digital
revolution yet.

i was reminded of ashley gilbertson, another veteran war photorapher, and his review of the M8 in iraq.

that review is here:

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4133/extreme-field-test-leica-m8-in-iraq.html

gilbertson’s conclusion was that “…Leica has created a perfect transition to digital from its M-series film cameras. The Leica M8 is just as small, almost as durable, and as easy to use as its film predecessors, and it yields an incredible file in both size and sharpness.”

so what is going on here?

two veteran war photographers, the same camera, the same theatre of operation, the same extreme conditions, the same working conditions and yet it is as if both photographers were working with completely different cameras!!

add to this bruno steven’s earlier review and we have perhaps the most schizophrenic camera in the world or one that is terribly inconsistently made because these reviews are poles apart!!

asim

Interesting thought, who was given a Leica to test and who paid their out of their own pocket?

“The Leica M3 of the 1950’s was an instant success, not because Leica held to quaint design and outdated technology (i.e. the M8’s removable bottom plate) in a misplaced effort to attract classicists, but because they used new technology to build a camera that was on the cutting edge of its time.”

Tech or no tech… Computer, software or film… They’re no longer at the front.

daniel – i think that all three were given at least one loaner from leica. so we can’t define any bias on that basis. michael kamber says that in his review, and ashley too points out that leica gave him a couple of cameras, and bruno too has clearly stated that leica gave him one to try out. so i think all three are pretty much in the clear here as far as i remember and it cannot explain the widely different write ups and experiences! i have never read such divergent views on any camera i know, past or present!

asim

Is this going to last as long as “leica M8 is it any good” Dear God spare us all.

Have none of you got anything better to do than dicuss boring camera shit.

Yup, Daniel put his finger on it.

The Ashley Gilbertson key words are: “Leica USA loaned me a couple of Leica M8 bodies…”

Bruno Stevens M8 review resides under the same, stupidly massaged, loaner cloud.

http://www.lightstalkers.org/leica-m8-review

For the price tag and the glow of the Red Dot™, people will forgive Leica everything. If you could buy an M8 for $800, people would be more than willing to say that it’s a crap camera. Removing the base plate to change a memory card? Why would anyone put up with this?

MimicMe, putting people down when they want to discuss this camera, is not helpful. Considering that most of the people here are photographers, we are very interested in “boring camera shit.” Kamber’s review is the most comprehensive that I’ve ever seen, and goes beyond the “which camera do you like better” routine, which I admit, does get boring.

Ok, this post is getting ridiculous. The M8 is a great camera for street and documentary work, and can be used for more intense situations depending on how you shoot. But it’s clearly not for everyone, just as lots of people thought it was silly to spend more for an M6 when you could have an f5 or eos1 that would do so much more.

I was loaned an M8 to try out and then I bought one because I like working with it. I’m not entirely happy with Leica these days. I think the lens prices in particular are insulting and unfortunately I feel like they keep Leica gear out of reach for many real working photographers. But I like working with rangefinders, I already have the lenses and I need to shoot digital, so I figured I’d give the camera a chance.

Have I ever missed pictures because I hit a button on the back? Once or twice, but no more often than I missed pictures after I hit the aperture dial on the back of my 5d and got unusable frames since I knocked the exposure five stops off.

Is the M8 slow? Kind of. The shutter lag is very low, but the buffer will fill up and writing files does take a bit long. But if you haven’t gotten in the habit of shooting 8fps all the time, it works fine. It actually writes and clears the buffer much faster if you shoot RAW only, saving the extra jpg file takes longer.

The in-camera jpg processing isn’t up to the quality of nikon or canon, the camera is best when you shoot raw. The RAW files print beautifully, but the jpgs are good enough for newspaper or web work. The new firmware has made the white balance much more consistent, I think about as good as my 5d.

