Leica M8 - is the lens mount THAT expensive?

Kinon O'cann wrote:

No doubt. I don't own a Leica because I have shooting requirements that go
beyond what a rangefinder can do. But if you can live within it's
limitations, and can afford it, it's a wonderful tool.

Leicas used to be wonderful tools. Now they're just jewelry.

Mercedes Benz made fine cars back in the 50's. They (and most everyone
else) make better ones today. Back then, the Leica was a superior
product. Nowadays, the rest of the world has caught up. Leica hasn't
advanced the quality of their product in 30-40 years. That doesn't
imply that Leicas aren't good cameras, only that there are many good
cameras (and lenses) these days. If you could find an old Mercedes
that is in good shape, it would still be a nice ride. But nothing like
the top of the line Mercedes, ironically called the SLR.

"jeremy" wrote:

I'd bet that my Yashica TLR would outperform a Leica in some respects,
too.

It's a 56x37mm frame with +/- 9 mm of shift (against the short direction
only, though). It's 2072/(36x24), or 2.4 times the area. If you like 8x12
prints from Tony's Leica, you'll love 12x18 prints from the Yashica. That's
a big difference.

I shoot 35mm because I like it, and I have no illusions that it is the
best possible format. It can shoot 36 frames without having to reload
film, unlike MF. It is smaller and lighter than MF. I happen to like the
3:2 aspect ratio, rather than the square. It is versatile. And I happen
to already have a fairly large inventory of bodies, lenses and
accessories, so it is part of my comfort zone.

Right. It's convenience at the expense of image quality.

But any time you enlarge film more than 8x or so (the LF types limit
themselves to 4x), you are in serious trouble. Soft (check out the MTF
curves on slide films; they're way down long before anywhere near 50 lp/mm),
grainy (negative films), or both (anything faster than ISO 160). Tech Pan's
been discontinued. Gigabit film is amazing, but it's harsh. And slow.

So given that the format is limited by the film, not the lens, spending
Leica prices on 35mm equipment is quite nuts.

Leica has an edge over other 35mm systems, but that slight edge is one
that costs dearly. Some people willingly pay that premium price. Not me.

Exactly.

The M8 presents an interesting difficulty. Unlike mechanical Leica film
cameras, which can be expected to give many years' service, any digital
camera may be expected to become obsolete within a few years, as new
advances are introduced. So how much is a $5000 Leica M8 going to be
worth in 2011? Scrap value?

You really have to get your money's worth out of a digital body in the first
three years.

$5000 is a lot to pay for something that will almost certainly drop
sharply in value in a much shorter time. Can you envision someone
shooting with an M8 in 25 years?

The funny thing is, I can envision shooting with an M9 or M10. The M8, with
its 1.33x crop factor and lack of an antialiasing filter, is a ridiculous
joke. But Dalsa _claims_ to be varying the microlenses across the frame. If
(a) that works, (b) they get their pixel performance up to Canon standards,
(c) they make a full-frame sensor, and (d) they add an AA filter, the M9 or
M10 might be nice. One could use the Cosina Bessa, Zeiss M mount, and other
affordable lenses on it.

Of course the reality check is that the much-maligned Canon 17-40 works
quite well at f/11 to f/16 on the 5D. Sharp out to the corners, minimal
light falloff, distortion not enough of a problem to complain about. Sure,
it would be nice if it did that at f/5.6. But I doubt I'd be willing to pay
very much for that improvement.

Now what would be really nice would be a 12mm f/5.6 prime for the 5D that
was a lot smaller than and performed slightly better than the Sigma 12-24
(which itself is seriously amazing on the 5D).

