File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.html

Wow. I was under the impression that M8 was a decent, just overpriced camera.

>"I have found the Leica M8 to be unreliable, poorly designed, and to deliver substandard results in most of the situations in which I have used it. I can’t think of any camera--or for that matter any electronic device I have recently used--that so thoroughly fails to live up to its potential and its heritage."
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1Ds Mark IIICamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshPhotographerMichael KamberImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution200 dpiVertical Resolution200 dpiImage Created2008:06:08 16:50:54Exposure Time1/1600 secF-Numberf/2.5Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/2.5Exposure Bias-0.7 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length24.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width419Image Height293RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
It is a decent but overpriced camera, this guy's just whining about JPEGs for most of the review.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
yeah i read that too.

surprisingly really.

i think the comment he made along the lines of 'Did Leica not field test this?' said alot.
>> Anonymous
>>205283
That kevlar vests rub the controls the wrong way isn't a huge indictment if someone isn't working in a warzone, and considering the M8 isn't weathersealed, I don't think (unfortunately) they intended it to be a camera for photojournalists in extreme conditions.

Hopefully the M9 will be; a good comparison someone brought up was meters in the M: The M5 didn't work well for a lot of people, but the M6 was perfect.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>205284

I was ready to forgive Leica since it's their first digital attempt.

Note that he does say alot about the old film leicas.
>> Anonymous
>>205281
He's also whining about poor metering, framelines, button placement, reliability and a fuckton of other details. I haven't used a M8 myself, but it seems less thought-out than my $200 olympus.
>> Anonymous
>>205284
I dunno if a military kevlar vest makes it different, but I wear my cameras on my neck all the time and never had problems with accidental button presses - the buttons are always slightly recessed, which seems not to be the case with the M8.
>> Anonymous
To be fair, it was their first digital camera. You can't expect too much from them. Especially from such a small company.
>> Anonymous
He obviously forgot to switch on the Leica glow setting. It's hidden deep in the menus.
>> Anonymous
Another thing it was sort of off for him to be complaining about was the low light performance- again, well no shit you're going to get better results in low light with a 24/1.4 than a 28/2.8 equivalent. That's not something against the M8; it's something against Leica's current lens line up, which could and should be fixed somehow. It's something that means it's not right for him, not that it's not a good camera or system. (And again, why did he keep shooting with it?)

Same with him talking about the deep depth of field- you're shooting f/2.8 on crop versus f/1.4 not on crop. For some people, that's a good thing. For others, it's not.

He also seemed to be way oversensitive to the noise he would not accept, but again, that's a personal thing.

One very valid flaw of it is the SD card thing- I use that little spare card trick quite a lot myself, even when there's no forced confiscation (yay first-world liberal democracy) like there is with him.

I guess my main beef with his review is that he wanted his M8 to be a EOS 1Ds and got upset at it when it wasn't. If he wants shallow depth of field with wides, reliability in the desert, zero noise, and the camera to do everything for him, he never should have picked up the M8.
>> Anonymous
Shoot, it ate the post that was supposed to precede>>205293. To rehash:

>metering

He used to and still does shoot with meterless M4s. He knows what he's doing; why is he trying to have the camera do stuff as basic as setting the exposure for him?

>framelines

I didn't quite understand his paragraph about this, I mean in how he wrote it and how I parsed it didn't leave me sure of what he meant.

I've heard people saying the M8's framelines work great for them and others saying they're horrible. Personal call; if something doesn't work for someone that's fine and they shouldn't use it. But he kept using the M8 for months. Why?

>button placement
The non-recessed thing I addressed earlier in the thread. The self-timer thing is a genuine stupid design decision, I'll grant that.

