Leica M8 - is the lens mount THAT expensive?

Peter Chant wrote in
:

Kinon O'Cann wrote:

This question has been asked many, many times, and long before the
first digital camera was produced. Leica builds a premium quality
camera for a small but dedicated group of shooters. The materials
used and quality of construction is absolutely unmatched. Simply put,
Leicas aren't for everyone. In the end, the decision is simple: it's
up to you whether or not it's worth the money. Best lenses on the
planet, too.


I'll add economies of scale, if they sold as many Leicas as Nikons
they could probally bring down costs a bit.


If they brought down costs a bit, they could probably sell as many
Leicas as Nikons.

But that's not why people buy Leicas, is it? Or do we have a lot of
people here that believe that it's the camera that makes the photo great?


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

Tony Polson wrote:
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?



All I was saying is that all formats are a tradeoff between quality and
convenience, with 35mm being mostly convenience (in comparison). And
rangefinder cameras don't strike me as better suited to eg landscape
shooting from a tripod, studio shots, or similar situations, so I find
it hard to justify paying all this money to get good lenses if one is
going to use them handheld.

Anyway, I'm not saying it's pointless to do it. I do night street
photography (handheld), and have not yet found any very fast lens that
is reasonable wide open for my Nikon: I tried the 55mm f/1.2 but it is a
joke below f/3 or thereabouts (flares like crazy, no contrast); I
couldn't find the 50mm f/1.2 anywhere; and I could not find the
Noct-Nikkor anywhere (plus it reportedly does not work too well when
stopped down, and has high field curvature). So I can well appreciate
how nice it must be to have lenses that work well wide open (for
example). I am just questioning the "quality and only quality"
justification.

"Kinon O'cann" Yes.it's.me.Bowser wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"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.

Not really. MF is still largely handholdable. LF is a very different game.

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.

I just don't get either (a) paying Leica prices when either MF would be
worlds better or...

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.

Which means the places 35mm makes sense, Leica quality makes no sense.

(Of course, those have all been subsumed by 8 or 12.7 MP digital, which does
way better than 35mm Tri-X.)

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.

So get a Mamiya 7. But I don't see a TLR as being much slower than a
rangefinder; if you need speed a modern SLR leaves both in the dust. For
street shooting, zone focusing works as well with a TLR as a rangefinder
(and has stealth advantages). It's a pity the Rolleiwides are so
ridiculously expensive, though. 50mm is a nice focal length on 6x6.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"acl" wrote in message
...

Anyway, I'm not saying it's pointless to do it. I do night street
photography (handheld), and have not yet found any very fast lens that is
reasonable wide open for my Nikon: I tried the 55mm f/1.2 but it is a joke
below f/3 or thereabouts (flares like crazy, no contrast); I couldn't find
the 50mm f/1.2 anywhere; and I could not find the Noct-Nikkor anywhere
(plus it reportedly does not work too well when stopped down, and has high
field curvature). So I can well appreciate how nice it must be to have
lenses that work well wide open (for example). I am just questioning the
"quality and only quality" justification.


It's a decision that is left to each individual. If one has money to burn,
and wants Leica, they are free to take that path. But if only Leica images
were worth taking, there wouldn't be much photography going on.

The question that is more important, at least for me, is "Are the images
appreciably superior enough to justify the cost of the equipment?" And the
answer is no. A lot of other photographers must be in agreement, because
Leica's sales are a tiny fraction of the other major brands.

I have nothing against Leica, but their prices are so high that I can't
justify paying them. There are other things I want in life, and Leica is
just one of those brands that I'll forego. I'd like a Rolls, too, but my
American sedan gets me around just fine.

"Annika1980" wrote in message \

Also, I would echo Jeremy's challenge about producing for us some
examples of shots taken with the fabled Leica lenses that are superior
to anything else out there.


I read of Ernst Haas once doing a workshop in Canada, and a couple of
Leicaphiles kept on extolling the virtues of Leica. He finally shut them
up, by saying "Leica schmeica! It's only a camera. But YOU have to SEE."

Bob Monaghan has conducted some tests where subjects were asked to match the
negative with the lens that was used, and he has always found that people
typically could not tell the difference.

Leica is expensive for some perfectly good reasons, but it would be
inappropriate to correlate its price with a proportional degree of image
superiority.

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
...

