Leica M8 - is the lens mount THAT expensive?

In article , Tony Polson
wrote:

If you cannot see the difference, you clearly do not understand what
the difference is. And until you understand, you are not entitled to
criticise the decisions made by people who do.

You made a hilarious circular argument above. Your two statements do
not advance your argument.

--
Charles

"nathantw" wrote:


Tony Polson wrote:
For example, the Leica M 24mm f/2.8 ASPH has a higher resolving power
at f/2.8-4.0 than any other brand of commercially available 24mm lens
at *any* aperture. The 21mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4 and f/2, 50mm f/1.0 and
f/1.4, 75mm f/2, 90mm f/2 and 135mm f/3.4 (all ASPH lenses) are also
superlative performers when used wide open.

FYI, the 50 f/1.0 has vignetting built in. I'm sure the design for that
particular lens hasn't been updated since Modern Photography or Popular
Photography's shootout of ultra-fast lenses decades ago. There was
extreme vignetting wide open because the lenses were usually used in
very low light situations.

Either you have a wrong idea of lens design or you really think that
Leica is magical. There's no way that any lens made by any company will
outperform a lens at F/8 when shooting one stop down or at f/4.

very rapidly as you open up beyond f/8 or so. But with modern Leica M
glass, you can effectively shoot at whatever aperture you need and get
outstanding results.

That just doesn't sound right. When you reach a certain aperture the
picture quality starts to fall apart. Do a test yourself. Put your
camera on a tripod. Shoot a scene at every aperture and then look at
the pixels (or the slide) at very high magnification. You'll see the
lens start degrading, especially at f/22 or f/32. You'll also find that
your assessment won't hold water at f/1.4 or f/2.


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.

"Kinon O'cann" Yes.it's.me.Bowser 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.


It is only expensive if you buy the latest bodies and the latest
lenses. If you buy a Leica M2 or M3 in user condition, and lenses
from the 1960s and 70s, you can buy a very nice outfit on a
surprisingly small budget. A Leica screw mount (pre-M) outfit can be
had for even less.

Obviously, you would not get the superlative performance of the
current lenses, but many of the older Leica lenses still have optical
qualities that set them apart from other brands.

Even if you buy the latest gear, you can buy it used at a little over
half the new price. Compared with the cost of an average two year old
car, a two year old used Leica outfit is a relatively cheap purchase.

"nathantw" wrote in message

FYI, the 50 f/1.0 has vignetting built in. I'm sure the design for that
particular lens hasn't been updated since Modern Photography or Popular
Photography's shootout of ultra-fast lenses decades ago.


Mike Johnston did a piece on lenses a while back. He suggested that there
actually were lenses, other than Leicas, that could take photos.. . . .

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...02-09-22.shtml

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

I have over 30 years of experience here. I've shot large format and
small format so I think I know what I'm talking about.

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.

35mm is 35mm. In the film days larger always meant better. There's a
reason why there were 35mm, medium format, and large format. If there
wasn't a difference don't you think everyone would be shooting with
Leica? Have you ever enlarged a 6x6 negative of the exact same scene
that was shot with 35mm? I have. I have shots taken with 35mm
Kodachrome shot and 6x6 Kodachrome shot of the same scene that I used
for comparison purposes. There's a heck of a BIG difference between the
two. If you say there isn't then you're blind.

The difference between a shot taken with a Nikon and Leica are of
course different. I never said there wasn't. I just said that there
wouldn't be that BIG of a difference considering it's still 35mm. You
still need the same enlargement size for 8x10. The contrast will be
different, color may be different, the sharpness may be different,
everything may be different, but the main part is that it's still 35mm.
Small format.


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.

Good for you. Use it in good health now and decades forward.

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.

"nathantw" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

Lots of hand assembly, fine materials and top notch craftsmanship. Each lens
gets tested. It is much like a high end automobile: it gets you there in
style.

My only issue is the electronics. You are stuck with what is put in the
camera, so it better perform. Hopefully Kodak has a better sensor, and if
they programmed the image processing, does a better job than with the N14.
There is said to be no low pass filter on this sensor. I have to wonder how
that will pan out. The N14 had some image quality issues. Even without the
low pass filter and its pixel count advantage, it could not outperform the
1Ds.