>reliability

It's a non-weathersealed digital body in a sandy, sandy warzone. What did he expect?
>> Anonymous
>>205293
>If he wants shallow depth of field with wides, reliability in the desert, zero noise, and the camera to do everything for him, he never should have picked up the M8

The guy got a long history of using film Leicas in the same conditions, so it's hard to blame him for not noticing that the M8 was made with a completely different target audience in mind.
>> Anonymous
>"left: a detail showing extreme shadow noise. ISO 2500"

ISO 2500. Is he on crack or something? What does he expect, large format iso 25 quality or some shit?
>> Anonymous
>>205296
>framelines
>I didn't quite understand his paragraph about this

He mounts a 21mm lens, which should have a FoV of a 28mm lens on film.
The M8 switches to 35mm framelines.
The guy goes "WTF?"
>> Anonymous
>>205296
Old film Leicas weren't weather-sealed and still work. The newest film M7 and digital M8 crapped out on him several times. What's not to RAGE about?

>>205298
He wanted 1D quality, I suppose.
>> Anonymous
>>205297
Just a basic knowledge of photography and a look at the specifications would tell you what the differences were.

Smaller maximum aperture on the lens he's using: more depth of field, of course.
Smaller sensor: more depth of field, of course. More noise, of course.
Not weathersealed and digital: going to get its ass handed to it in a desert, of course.

The metering thing and how he was hung up on the JPEGs really is what bugged me more than anything else. The film Leicas he shot with weren't M7s. They were M4s, with no meter at all, and IIRC he said he had an M6, which has a meter but .no autoexposure. It shouldn't have been a big bitch for him to use it in manual.

(The M8's meter is the same as the M7, so everything he said there would apply to it, too, by the way.)

The JPEG thing... it takes just a few minutes to run a batch process on raw files. He could do it while taking a piss. I can, if I rush through it and don't be the anal perfectionist I am, manually do a raw file in a minute and have it through Camera Raw (Camera Raw, not Lightroom, which I hear is even faster) and saved as a TIFF.

And again, compare it to his film Leica: he or somebody would have to develop that film. No such thing as a Polaroid back for an M4.
>> Anonymous
>>205299
That's one way it could be read. Another is that it brings up the 28mm framelines, which are like a 35mm on film. Another is that the framelines for the 21 are very close to a 35mm on film. It was unclear.

>>205301
Yeah, because they were electronic. An M3/2/4 is 100% mechanical, nothing to get fouled by anything, really. An M5/6 just have a simple meter. The M7 and especially the M8 depend on electronics. They *should* be weathersealed, but despite that, anyone who expects them not to give up at some point in those conditions is kidding themself.

It's fine he doesn't like the camera, but I'm just shocked someone who clearly knows what he's doing could be so foolish as to try to use the M8 with a 21/2.8 basically like a tiny, sneaky 1Ds Mk. III with a 24/1.4 and to *keep using it* after it causes him the predictable problems.
>> Anonymous
I've been shooting with an M3 for many years, and find it to be the best camera I've ever owned. I've never had the chance to use an M8, but this review is very interesting. I don't think I'll be buying one any time soon.

>>205296It's a non-weathersealed digital body in a sandy, sandy warzone. What did he expect?
For a $5500 camera supposedly targeted at professional photojournalists, I would expect it to work in any corner of the world under any conditions. M3-2-4s aren't weather sealed, have been used in every environment on earth, and have impeccable track records. I would expect no less from their digital entry.

>>205296He used to and still does shoot with meterless M4s. He knows what he's doing; why is he trying to have the camera do stuff as basic as setting the exposure for him?
Again, if a $5500 camera has a meter, it should goddamn well work properly. Also shooting an M4 with B&W negative film without a meter is a whole lot different than shooting digital without a meter.

>>205290To be fair, it was their first digital camera. You can't expect too much from them. Especially from such a small company.
I think you should expect everything from them. They established their reputation by making the best cameras in the world, not by making unreliable pieces of crap then saying "it's ok because we're a small company"

>>205296I didn't quite understand his paragraph about this,
He said the framelines are inaccurate. If that's true, then the camera is effectively useless.
>> Anonymous
>>205302
I think he used JPEG because of buffer/card write speed issues (which he also whines about).

