More fun with the Leica M8

OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the Decade."

http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU

Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically, it
falls apart. Yes, really.

My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:51:11 -0400, Böwser wrote:

OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the Decade."

http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU

Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically, it
falls apart. Yes, really.

My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.

The more detailed thread with photos of more camera body failures (and other
camera problems, focusing, color-balance, IR filter errors, etc.):
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...e-failure.html


As they say, "You get what you pay for!"

In this day and age never has that been a greater lie. Example: I've tested many
makes and prices of polarizers in the past, tested against lab-grade polarizer
material. Some of the $10 generic polarizers easily surpass the $90 top-shelf
brand-name filters. The average purchaser just sees the brand-name and
outrageous price and assumes it must be the best. They don't have the
intelligence nor foresight in how to easily test them for polarizing strength
and homogeneity.

The only thing that is true today is "A fool and his money are soon parted." You
can tell which ones they are, they're the ones who are always running around
yelling, "You get what you pay for!"

"ransley" wrote in message
...
On Aug 13, 7:51 am, Böwser wrote:
OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the Decade."

http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU

Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically, it
falls apart. Yes, really.

My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.

Didnt that camera also have issues with purple discolorations.

Yes, the IR filter in front of the sensor is far too weak, so in order to
record accurate colors, you'll need a hot filter on each and every lens. But
Leica will give you two of them! Isn't that precious? Spend $5K on a camera,
and they'll provide a couple of filters to cover an obvious defect.

ransley wrote:

I cant figure out how they can actualy sell any cameras at those
prices and stay in business, some of their models are simply upgraded
Panasonics, all are overpriced by many times and the dumb design-
performance issues. I wanted one, once, till I read reviews and heard
of the issues.

Leica bled money over at least 5 years through the 2005/2006 FY and has
come into the black in the last two FY's. Nevertheless it is projecting
a net loss this FY and to barely make it to BE in the next FY.

I didn't look at their total debt, but they are paying it down and have
declared net assets of about E100M.

They remain in troubled waters with legal action from shareholders, the
possibility that it be taken 100% private and personnel risks amongst
their most talented engineers. So says the recent AR (though I just
skimmed it...)


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message
m...
Böwser wrote:

OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the
Decade."
http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU

Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically,
it falls apart. Yes, really.

My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.

Totally irrelevant! Like really, who would buy anything other than a
Nikon,
other than a dumbass?

I agree, even Nikons are purchased by dumbasses. Sometimes.

ransley wrote:
On Aug 13, 7:24 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" wrote:
Böwser wrote:
OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the
Decade."
http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU
Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically,
it falls apart. Yes, really.
My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.
Totally irrelevant! Like really, who would buy anything other than a Nikon,
other than a dumbass?

Rita
--
Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
Stimulus Project page.

http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com

Your posts continue to prove you need to be kill filed. You are the
one that posts internet stupidity.

I disagree, I once owned a Leica, if memory servers me correctly is was
a IIIc. Never took a picture with it, I inherited it from my father but
a better motor bike was more in line with my tastes than photography at
that time (1953).
The point is that Leica, together with Contax and other pre-wwII German
cameras were tops, arguably Leica being the top of the tops.
But today things are different, yes both Leica and Zeiss lenses are
still excellent, but so are many others with cameras to match. The Leica
thing is nostalgia and bloody expensive nostalgia at that, and if
performance doesn't match the price then who needs it. Pointing that out
is not internet stupidity. Rita may be controversial but hardly stupid.
Dave Cohen

"Dave Cohen" wrote:

The point is that Leica, together with Contax and other pre-wwII German
cameras were tops, arguably Leica being the top of the tops.

They still are. In terms of putting images on film, the current Leica and
Zeiss Ikon (and discontinued Contax G) rangefinder lenses are the best
lenses you can find in focal lengths up to 90mm. The Contax and Leica R SLR
lenses are nearly as good.

Nikon and Canon are a distant second. Which is why people with gobs of money
put Leica R and Contax/Zeiss SLR lenses on their dSLRs, at gross cost.
(Actually, the new Zeiss lenses for the Nikon dSLRs aren't all that
expensive, and work on Canon with an adapter.)