Also, longevity is an issue. Electronic parts may not be obtainable in a few
years. The camera may be rendered a non functioning collectable if a part
fails.
John

"nathantw" wrote:

35mm is 35mm. In the film days larger always meant better. There's a
reason why there were 35mm, medium format, and large format. If there
wasn't a difference don't you think everyone would be shooting with
Leica? Have you ever enlarged a 6x6 negative of the exact same scene
that was shot with 35mm? I have. I have shots taken with 35mm
Kodachrome shot and 6x6 Kodachrome shot of the same scene that I used
for comparison purposes. There's a heck of a BIG difference between the
two. If you say there isn't then you're blind.


Yes, there is a huge difference. I shoot the same films in 35mm
(Leica, Canon), 120 (Rolleiflex 6008 + Schneider lenses) and 4x5 inch
(Schneider again). Horses for courses.

The issue here isn't 35mm vs. 120 vs, large format, however much you
might want it to be. The issue is whether Leica M lenses deliver more
than other brands of lens for 35mm cameras. They do deliver
significantly more. I think that makes them worth every penny.

You mentioned the Noctilux. 50mm f/1.0. The laws of physics do not
allow such a lens to be made without significant vignetting. So you
are criticising Leica for being unable to overturn the laws of
physics? g

Canon has also made a 50mm f/1.0. It was made for the EF mount. The
results from this lens are truly appalling, yet it cost more than the
Leica Noctilux! There was an earlier Canon 50mm f/0.95 for the Canon
rangefinder cameras; the lens dwarfed the camera body and the results
were truly dreadful.

So once again the Leica lens proves to be the best. And, in this
case, also the cheapest.

You also alleged that the optical design of the Leica Noctilux had
remained unchanged for decades. It hasn't. The original f/1.2
Noctilux of 1976 was replaced with the current f/1.0 model which is a
very superior performer. At apertures of f/2.0 and smaller it
performs almost as well as the legendary 50mm f/2.0 Summicron, which
is considered by many to be the best standard lens ever made.

This is a remarkable achievement for an f/1.0 lens, but clearly not
remarkable enough to overcome an even more remarkable prejudice
against Leica glass that appears to be deeply rooted in absolute
ignorance of it.

"Kinon O'Cann" wrote:
"jeremy" wrote:

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?

I've seen lots of tests that compare Leica glass to other stuff, and the
Leica stuff is usually much better. Trust me, I'm not seeing things. On
top of initial image quality you also have to consider how long a lens
will provide that level of quality. Company a 30 year old Leica lens to a
30 year old Nikon or Canon lens and then draw a conclusion.

But if you really care about quality (in 35mm), you'd be shooting Contax G,
not Leica, and now the new Zeiss M mount lenses (still expensive at half the
price of the Leitz equivalents) edge out the Leica lenses as well.

And if you care about the quality of your prints, you wouldn't be shooting
35mm at all. My 1950's Rolleiflex 3.5 Tessar produces prints that make
anything from a Leica look sick.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Kinon O'cann wrote:
I don't buy the watch analoby because when comparing a Leica with cheaper
cameras, there's a world of difference in build quality, and the quality of
the lenses. Not an equal comparison at all.

Actually, I think it works well. Patek Phillipe isn't the only watch
maker in the world, but their watches have been sold at auction up to
$13 million. Yes, you read correctly. There are "cheaper watches" out
there but they're considered the best made watches. Others would
disagree with that statement just as we're doing with the Leica and
"cheaper cameras."

A "cheaper camera" could include a Hasselblad, a Rollei, a Linhof, a
Sinar, a Zeiss Ikon, a Contax G and a multitude of cameras from
established companies that professionals have used for years if not
decades. We all know what kind of photographs could be made with those
"cheaper cameras."

If you're looking at the quality of the pictures of M8 then you're
making an assumption that the pictures will be superior to all other
10MP cameras out there. When "real" tests are made then we can make a
fair comparison to the "cheaper cameras." 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.