But then again, my $200 olympus gives JPEGs with acceptable exposure and white balance 95% of the time (although I mostly use RAW). Why can't Leica do the same for $5000?
>> Anonymous
>>205303It's fine he doesn't like the camera, but I'm just shocked someone who clearly knows what he's doing could be so foolish as to try to use the M8 with a 21/2.8 basically like a tiny, sneaky 1Ds Mk. III with a 24/1.4 and to *keep using it* after it causes him the predictable problems.
I think the whole point of the review is to point that, predictable or not, they are problems.

The camera doesn't live up to what it is marketed as, plain and simple. That's the whole point of a review; to show whether or not a product lives up to it's marketed claims.
>> Anonymous
>>205306
The point of a review has nothing to do with claims; it's supposed to say whether the camera is good or not.

Also, I don't the M8 is marketed to photojournalists at all. It's marketed to rich people who like toys- check out Leica's website, models in dark suits in "1 1/2 love stories," no joke; documentary and street photographers are expected to just buy it if they want a digital M because they already know what it is and their heroes did the marketing for Leica; photojournalists in rough conditions would, logically, either stay clear of a camera without weatherseals or accept that it's going to break. Stay clear or accept it has more depth of field than a 24/1.4 on a full frame camera. Etc. Etc.
>> Anonymous
>>205304
>For a $5500 camera supposedly targeted at professional photojournalists, I would expect it to work in any corner of the world under any conditions. M3-2-4s aren't weather sealed, have been used in every environment on earth, and have impeccable track records. I would expect no less from their digital entry.

Like every digital body, it should be weathersealed. It isn't. Taking it into Iraq and expecting it not to have problems is silly.

The earlier Ms were 100% mechanical, of course they didn't need this stuff kept out. Just clean the thing and it's fine. No circuits to the damaged.

>Again, if a $5500 camera has a meter, it should goddamn well work properly.

It does. According to Leica's M8 datasheet on their website, metering in it is "TTL metering heavily center-weighted." That's not something to be using aperture priority in fast, high-contrast situations with. Now, it should the choice of another, more appropriate metering mode, but it doesn't, and he was, again, silly to try to shoot a "heavily center-weighted" meter in aperture priority in the conditions he shot it in.
>> Anonymous
>>205310
He also used a non-sealed 5D and a mechanical M7. There's no mention about any problems with the 5D, but he said that his brand new M7 locked up (a *mechanical* failure?) after four rolls. So I think the problem isn't with weather sealing, but with the manufacturing quality in general.

And a meter should at least produce consistent results when shooting several pictures of the same scene, no matter how "heavily center-weighted" it is.
>> okto
>>205279
You were badly mis-led. Even Leicafags don't like it.
There's a reason Leica (Leitz? Is the company still called Leitz, or did they change their name?) fired their CEO not long after the M8 was introduced...
>> Anonymous
>>205339
They're now called Leica Camera AG, with no mention of Leitz.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
Bill Pierce, an old photojournalist who writes on rangefinderforum.com sometimes had a pretty good response to the review.

Gist of it is that while the M8 may not have been intended for the purpose, film Ms were always photojournalists' tools, and the company used to "behave as if they...had a special obligation" to PJs. Now the M8 is clearly not a tool for a working reporter, and the main market of Leicas is rich hobbyists, which while fair, is kinda sad.

>>205339
The Leitz family pulled out in the 80s, taking their name with them.
>> Anonymous
>>205310Like every digital body, it should be weathersealed. It isn't. Taking it into Iraq and expecting it not to have problems is silly.
All this bitching about weather sealing... we're talking about using the camera in a desert environment. Sand does not kill electronics, it kills mechanical parts. Water kills electronics. Weather sealing is irrelevant for a camera used in the desert.

>>205335And a meter should at least produce consistent results when shooting several pictures of the same scene, no matter how "heavily center-weighted" it is.
Quoted for truth.