But today things are different, yes both Leica and Zeiss lenses are still
excellent, but so are many others with cameras to match. The Leica thing
is nostalgia and bloody expensive nostalgia at that, and if performance
doesn't match the price then who needs it.

The last 10% of performance always costs more than the first 90%.
Diminishing returns.

Leica messed up big time with the M8. Arrogance on their part, I'd guess.
But the lenses are as good as it gets.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"ransley" wrote:

DJL so a Zeiss can work on a Canon with an adapter, is there increased
image quality compared to Canon lenses, what do you use with your 5d.


People claim the 21/2.8 Zeiss Distagon is wonderful. I've not tried it. If
Zeiss reissues it for under US$1,500, I might buy one, but at US$3,000, I'll
pass. The other Zeiss lenses are less interesting here. The Canon 35/1.4
(which I don't own) and the Canon 50/1.4 (which I do) are very good, and the
Canon 24TSE is a great 24mm lens unshifted.

Remember that with its fat pixels, the 5D doesn't really stress lenses all
that much; the lowly Tamron 28-75/2.8 produces lovely sharp images from
f/5.6. It's really only at 21mm and wider that one begins to get interested
in something other than Canon. And even there, in real life, the 17-40 is a
great landscape lens at f/11 or f/16. At f/5.6, the Zeiss 21/2.8 tromps all
over it, but I don't shoot landscapes at f/5.6.

Also remember that the 5D with Canon superwides looks way better in the
corners than any 35mm film camera can, even with Zeiss or Leitz lenses.

If Canon ups the pixel count significantly, Zeiss lenses will become more
interesting.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Böwser wrote:
OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the Decade."

http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU

Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically, it
falls apart. Yes, really.

My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.

I posted a link some time back to a page written by a combat
correspondent/photog.

http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_...aq/Page_1.html

He took along the M8 and found that in real life situations, it was not
a very useful camera and that color consistency was atrocious.

Too bad, the M6 and prior Leica's were favoured by combat correspondents
and photogs for their reliability, simplicity, compactness not to
mention image quality.





--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:39:59 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Böwser wrote:
OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the Decade."

http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU

Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically, it
falls apart. Yes, really.

My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.

I posted a link some time back to a page written by a combat
correspondent/photog.

http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_...aq/Page_1.html

He took along the M8 and found that in real life situations, it was not
a very useful camera and that color consistency was atrocious.

Too bad, the M6 and prior Leica's were favoured by combat correspondents
and photogs for their reliability, simplicity, compactness not to
mention image quality.

Wow. Every photo (the M8 ones) in that article aren't even up to the quality of
a $150 P&S camera when using the same settings. I don't think I've ever seen any
camera do that nasty color-cast vignetting that are in some of them. That would
be nearly impossible to fix in editing. Even the start-up time on most any P&S
camera is faster than the M8. Thanks for re-posting the link. It's nice to know
that every P&S camera out there is drastically better than a $10,000 Leica+Lens.

I enjoyed this section of his commentary:

"SD card removal:
As I said earlier, in Baghdad I frequently cover the scenes of car bomb. It is
illegal to shot these scenes until they are completely cleaned up, and the Iraqi
police frequently confiscate flash cards and cameras if they see us shooting.
Occasionally a photographer is beaten bloody. One of the ways around this is to
try to sneak a photo and have a spare SD card to swap out; the police end up
confiscating a blank card and the images are safe in your pocket. ..."

I have had to document many life-threatening situations in the past--poachers,
drug-runners, illegal police-actions, etc. The stealth quality of nearly any P&S
camera is mandatory for this type of photography. It isn't uncommon for me to
have to swap out memory cards discreetly, put one in the camera with some junk
photos on it, and then hide the card with the incriminating evidence in my boot
or sock, or quickly toss the memory-card aside in the brush where I could come
back later when it's safe to retrieve it. In fact I had to do that again just
last month when documenting poachers in a wildlife sanctuary. They wouldn't
think twice about leaving your carcass where the 'gators can get rid of the
evidence. If nothing else, at least someone going over the crime scene would
eventually find the memory-card that was tossed aside. I can't imagine any
photojournalist, or any photographer for that matter, buying a camera where you
have to half-disassemble a camera to swap cards.

Thanks for the fun read.