File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
No love for the newly-updated Leica M8.2, /p/?
>> Anonymous
It's a fucking french rumor and the french are fags. Do you celebrate fags?
>> Anonymous
shutter's too loud.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>255222

>Do you celebrate fags?

yes.
>> Anonymous
>>255222
Yes, it's a french rumour, as shown on that French website, dpreview.com:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091503leica_m82.asp
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
read it, unimpressed. if they just threw a full-frame sensor in there, for christ's sake. they would make so much fucking money.
>> Herbie !!s1ksehRmCZk
>>255233
Seriously. If they were to put a FF sensor in a Leica body like that, even I'd shell out for it.
>> Anonymous
>>255251
It's a 1.33 crop. Close enough.
>> Anonymous
So, a quieter shutter, a smaller charger and the logo is now black. And that's it? How about fixing the metering issues and button placement? And remind me, have they fixed the IR problem or they're still giving out filters?
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Mm, I want one. Not gonna get one.
>> Herbie !!s1ksehRmCZk
>>255272
Honestly not really. Not full frame = not full frame. Yeah, it's less of a difference, but it's still there.
>> Anonymous
I'm personally more interested in seeing how they changed the Noctilux 1.0 formula for the rumored 0.95 Noctilux if it's real.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I'll j­us­t ­le­a­v­e t­h­i­s ­h­ere.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I­'ll­ j­u­st ­leave­ ­thi­s ­he­r­e­.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I'll ju­st­ leave­ ­t­his­ ­her­e­.
>> Anonymous
>>255317
yeah, I am so sure you'll do your usual rigorous mathematical analysis to see if Leica did things right..

boy do you sound like an asshole
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>255317
>for the rumored 0.95 Noctilux
Not rumored. Actually announced.

>>255221
Eh. They don't seem to have fixed anything that anyone was actually complaining about (crop factor, button placement, IR filter, etc). Looks like they didn't even update their two-year-old sensor to a new model (no mention of it on the press release or DPReview, anyway), so you're still getting 2006 levels of noise on it.

But hey, it's got a "snapshot mode". FUCK YEAH.

I've been getting increasingly disenchanted with Leica. Especially with u4/3 cameras starting to appear, I think that's the way to go for a discrete street shooter nowadays. Now I just need someone to make a 20mm f/0.95 for u4/3...
>> Anonymous
>>255375
>>Now I just need someone to make a 20mm f/0.95 for u4/3..

never going to happen
>> Anonymous
I'm an ardent Leica supporter and user (5 Leica bodies). but their turn to digital is like watching a duck try to balance a checkbook. What a disaster. I still have great admiration for the lenses - and am planning on converting to Canon digital using my Leica lenses... but their digital bodies miss the mark by a pretty nightmarish distance.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>255377
You never know. Seems like it'd be easier to make wide-aperture lenses for u4/3 given the crop factor. Maybe not f/.95, but maybe f/1.0 or even just f/1.2 for a closer-to-reasonable price doesn't seem like too much to ask for.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
(Of course, I know very little about optics, so I could be completely wrong about that. But I know that things like f/1.x zooms aren't unheard of for lenses that just cover a video camera's CCD, and I personally own an f/1.0 telephoto lens designed for 8mm and have seen a few cheap 8mm movie cameras with f/1.0 lenses at thrift stores)
>> Anonymous
>>255381
>am planning on converting to Canon digital using my Leica lenses
bad idea, flange focal distance on a rangefinder is much shorter than an SLR, the lenses aren't going to work without some crazy adapters that will reduce image quality
>> Anonymous
>>255233
>>255275
Hasn't the whole Internet been through this? To make a camera with the M mount, the sensor has to be smaller than 36x24mm to get good results. The IR filter on the sensor is, again due to the short FFD relative to sensor size, prone to cause internal reflections, especially on ultrawides.

It'd be nice for those of us who like people looking like, you know, people for there to be a slide-on IR filter over the sensor, but it's not really necessary.

They fixed the two important things: the shutter and the framelines. Now, ideally they'd make perfectly corrected ones, either with their own system they prototyped years ago or with the whole electronically projected thing everybody on the Internet goes on about, but this is how it was for years, so, yeah. If it's good enough for HCB it's fine for the rest of us.

Now if it only wasn't £3390 (I don't even want to know what that is in wrecked dollars).

>>255397

Leica makes SLRs, too. Really early bodies were awesome (one survived a drop from a jet fighter, no joke), middle bodies were mediocre, new ones suck. Lenses are all good, though. Fit on Canon EF with an adapter.
>> Anonymous
Oh, but this is so much bullshit:

>Following requests from many professional photographers, the black version of the LEICA
M8.2 has been finished more discreetly as the Leica dot and accessory shoe are now
also in black.

>This version is particularly stylish with a new extra durable high-quality deep black finish,
SRP is £3990 (inc VAT).

£600 extra for nothing some electrical tape (again ala HCB) or some $5 black paint wouldn't fix? And a "extra durable" finish? Whatever happened to the Jim Marshall effect?
>> Anonymous
>>255401
>Leica makes SLRs
oh i know this, but i am assuming that>>255381is talking about M-mount lenses, since the R system tends to be pretty rare
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>255401
Impossible to make a 36x24 sensor with standard-quality IR filter with the M's flange-focal distance with 2006 technology, maybe, but that doesn't say it'll be impossible to do it with 2008 technology or technology in the future. The hope was that they'd have figured out a way around that issue.
>> Anonymous
I am talking about R lenses. not M. I have 4 R lenses currently including a 400mm that turns heads for its shear weirdness. The R lenses convert to Canon mount easily.
>> Anonymous
>>255408

This.