Additionally, I think that's why he was upset about the amount of steps necessary to change exposure compensation. There's no reason you can't shoot in aperture priority mode with a heavily center weighted meter, you just have to know the pattern and dial in the appropriate exposure compensation. A couple clicks of the EC wheel every time you recompose is not a big deal, unless there is no EC wheel...
>> Anonymous
>>205501
To be fair, there's moisture/dew even in a desert if you shoot during the night. But this isn't really relevant since those bugs weren't likely caused by damage from water.

>unless there is no EC wheel
My camera has no second wheel, but you can hold a button and use the main wheel for EC, which is only marginally slower. Why did Leica decide to put EC away in the menus is beyond me.
>> Anonymous
>>205512To be fair, there's moisture/dew even in a desert if you shoot during the night.
There is moisture/dew everywhere. If that in and of itself was enough to destroy a non-sealed digital camera, nobody would be using digital cameras.

I used a 20D (no weather sealing) on one overseas assignment and after 15,000 photos, most of which were taken in heavy rain and without a rain cover, the camera never had any problems. I had one lens get finicky when it was soaking wet, but not the body. Weather sealing is nice, but contrary to popular belief a non-sealed camera will not explode in a shower of sparks when the ambient humidity goes over 20 percent.
>> Anonymous
Leica SUCKS BALLS! LOL

Should have got a Sony. Leica can't get their shit together. Old Leicas used to be used for almost anything and would work reliably. To hear them jam and fail and all these other problems is shameful.

$5000 for a piece of shit.
>> Anonymous
Leica is just a name now. The quality is going, going, gone. Such a shame. They are toys for big boys to play with and show off. Nothing more.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>205552
>>205535

I would like to have a word with you.
(Not saying the new stuff isnt crap, but this one is still one fucking awesome lens)

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:04:08 06:01:02Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width350Image Height290
>> okto
>>205535
Funny you should say that, because Sony follows somewhat in Leica's footsteps: make a product that's 90% perfect, and charge like it's 120% perfect.
>> Anonymous
>>205635
They've got the following to do that with a lot of their products, but their cameras (especially DSLR bodies) are completely reasonable.
>> Anonymous
Something else people should keep in mind: this is *one guy* who doesn't like the M8. There are others who don't, and there are plenty of others, including working field PJs, who do.

For instance, this woman also shot with it in Iraq and had no problems with the results:

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4133/extreme-field-test-leica-m8-in-iraq.html

There's also a soldier in Iraq doing documentary work there with an M8 whenever he can shoot a camera instead of a gun. He had a bunch of stuff up on Flickr, but he's taken all but five images down because he's trying to get them actually published somewhere.

Lesson? All cameras work for some people and not for others.
>> Anonymous
>>205678

I bet they are fags who do not know the difference between good and bad or more likely are blinded by the 'Leica Glow' to see the glaring faults.

Without the brand name on it it would not be nearly as popular. I triple guarantee it.
>> Anonymous
>>205683
Come on, you think people like David Alan Harvey (who admittedly is working in much less difficult conditions than these combat photographers) are just blinded by the red dot?

>Without the brand name on it it would not be nearly as expensive, and even more popular.

Fixed. Neither the Leica or the Epson is flawless, but they're both good cameras, and there is a huge market for a digital rangefinder just like them, if only they weren't so costly.

Hopefully Leica will sort out these issues and release an M9 that satisfies near everyone. Then the rest of us might have a chance at a used M8.

And it works both ways- people have this silly idea in their head that because it says "Leica" and costs $5,000 it should be perfect. That's just as blinded by the brand.
>> Anonymous
>>205678For instance, this woman also shot with it in Iraq and had no problems with the results:
That article cites some of the same issues that the OP's did, it just wasn't a deal breaker for this photographer.

From the article:

>The buttons on the back of the camera kept getting accidentally pushed by the zipper that held my flak jacket on, and more than once I looked at the screen and there would be a message asking "Delete?

>They capture, process and transfer data slower than what I am used to, and the white balance requires adjustments for even the most minor light changes.