The high-iso performance isn’t as good as canon or nikon but I rarely shoot my canons above 800 so being limited to 640 with a 28/2 lens is all I need. When I shot film I rarely shot anything faster than tri-x, so 640 already gives me a bit of extra speed. At 1250, the M8 files kind of look like scanned c-41, kind of grainy, but usable if you get the exposure right. Getting the exposure right is important, especially with in-camera jpgs.

I can’t speak to the quality of the autoexposure since I never use it, nor do I use auto on my canons. I would say that the camera is more suited to someone who shoots on manual, as I would imagine the old-tech center-weighted meter can’t do the job with digital. Seems like an afterthought slapped on to suit hobbyists.

My M8 has never been in the shop, but as the techs at my paper can verify, I’ve killed off plenty of nikon and canon bodies and lenses while working. Canon gear is great, but everything breaks down. Leica had some early reliability problems with the M8, but lately the cameras seem to be more reliable. The only piece of leica gear I ever had to have repaired was when I bent the rewind knob on an M6, but that was due to impact.

Some poeple won’t like the M8 because it doesn’t suit the way they shoot, and that’s fine, but in the end it’s just a camera and people should care about your images, not how you make them. I appreciate and respect Michael’s review, and all of what he says is true, but I do suggest that anyone who liked film M cameras should at least give it a try for themselves.

Noah, please go to the web version of this conversation:

http://www.lightstalkers.org/kamber-s-leica-m8-field-test-iraq

And edit your post and remove the space in: “(space)The high-iso performance isn’t as good as canon or nikon…”

If you don’t remove the space, the web version of these posts will forever force us all to unnecessarily, stupidly, scroll horizontally, ad nauseum.

Thanks!!!

So that’s why it ended up all spaced out. Sorry about that.

to be ohnest, for me leicas best times have ended whent they came digital. it’s not the same even in touch, and come on, the viewfinder in M8 is just a joke.
M7 and before still kills

M6 and before. M7 was a clear indicator of why M8 is a train wreck.

And thanks again for the edit Noah, much easier on my stupid eyes.

kamber is sadly much more right than wrong. i don’t happen to own a M8, but have tested several, and have found the low-light/high ASA performance to be especially poor. Poorer than a Canon 5D, which at this point is also a three year old camera.

also, the crop factor destroys the idea of true compatibility with your tried and true film Leicas. The argument in the real world isn’t film VS. digital. It is, for me, often, how do you work carrying both? in an ideal world, you could have tri-x in a film Leica and the digital Leica as well, sharing a common, lightweight, fast group of 28mm, 35mm, 50mm lenses, all f/1.4 or f/2.0. A couple extra batteries and cards, 10 or 20 rolls of film in a pouch, and the whole kit with the two bodies would still be smaller and lighter than a single Nikon or Canon monster with a big zoom lens…but with that silly crop factor, forget it. They say that the rangefinder design would create vignetting and fall off and other problems on a FF sensor…uh, so what if it did?!? how many people are deliberating burning in their corners anyway….

On my last assignment in China covering the earthquake, I had to carry a Canon 5D with 24mm, 28mm, 50mm lenses AND a Leica M4-P film camera with a 28mm and a 50mm…happily i would have switched out the Canon for a digital Leica, were that possible…

Leica seems to think that its future is purely with the rich hobbyists, which may be true in absolute terms, but photojournalist users create mystique and fame for the brand. They haven’t quite lost the entire battle yet….but they sure will if they can’t iron out all of these problems and make the next version, M9, a full frame camera with serious low-light capabilities.

Just to be clear, I’m not saying the M8 is as good in low-light as the 5d, but for me it’s good enough.

That’s something that’s often forgotten in these days where people expect digital perfection. Back when we shot film if we wanted fast film, we shot tmz3200 or for color fuji 800 pushed a stop. Those films were grainy as hell, and no one thought anything of it. The images had character and texture and they weren’t perfect.

So while the 5d is much cleaner than the M8 above 640, but most of the work I do is with tri-x, which is 400 iso, and I use rodinal, which is quite grainy, so my M8 files are much cleaner than my film files. So while they might be technically inferior to 5d files, they are good enough for what I want to do with them.