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

nathantw wrote:
Apparently there's a new Leica M8 that was just announced.
http://www.electronista.com/articles...leica.cameras/

What the heck? Why in the world would a rangefinder camera cost as much
Nikon's flagship digital SLR and almost as much as Canon's top of the
line camera? The only thing I can think of is that it must be the lens
mount. It's almost like Leica took the price of their regular M7 and
added on top of that instead of starting from scratch. Granted their
cameras are probably hand made (not always equating to better) and
you're basically paying for one worker's monthly salary when you buy a
camera, but damn, $5647US is a LOT of money for a rangefinder. Then
again, to put things in perspective a Patek Phillipe men's watch STARTS
at $12000, but a Leica isn't made of gold.



http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/m8report/t006.html

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

nathantw wrote:
Chris Loffredo wrote:
Am I endorsing the M8?

I guess not.

I'm hoping that in a couple of years it might be available used at a
decent price.
As I said befo It seems to be the least of all evils for going
digital (at least for me). Actually getting it is another matter.

I actually agree with you with this point. Digital seems like a great
tool to try out certain images. I found some slides in my collection
that had both 35mm and medium format. They were of the exact same thing
taken at pretty much the exact same time. I was actually trying out the
circular polarizer I had gotten with the Hasselblad. Anyway, the
picture was pretty good, but apparently I thought the picture was
REALLY GOOD that day so I shot...and shot...and shot. I think it was a
couple rolls of film. If I had digital at the time I could have done my
tests and deleted the photos when I was done.

Unfortunately for me a digital back for a Hasselblad is at least
$10,000. The Nikon is a little easier coming in at less than $1000.


O.K. Lets try to sum up & reach closure here (also, sorry for the
insults, but I did get annoyed - I'm only human).

Filmwise:

1) Leica lenses *often* have an edge.

2) It is a matter of taste/philosophy whether you like a rangefinder
better than a SLR (the Leica R is another subject).

3) A rangefinder is seriously handicapped for macros, long telephotos
and fast FPS rates & shutter speeds but is ideal for the (many) fields
in which it shines.
IMHO an SLR *is* also needed to do what the rangefinder can't.

4) The Leica M8 seems interesting in that it can use some of the best
lenses in the world (Leica, Zeiss, Konica) and also some of the best
buys (Cosina/Voigtländer & others).
It is also the first digital camera to address the problem of lens
incidence, thus maintaining the performance of wide-angle lenses
calculated for film.
Finally, it is a compact package, similar in size to the Leica-M line,
which should appeal to travel photographers (together with the compact
size of most Leica M lenses).
The problem is the price.

Summary:
I do not want a Nikon DSLR (even though I have a number of lenses)
because of the 1.6 lens factor. And even if there was a Nikon full-frame
DSLR, Nikkors are nit my favorite lenses.

I do not want a Canon full-frame DSLR because of price, my experience
with Canon lenses - and - even when better lenses can be adapted to
them, it is impractical to do so.

What does that leave?

Hopes for the M8...

"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message
...
So Mr. Expert, have you actually *used* a Leica and/or tested its lenses?

Thank you for thinking of me as an "expert."

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...

Scott W wrote:
Tony Polson wrote:
I can, and that is why I use Leica M film gear. To me, it is worth
every extra penny it costs over other brands. It is also why I have
ordered an M8.

Why on earth would you order such a camera before there are even full
reviews of it out?
The thing looks like it could be a disaster but we will have a much
better idea when we can see some sample images.


Perhaps he is replacing his Sigma SD-9?

Ohuuuuu! - Wash your mouth out with soap!!

"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message
...
You also can't compare a leica to, say, a Nikon F6; they have totally
different uses.

Uh...you're right. Taking pictures with a Nikon F6 is totally different than
what you can do with a Leica.

Okay, you want 35mm, how about a Hasselblad Xpan? Oh, that doesn't count
because it's made of metal but it only take a few interchangeable lenses,
right? And let's see, ah yes, it doesn't do the same things as a
Leica...take pictures.

Okay, how about an old Olympus OM-camera? It's quiet, has interchangeable
lenses (some great ones at that)...ah yes, it's an SLR. Not the same thing.
Plus it doesn't do the same thing as a Leica...take pictures.