>...the base plate you need at least one fingernail to open (a problem for this nail-biter, since the plate covers the memory card slot and battery chamber).

On the other hand, he's hit a major point that I can sympathize with: >I hated shooting with my digital SLR...the lenses weren't suited for manual focusing like the older lenses. And often simply walking into a room with a camera as big as my head would, at least initially, alter the mood.

I really wish Leica had hit a home run with the M8. As it is, it's too iffy for me to go that far into debt to try one, but if it was a little better I could probably justify it.
>> Anonymous
Can I ask one really stupid question? Keep in mind that I'm just, just, JUST barealy starting to get into photography beyond compact digital camers and only recently started using a film SLR

Why are rangefinder and digital rangefinder cameras so expensive? Isn't an SLR more complex to make?

I don't see what justifies the high cost.
>> Anonymous
digital sucks, film will always be better
>> Anonymous
film sucks, digital will always be better
>> Anonymous
>>205780
Mainly because there is only one currently on the market, and there have only been two made in history. There is a lot of research and development that has to be done, and digital rangefinders will never see even a thousandth of the sales that DSLRs will, so each one sold has to defray a much larger portion of the R&D cost. Production cost is also significantly higher because they're hand made in small batches in Germany rather than mass produced on Chinese assembly lines.
>> Anonymous
>>205805
This, and also, Leica is a small company with few other divisions. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus are all large companies with many other divisions and/or have close ties with other large companies with many other divisions. (Wikipeida "keiretsu.")

To cover overhead of just the company, not even production, one has to charge relatively more. Guess which one?
>> Anonymous
>>205780
If you want a cheap film rangefinder, you've got lots of options. Before autofocus killed them, there were plenty of consumer rangefinders (Leicas are professional cameras, and have always been priced for professionals, I'm sure you know what this means by now.) that are now available relatively cheaply.

You lose a viewfinder quality, a legendary body, lens interchangeability, and nail-driving build quality over, say, an M3. You gain a smaller size and even quieter shutter.

A good one is a Canonet, available with a 40mm or 28mm lens, the former more common. Should be able to find one on eBay for very cheap.
>> Anonymous
>>205819
Canonets are crap. You'd want at least full manual options, instead of relying on a fuck-old meter that's probably fucked up by age anyhow.
>> okto
>>205802
lol hai guys i has digital rebel how do i shot hot gurlz
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>205558
Leica is a cool guy and everything but that's a retarded example to use because they just discontinued the Nocti.

The last few are being sold in handcrafted humidors or some shit for tens of thousands of Euros, if I remember correctly. There are a couple news articles about it.

>>205780
A rangefinder mechanism is far more complex and expensive than a cheap pentamirror for a consumer SLR and probably pentaprisms for the better SLRs too. Look up how one works - you need perfectly machined rotating bits of semi silvered glass aligned in just the right way shoved into a tiny space.

Or you could take apart a dead rangefinder and poke it around, which is actually rather fun.

>>205819
Canon's Leica mount rangefinder line (pre Canonet) is pretty much the greatest deal ever in current photography.
>> Anonymous
whatever about the review....etc

have a look at the guys website. tis good.
>> Anonymous
>>206103
>Leica is a cool guy and everything but that's a retarded example to use because they just discontinued the Nocti.

Nooo fucking waaay ;_;
Damn, it's gonna be way harder to get now/when I'm able to.
>> Anonymous
>>205921

>Canonets are crap.

You, sir, are very wrong. I've owned two of the QL17 G3 models (first one was stolen) that I bought for around $50. The only thing wrong with them was the corroded light seals which were easy to replace. Other than that, the light meters are accurate. They have full manual controls as well as shutter priority auto. That combined with the 40mm 1.7 lens makes them great rangefinders that you can get on the cheap.
>> Anonymous
>>206219
You're right, my statement wasn't correct. The QL17 G3 models ARE nice. The other Canonets have only given me trouble, I'm afraid.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>206219


OH SUP