They’re more than good enough for newspaper repro, and the largest prints I generally make for exhibitions, etc., are maybe 12×18, and the files look great at that size. I’ve heard of people who print black and white who intentionally shoot at 1250 even in decent light since it looks like tri-x grain, thought I don’t shoot that way.

Furthermore, as we move along, most of our work will be seen online. M8 files, even at 2500, are again more than sufficient for online publishing.

The race for more resolution and less noise is silly. The images are all that matters, and the M8 is more than capaple of making good images. I don’t care how the files look on my screen at 200 percent with the shadows brought up, I just care how they look in prints, which is impressive.

Alan, I wanted the m8 for the reasons you suggest. I love film and my M6’s, but I need to shoot digital. I’m kind of a lens minimalist, I could pretty much shoot everything I like to do with a 35mm. So I can put my 28/2 on the m8 and my 35/1.4 on my M6, and I have two more or less equal lenses for film and dit, and both are small and fast. So my old 50/1.4 turns into more of a portrait lens on the m8, but that’s all I normally use it for anyway. And I might pick up a 21 if I can find a cheap used one, but I can live with the 28 being my widest low-light lens for the M8.

I’d love a full frame digital RF, but the problem might be more than just dark corners, they might be soft or distorted, which would be unacceptable.

I’m not trying to justify my purchase or shill for leica. I’m more than happy with the camera and I don’t care what others think (in fact, if anyone’s selling theirs, I’d love a good deal on another one). And I’m not happy with the direction Leica is going and I do feel like it’s becoming too much of a luxury brand instead of a company catering to professionals. Mostly this is because most pros had to go digital years ago, and leica was late to the digital party. But I think their first attempt isn’t too bad, and hopefully they’ll be around long enough to make an M9…

Is there another piece of hardware on the planet that elicits such passionate reponses as the M8, even 2 years after it’s introduction? I keep having this vision of an angry mob of photographers, armed with pitchforks and torches, converging on the front gate of the Leica factory in Solms, demanding a digital M that works.
8-)

Anyhoo, I hope that the M8 turns out to be the M4-2 of the digital bodies and they get it right with the M9.

It’s a quirky camera and I certainly would not make it my main body, without some sort of back up.

It is criminally overpriced, as are the lenses.
The turn around time for getting it serviced is measured in weeks and months, not days.
The viewfinder framing accuracy is a joke, even by rangefinder standards. The sensor is noisy at high iso, which wouldn’t be such a big deal if you only shot black and white, but of course the world demands color these days.

But unfortunately it’s the only digital RF around, unless you count the RD-1.

Personally I am really pissed off that Leica has not hit a bullseye with this one. I’m still shooting with my film M bodies, and really wanted a digital incarnation of the M camera. Maybe I would be a little more forgiving and would give it a try if it was half the cost. But at $5500 for the body I think the least we can expect is that it operates reliably and can frame a shot with an acceptable amount of accuracy. But I guess I’ll have to wait.

Apparently Leica has a whole slew of surprises up it’s sleeve for Photokina, so we’ll have to wait and see.

I don’t know what the solution to the problem is. Maybe Leica will do a 180, pull their head out of their arse and suddenly produce a viable camera.

Maybe Leica will be bought by Canon or Nikon (we couldnt’ be that lucky).

Who knows.

Reading what Kaufmann recently had to say, I don’t expect to see a M9 at next Photokina. Some new lenses maybe, some boring R news, and possibly a mock-up of a future CLdigital, for around €2000.

