View Full Version : Anyone heard of this camera?
I recently came across a camera called a Leica M8. Became intrigued. But have been shocked that almost all are priced over £1000.
WTF? :bang:
Anyone know what the hell this is about? Are these people the Rolls Royce of the camera indusrty?
Bloody crazy.
Here is one:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&Item=310119006684&Category=31388
:cuckoo:
Anyone know what the hell this is about? Are these people the Rolls Royce of the camera indusrty?
Pretty much Yes!
They are one of the most revered names in photographic equipment manufacture and have a devout following. Mainly concetrated on 35mm rangefinders and SLRs but have dipped their toe into the digital market.
Their lenses are some of the best ever made!
Bill Roberts
20-03-2009, 20:38
They've been around for years and are very very very good!
Expensive... yes
cheers
Bill
Dangermouse1964
20-03-2009, 20:38
erm its one of the finest cameras ever produced....EVER
Pretty much Yes!
They are one of the most revered names in photographic equipment manufacture and have a devout following. Mainly concetrated on 35mm rangefinders and SLRs but have dipped their toe into the digital market.
Their lenses are some of the best ever made!
So the M8 is the digital version? To be honest, this is the first time in 31 years I have heard of them. It does look beautiful, will admit. And I do want one, but, my God, couldn't justify paying that much in a million years.
erm its one of the finest cameras ever produced....EVER
I cant see how they can a be better than a top range digital SLR. :shrug:
velocette
20-03-2009, 20:43
Have to say that I'd never buy (or afford) one myself but having a friend who's had several including a MP and M8 which I've been allowed to fondle I can understand the attraction. Bit like a Rolex watch or a superb fountain pen a joy to handle but whether I'd notice the difference between the finished output of one and a Canon/Nikon etc I doubt. Not that I'll ever have the option....
Dangermouse1964
20-03-2009, 20:45
Have to say that I'd never buy (or afford) one myself but having a friend who's had several including a MP and M8 which I've been allowed to fondle I can understand the attraction. Bit like a Rolex watch or a superb fountain pen a joy to handle but whether I'd notice the difference between the finished output of one and a Canon/Nikon etc I doubt. Not that I'll ever have the option....
Ditto ....I will never be able to afford one unless I sell all my kit for one body
So the M8 is the digital version? To be honest, this is the first time in 31 years I have heard of them. It does look beautiful, will admit. And I do want one, but, my God, couldn't justify paying that much in a million years.
You can't have had much interest in cameras over the last 31 years then.
A D700 is 2 grand :shrug: are you any more likely to buy one of those ?
wait....my Mamiya 6 is worth a grand with glass....and its a film camera...:lol:
So the M8 is the digital version? To be honest, this is the first time in 31 years I have heard of them. It does look beautiful, will admit. And I do want one, but, my God, couldn't justify paying that much in a million years.
How long have you been interested in photography, I am assuming that the 31 years is your age?
Google Leica, especially the history of!
Oskar Barnack's genius idea of creating the small format 35mm camera created a revolution in photography in 1925, paving the way for the birth of the Leica Legend. His diminutive, lightweight LEICA A offered a new, undreamed-of freedom in reportage and artistic photography. From that point to the present day, Leica has had a profound influence on our view of the world we live in. And remarkably, you can still savour this sheer visual enjoyment time and time again whenever you use a Leica product to provide that unique visual perspective.
basically the Leica was the forerunner of everything we currenly do in small format photography today, took the concept of 35mm cine film and made a camera that was able to use it for stills.
Bill Roberts
20-03-2009, 20:52
Honestly, if you ever get the chance to handle one, they just "ooze" quality.
Not in the high-tech way that maybe Canon or Nikon do, but just in pure engineering excellence.
That's a bargain!
The retail price of a new M8 is about £4000. Here's the spec http://uk.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/m8/
And if you like expensive cameras there are the Hasselblads and this little baby.
http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm
It's only $42,000. :)
http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm
It's only $42,000. :)
still blows waterfall highlights though ;)
I only recently developed an interest in photography and was only aware of the usual brands: Canon, Pentak, Panasonic, Sony etc.
Never heard of Lecia until Thursday this week.
Now that I've come across them, it is somewhat annoying that it seems the price indicates is more or less a rich mans play thing. Reading comments here and looking at the pic of the M8, I want one now.
How cool does that shutter sound (new version)?
I recently came across a camera called a Leica M8. Became intrigued. But have been shocked that almost all are priced over £1000.
WTF? :bang:
Anyone know what the hell this is about? Are these people the Rolls Royce of the camera indusrty?
Bloody crazy.
Here is one:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&Item=310119006684&Category=31388
:cuckoo:
I don't want to be rude, but I guess you can put that down to "learning something new every day". If you've been into photography and not heard of Leica, that' ok .. but at £1,000 that's dirt cheap.
Have a look at the new ones, and the price of their lenses (here (http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/products.asp?PT_ID=359)) and you will see just how much these go for.
These are some of the sexiest cameras ever made.
Honestly, if you ever get the chance to handle one, they just "ooze" quality.
Not in the high-tech way that maybe Canon or Nikon do, but just in pure engineering excellence.
You really shouldn't tell him to do that. I guess you haven't been following the thread by AliB (here (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=119572&highlight=Leica)) and see the consequence of something like that :p
Lieca are as addictive as some of the stuff people snort up their nostrils. It should come with a NHS warning.
That's a bargain!