Then how about a Hexar RF? You can mount the all important LEICA labeled
lens on it. Ah, but it doesn't have a red dot on it. And it's not intended
towards what a Leica is suppose to do...taking pictures.

So what are you suppose to do with a Leica? Ah, I know, put it into the
closet for safe keeping and pull it out when you need money and sell it on
Ebay. So it's suppose to be for collecting. I get it now. No wonder Leica
made so many commemorative editions, such as the very useful gold Leica, the
special plated ones, the ones with special leather, and the rest that were
all sold at a very reasonable price mind you.. It all makes sense. So, yes,
those other cameras don't compare with the Leica.

Until then we can basically
say that the Leica 10MP camera will be similiar to the ones taken with
a Nikon 10MP camera since they use the same imaging chip.

There's a thing hanging on to the front of your camera. Its called a lens.
It makes a difference.

It's still as good as a Nikon 10MP camera at the moment. You show me a
picture taken with a M8 right now compared with a Nikon 10MP camera or even
a Canon 10MP camera side by side. Let us see how much of a difference that
Leica lens makes. Come on, do it. What? You can't? Why? Because it doesn't
come out until November, 2006. So, what did they say in the movie "The Bad
News Bears 2?" Oh yeah, when you ASSUME it makes an ASS out of U and ME.

In article LRfQg.26$Kh.1@trnddc05, says...
There comes a point where the cost of the equipment is too high to justify
actually *using it.*

Even Erwin Puts has recently acknowledged that photographers, except for a
small band of dedicated ones, long ago abandoned the precision rangefinder
in favor of Japanese SLRs.

I've read about several informal "blind" tests where the participants were
unable to determine which camera took which photograph. Bob Monaghan did
one such test. So how much is Leica's legendary (or should I say,
"mythical") margin of superiority worth? Is there any photo taken with
Leica equipment that couldn't have been taken with a Nikon or even a
Minolta?

Try getting your hands on one of these M8's in the next 12 months.
you'll be lucky to find one for that price. They will be very hot
property and Leica users will probably pay premium for them.

Once you've used a rangefinder your approach changes. So does your
appreciation.

--
www.nikongear.com
Share, learn, win.

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:08:29 -0700, achilleaslazarides wrote:


Tony Polson wrote:
"nathantw" wrote:

Now it appears that Leica folks will be faced with the same situation I
faced a decade ago. Do they spend $5645 for a Leica M8 or $4500+ for a
Canon or Nikon SLR that will basically get them the same 10MP picture
(yes, the Canon and Nikon have more pixels...I know)?


But it *isn't* the same picture, unless you take all your shots at f/8
or smaller apertures.

The reason people (including me) are prepared to pay the price for a
Leica M8 is that it takes Leica M lenses. You can argue until the
cows come home that you cannot see any difference in the pictures.
Maybe *you* can't.

I can, and that is why I use Leica M film gear. To me, it is worth
every extra penny it costs over other brands. It is also why I have
ordered an M8.

But Tony, if it's nothing but image quality, why not shoot medium
format? It'll be cheaper nowadays and much better than anything in 35mm
format (film or digital) in terms of prints.
Better still try an MPP Micro Technical 5 x 4 inch. Rising and drop front,
swinging lens panel, four way swing back. Use your own (sensible) lens
choice. Get a truck to carry it all with you.

--
Neil
Delete l to reply

Chris Loffredo wrote:

nathantw wrote:
Tony Polson wrote:
It was already clear that you didn't have the faintest idea about the
performance of Leica lenses. Thank you for confirming that, beyond
all possible doubt.

You obviously didn't read one of my messages that stated that when I
was choosing a new camera system one of the two choices was Leica.
Certainly I must know something if one of two choices is that brand.


So Mr. Expert, have you actually *used* a Leica and/or tested its lenses?


Of course he hasn't. Ignorance rules, and complete ignorance is
something that cannot be argued with. ;-)

But he did read a review of a Leica lens once, several decades ago, so
that entitles him to post authoritatively on the subject. g