If anyone ends up buying Leica, my bet would be on Panasonic. Can’t see Canon or Nikon acting that stupid.

from the leica magazine :)

“Advertising in our magazine offers you direct access to an above-average, educated and solvent group of customers, who are photography enthusiasts. Advertising in LFI is an opportunity that you should not miss.”

the key word here being ’solvent"

seems that leica really are aimed at dentists these days,not photo-journalists.either that or their copywriter has been sniffing solvents,and got confused about the parlous state of the industry.

that’s why i dont have this baby…i’m anything but solvent….and in a family of 2 artists/photographers barely keeping above the drain swirl…

by the way, i really enjoyed reading Michael’s review: in depth and backed up with detail and document…and Michael’s an extraordinary photog: but, as i’ve said before, a camera is just a stupid tool, and for me, i’ve never ever undestood the obsession (as beautiful as the L-family is/was) with name: do our pics have a stamp: MADE BY LEICA????…or on our bylines…

if Leica is interested in enthusiasts who enjoy/love the camera, more power too them: they have to be solvent themselves ;)), i dont see what all the fury is, just move on and make great pics with whatever tool we have…

thanks for the review :))

cheers
bob

The fury is stupidly obvious to anyone who wishes to travel light, with the smallest possible film & digital set of superb tools. Only someone who traveled extensively with film M bodies and a set of its small lenses can understand the gaping hole of what we’re missing, not having a viable digi M.

Stoop, I got those same Zen minimalist feelings with my Olympus OM kit.

Leica is a clear example of a company locked in time. Too far from the reality of both their history and their future.

I recently jumped ship selling my leicas and lenses before they became paperweights. The fact that there is all but a handful of technicians capable of servicing the machines, led me to believe that the heyday is long past and that I am clutching too hard a piece of history.

I am not sure a company like Leica has the culture necessary to realize their potential. They are simply not invested in creating a future, more like rehashing the old over and over again.

I do not want to get in the film v digital debate as that would cause the universe to collapse on itself. I do however feel that our preoccupation with brand and legacy is a tad scary, who honestly saw Leica shaking the decades of dust off to reinvent itself in the 21st century, not me. My M6s (classic) were tanks, but they had problems fairly regularly, certainly not as resilient as the myth purports.

Nevertheless, I agree wholly with Stoop, it is about the size when traveling.

Give me a digital FF super quiet, small, camera with a set of solid sharp fast lenses. You could toss the damn LCD make it to where I can tailor the camera via usb. Of course it should be made of a metal, should be thoroughly weathered sealed. I would not care if the damn thing said Daewoo/Del Monte on it if it worked much like my nikons I would gladly part with them.

Looks like there is an opening for someone to introduce a new lens mount and a new DRF to the world. I am no physicist , but seems the issue is with the lenses the rest is a mere computer. Leica you paying attention? Naw….

preston, if olympus went with a digital full-frame OM rather than these weird 4/3 cameras without any fast prime wide-angle lenses, for sure photojournalists would buy them…

and noah, of course the M8 might work well for you, and other photographers. but for $5000+ it should work well for ALL of its traditional M film base of owners…it should have ALL the capabilities of a 5D inside a Leica M body…

a Canon 5D now costs only $1200 or so used…i finally sold a bunch of Nikon stuff (D200, D70, plus some extras) and I made the big switch, though keeping my Nikon lenses for a potential switch back later…i was seriously thinking of plopping down $3900 for a used M8…wanted to…but it just didn’t make the cut. for three times the money you should at least get AS GOOD if not a better camera!

and let’s be frank, the Canon 5D has a great sensor for low-light, full-frame performance. But it’s still a crap camera in many ways — too big, not great light meter, not great speed — you would have thought that Nikon could have made the D300 full-frame and blown it out of the water. But no. Other than than the flagship monster D3, Nikon is still at the 1.5x crop factor.

The cheap Canons, the 400D or 450D, actually seem pretty great…small, light….good sensors….but CROP FACTOR!

Matt, it’s true that even the M6s have problems. In all honesty the M2 and M3 that i used full-time for ten years were more reliable than the M4-P and M6 that i’m using now….it’s the faster loading and ability to take the rapidwinders/motordrives which made me upgrade…

what, BTW, are Epson and Zeiss up to? Epson/Cosina RD-1 was a nice step in the right direction, where is their next model?

