Leica M8 - is the lens mount THAT expensive?

wrote:

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.


As yourself: Why did anybody ever shoot 35mm film when medium format
was always so much "better"?

Neil Ellwood wrote:

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.


Funnily enough, I have one of those. g

It doesn't need a truck, but an assistant certainly comes in handy.

;-)

"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?

Because I know two people who tested final pre-production models. As
a result, I have already handled the M8 and have seen exactly what it
can do.

The thing looks like it could be a disaster

As if you would know!

It would almost certainly be a disaster in your hands.

;-)

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

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.

Oh, what utter nonsense. The Contax G lenses were outstanding value
for money, but not one of them could match its Leica equivalent, even
assuming it would focus on what you wanted it to - a great leap of
faith by any standards. The only thing you could be sure it focused
correctly was a test chart ...

As for the Cosina-made "Carl Zeiss" ZM lenses, they do come closer,
and you have a better chance of obtaining correct focus. But they are
far from cheap. Even more expensive, the Oberkochen-made 15mm will
cost about the same as the Solms-made Leica Tri-Elmar 16-18-21mm. The
price of the 85mm f/2 is even more laughable.

All Carl Zeiss have proved is that lenses made under contract in Japan
are cheaper than lenses made in Germany. When it comes down to making
very high quality lenses in Germany, surprise! Carl Zeiss cannot do
it better or cheaper than Leica.

"nathantw" wrote:

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.

The X-Pan is no longer made.

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.

The Olympus OM is no longer made.

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.

The Konica Hexar RF is no longer made.


Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

;-)

Tony Polson wrote:
wrote:

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.


As yourself: Why did anybody ever shoot 35mm film when medium format
was always so much "better"?

I did ask myself, a long time ago. But I was asking you, out of
curiosity.

wrote:


Tony Polson wrote:
wrote:

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.


As yourself: Why did anybody ever shoot 35mm film when medium format
was always so much "better"?

I did ask myself, a long time ago. But I was asking you, out of
curiosity.


I shoot 35mm, medium format, large format and digital. I use what is
best suited to the job.

If larger is always better, why do medium format and 35mm exist?

"nathantw" wrote in message
ups.com...

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.

I know this has nothing to do with Leica, but I just had to post this
mainly because it proves that because something is cheap doesn't mean
that it's bad. In fact, it just goes to show that it's not the machine,
but the person using it that really matters. Enjoy.

I did enjly thata! Which proves that a skilled pro is the most important
tool. Old news. But comparing Leica to a camera even as good as a Hexar is,
well, unfair.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE6Afb1qSC4

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...
"Kinon O'Cann" wrote:

FWIW, I did own a Leica a long time ago, and they are amazing cameras...

I did, too. An early Leicaflex, actually. Nicely made, but, strange thing,
it produced postage stamp sized negatives that produce only inferior
prints compared to, say, an Autocord or Yashicamat.

Right.....

And comparing my Yashica Mat 124 to a 4x5 cam is just as valid. The Leica
can go places and do things that MF sometimes can't. Not a valid comparison.
Agreed that MF will produce a better image, but with MF, particularly a TLR,
you're very limited with lens selection, and handling is dog slow.


Nowadays, US$600 or so gets you a Rolleiflex 3.5F, US$1200 a Fuji
GW690III. Those lenses are just as good as anything Leitz has ever made,
and the prints are better by the ratio of the formats.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:

The problem is quality at target print size. If you bust you butt, 35mm
can make a nice 8x10. But I'd like to make 11x14s to 13x19s.

You do a *lot* of presuming over what other people can do and obtain.

I regularly enlarge 35mm to 24x30 cm with "no" quality loss and 30x40cm
with negligible quality loss - unless you stick your nose on the print.

But I'd be willing to argue that purely as an issue of suitability to task,
Leica fails miserably compared to a combination of MF (for quality
medium-sized prints) and APS-C (or FF) digital (for whatever Leica users use
Tri-X for).

I'm a Leica user and very rarely use Tri-x.

Thank you for telling me what I do Maestro!

The Leica can go places and do things that MF sometimes can't.
(b) paying Leica prices for Leica quality when you are shooting (possibly
pushed) Tri-X. What 35mm has over MF is fast lenses when you are willing
to accept lousy image quality as the cost for getting an image at all.
Uh, I got some truly excellent images using an M3 and Tri-X.

You would have been a lot better off with a Canon 300D. Prior to the 300D,
you might have had an argument.

If Littleboy says so then it *must* be so. he has spoken.

You'll need an accessory finder for the wides on the Leica as well. But you
are right about it being for 45mm and shorter lenses. But I wonder about
using 90mm or longer lenses on a Leica; even with its longer RF base,
there's no way to focus anywhere near as accurately as even manual focusing
on the 5D with the 100/2.0.

Absolute rubbish! Has the Maestro *used* a 90mm lens on a Leica?