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



But that is a real shift in the way Leica bodies are perceived. For the
past 50 years, at least, Leica customers held the presumption that they were
buying gear that would last. Are people going to pay out big bucks for a
camera that will almost certainly be eclipsed by future technological
improvements? Digital cameras have shifted from being durable items to
semi-disposable ones. Leica is going to have a hard time adjusting to that
new reality.

I remember the Franklin Library (subsidiary of the Franklin Mint) producing
a high-end set of vinyl LPs of the 100 Greatest Classical Works, back in the
60s. The recordings were supposedly pressed on special vinyl (red in color)
in dust-free pressing rooms, and were checked microscopically, etc. They
were probably great in their day, but now one can extract better sound from
a $35.00 portable CD player, plugged into any old stereo amplifier.
Technology advances and things become obsolete or they depreciate faster
than they ordinarily would have.

In 18 months Canon and Nikon will have introduced models with features that
will blow away whatever Leica currently has. Paying $1000 for a current
Nikon, and seeing it depreciate over 2 years, is one thing. But paying
$5000 and losing most of your investment over 2 years is a bit too much.
For me, anyway.

"nathantw" wrote in message
news:nNrQg.6915

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.

Is it really possible for a 10 MP camera to capture the subtle differences
between a Leica lens and that of Nikon or Canon? The chip may be the
limiting factor here, just as the choice of film often limited seeing the
differences between lenses.

And one must factor in the loss of resolution if the camera is hand held.
To really extract all the descriptive power from a Leica lens, it must be
shot rock steady--as in "on a tripod." But Leicas are often used for
reportage, and the very method that is used acts as one of the limiting
factors.

Couple hand held with 10 MP chip, and I ask if anyone will ever see a
difference? I have the suspicion that the only difference that will be
visible will be the relative sizes of the purses of each owner . . .

"Kinon O'cann" Yes.it's.me.Bowser wrote in message news:at-

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.


His point was that one could achieve superior results WITHOUT spending a
fortune, just by using MF. And there is a lot of overlap between MF and
35mm, where photographers could shoot in either format and still get the
image they want.

A $100 Yashica or Autocord will probably blow away that $5000 Leica M7 or
R9. It's not like the ONLY route to perfection is via Leica.

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
news:FDoQg.87$b23.61@dukeread07...

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



Here is one excerpt that tells it all:

"Given the technological infrastructure inside the camera, we have to admit
that the superior optical imagery of the Leica lenses cannot (yet) be
exploited in all dimensions. The overall performance of the M8 (optics,
sensor technique and post processing) will be most certainly a match for the
best players in the market (the advanced and professional DSLR-models), but
it will be difficult to surpass them."

If I read that correctly, Puts admits that the camera really cannot fully
exploit the image quality of the lenses. And he admits that the images
produced by this camera will be on a par with the other major players, but
probably won't be better.

If one is contemplating a purchase, assuming that the technical qualities of
the images will surpass those of the competition, that is an important
admission from Puts.

acl wrote:
All I was saying is that all formats are a tradeoff between quality and
convenience, with 35mm being mostly convenience (in comparison). And
rangefinder cameras don't strike me as better suited to eg landscape
shooting from a tripod, studio shots, or similar situations, so I find
it hard to justify paying all this money to get good lenses if one is
going to use them handheld.

Anyway, I'm not saying it's pointless to do it. I do night street
photography (handheld), and have not yet found any very fast lens that
is reasonable wide open for my Nikon: I tried the 55mm f/1.2 but it is a
joke below f/3 or thereabouts (flares like crazy, no contrast); I
couldn't find the 50mm f/1.2 anywhere; and I could not find the
Noct-Nikkor anywhere (plus it reportedly does not work too well when
stopped down, and has high field curvature). So I can well appreciate
how nice it must be to have lenses that work well wide open (for
example). I am just questioning the "quality and only quality"
justification.

We are going to have to wait to be sure but it is likely that the Leica
M8 will have a fair bit more noise then the 5D at the same ISO setting.
If the 5D can be shoot at say twice the ISO setting and get the same
noise then you can use its lens closed one full stop compared to the
Leica. So instead of using a lens at f/1.2 lens you could use closer
to f/1.8. If you care about low light photography then you start with
the most sensitive sensor you can find since the gains here are greater
then what you will get with a faster lens.

I have not seen test images of how the Leica does at high ISO setting,
until this are published it is not posible to know is the fast lenses
for it will have any value.

Scott