And Zeiss with its full line of M-mount lenses and the Zeiss-Ikon film body looks like it is obviously angling for the digital M market…hurry up!

and Sony? they own what was Konica, the Konica Hexar RF was a very innovative camera, how about a digital version?

pipe dreams…all wishful thinking!

I have got a 400D that I pare with my 24f1.4 lens and it is a great small discreet camera. I wish the lens was not as big as it is, but oh well, the glass is nice.

Yes, there is a crop factor and 97% viewfinder, they are obstacles I have gotten used to. After all, it was a $700 camera 18 months ago.

It is not like my M6 and 35f2. That camera is more discreet, but takes film. If I wanted an M8 with abut a 35f2, it would cost me over $5k because I do not have a 28f2. So, I spend about $2K and gained 2 stops along the way. I wish I could have a digital M, but until then, I will stick with what I have.

I wish it was not this way. I can’t even afford an MP, which is the camera I really want, but even those are too expensive. Sometimes I wish I never bought that M6, then I would not have these issues. But I drank the Leica kool-aid and it was tasty, I wish I could wash the taste from my mouth.

STOOP :))

i completely UNDERSTAND the love and need and value for Leica: the brilliant lens, the light light unobtrusiveness (but for the magic red dot) and it’s durability…i love leica too, BUT i’m not (nor have i ever understood, just as with scarfs) the silly obsession with the camera…for example, I loved (and still do) my old nikon (first great camera I owned) that i inherited from my grandmother (a pro, and 1st woman in philly to own a camera/photoprinting shop), but i’d ditch it and am not attached to it if there are other tools…that leica has created a tool that fails PJ’s is disappointing, BUT, in the end my apple Lisa disappointed me too ;))…but i dig my G5,etc…what i like about Michael’s review was that it was FAIR and LOYAL: to both Leica (it’s strength in previous models) and it’s failures and the loyalty to the professional needs…that’s all im saying…

for me, give me whatever i can use: leica m, nikon, holga, lomo, canon (well, i dont have that, but my wife does), whatever…and in the field: it’s performance of nothing, regardless of name :))
camera’s will be replace (in our lifetime) by chips in our eyes and on our limbs: what then for leica?…and im still a stupid film dude ;))

give me any tool that will allow me to do what it is i wish to do, and to do it well..that’s all i ever require, and that’s not alot…and for $5000 for body, i think of a lot of other responsibilities ;))

but it’s a mute point, ’cause remember we got the M9 :"))))

cheers
ok, running
b

Epson stupidly folded the RD-1.

Zeiss is all about lenses, these days, too shy to come up with a M-like body, anytime soon.

Sony is so out of touch with rangefinder, I can’t imagine.

Konica Minolta? Discontinued.

french fashion house hermes bought leica and then shed them a few years back because of poor performance. wonder why…

If only we could have a Digital Film. A wafer sensor and chip that could be popped into the back of a regular camera. We almost had it but the company, Sinclair, that developed the technology ran out of R&D money. A Real pity that.

There was also supposed to be E-Film from Irvine Sensors in my M6 by now but here I am without it, eight years past the initial hype. Stupid. No idea why it ain’t here, already. Nor why I’m not yet posting this from my Jetpack.

E-film-now that would be great. No more sensor cleaning !!

My thought was they’d get cheap enough to pack back-up E-Films, galore. Say, two for every film cam in the bag. How stupid.

E-film would be great. Too bad it never happened.

I had almost forgotten about this past development until today. I did not even know the name Irvine Sensors, but I remember reading about e-film or silicone film.

There was a discussion on whether the Olympus OM would be included in the test camera bodies on the Olympus camera mailing list. I first learned the word, vaporware, then.

just a note: Sony owns what was Konica Minolta and continues to make cameras with the Minolta Maxxum AF mount, correct me if i’m wrong…they therefore also own the Konica Hexar and Hexar RF designs…a digital Hexar RF, (which in a way is kind of what the M8 is) with a full-frame Sony sensor would be amazing…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konica_Minolta