The retail price of a new M8 is about £4000. Here's the spec http://uk.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/m8/
And if you like expensive cameras there are the Hasselblads and this little baby.
http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm
It's only $42,000. :)
Go on, keep gloating. I hope you realise that you're pushing many into a divorce!
But seriously, you are one lucky person and I hope you're enjoying that sexy toy which you fondle with your hand close to your face.
Have a look at Contax, Mamiya, Hasselblad as well as Leica. All classics in their own right.
Welcome to the world of photography. I just bought my first Leica only a week ago (little D-Lux4 digital) and they are things of beauty, I'd love an M8 but I'd have to sell a kidney! :) or MrB............ Must..........stay..........away...........from... ........M8............
You could buy a tidy car for what they cost!
And Wail, for all the little Leica is a sexy little midget gem, it's the hasselblad that I just want to lick (but I'd ruin the leather covering!)
When they say that Leica do digital they mean that they take a panasonic camera and stick a red dot on it :D
Bill Roberts
20-03-2009, 21:20
When they say that Leica do digital they mean that they take a panasonic camera and stick a red dot on it :D
Not in the case of the M8 they don't.
The M8 was a huge step for Leica - producing a digital camera as their latest step in the legendary M Series. Most would say it's has the feel of an M Series in every way. No doubt this is a step Leica had to take to survive. Unfortunately the camera is flawed with a faulty sensor.
I believe the camera is now sold with filter to correct the problem.
Have a look at Contax, Mamiya, Hasselblad as well as Leica. All classics in their own right.
Welcome to the world of photography. I just bought my first Leica only a week ago (little D-Lux4 digital) and they are things of beauty, I'd love an M8 but I'd have to sell a kidney! :) or MrB............ Must..........stay..........away...........from... ........M8............
You could buy a tidy car for what they cost!
And Wail, for all the little Leica is a sexy little midget gem, it's the hasselblad that I just want to lick (but I'd ruin the leather covering!)
Yup ... keep this up and we'll end-up having a camera orgy!
When they say that Leica do digital they mean that they take a panasonic camera and stick a red dot on it :D
You do realise that you're on borderline blasphemy with something like that going through your mind :bat:
I think there is a rule here that says such idiologies could get you tied to a stake and burnt alive, much like they did to witches in the old days. I'd be veeeery careful, if I were you :p
Bill Roberts
20-03-2009, 21:28
The M8 was a huge step for Leica - producing a digital camera as their latest step in the legendary M Series. Most would say it's has the feel of an M Series in every way. No doubt this is a step Leica had to take to survive. Unfortunately the camera is flawed with a faulty sensor.
I believe the camera is now sold with filter to correct the problem.
I believe there was a problem and they brought out the M8.2 version presumably to fix it. I think (but not being a Leica owner I'm not certain) that you can basically have an original M8 converted to the latest version.
That sound typically Leica to be honest... anything is possible at a cost.
They *are* superb, but very expensive too!
strobemonkey
20-03-2009, 21:33
It will be more expensive if they make it gold plated. If I win the lottery on saturday I'll buy one.
I believe there was a problem and they brought out the M8.2 version presumably to fix it. I think (but not being a Leica owner I'm not certain) that you can basically have an original M8 converted to the latest version.
That sound typically Leica to be honest... anything is possible at a cost.
They *are* superb, but very expensive too!
I can understand why people like Leicas, but there's certain things about them that would drive me nuts. The fact that you virtually have to disassemble the camera to load it and manual focusing to name just two. I wouldn't swap my Contax G2 for one, but I can understand the appeal. That's film cameras of course.
See, I did mention Contax.........and forgot Rollieflex...
oh yes Camera orgy all right :)
Bill Roberts
20-03-2009, 21:46
Funny enough I think the manual focussing wouldn't be as big an issue as you'd expect.
Rangefinders are pretty quick to focus. But I do agree, in a lot of ways they'd drive me nuts too!
It will be more expensive if they make it gold plated. If I win the lottery on saturday I'll buy one.
They do a titanium D-Lux4, it's only a grand. :woot:
Funny enough I think the manual focussing wouldn't be as big an issue as you'd expect.
Rangefinders are pretty quick to focus. But I do agree, in a lot of ways they'd drive me nuts too!
It's probably totally irrational, but manual focusing is one of the things I love about medium format cameras, but it drives me quackers on a 35mm camera. :gag:
cressers
20-03-2009, 21:58
D LUX 4!?!?!?
i....hate......you.....all.
;)
Was looking for a G9, but now.........
It's probably totally irrational, but manual focusing is one of the things I love about medium format cameras, but it drives me quackers on a 35mm camera. :gag:
Not irrational at all CT. It's probably a speed thing. The MF gear almost demands that you take your time and focusing is just part of a fairly time consuming setup. With 35mm we are probably more "in the moment" so anything that detracts from the immediacy of that capture is going to interfere rather than enhance the experience.
Not irrational at all CT. It's probably a speed thing. The MF gear almost demands that you take your time and focusing is just part of a fairly time consuming setup. With 35mm we are probably more "in the moment" so anything that detracts from the immediacy of that capture is going to interfere rather than enhance the experience.
I think that's exactly it Ali. The whole slowed down process of using a medium format makes it an event when you press the shutter, and very satisfying somehow - two different animals.
D LUX 4!?!?!?
i....hate......you.....all.
;)
Was looking for a G9, but now.........
What did I say about such thread :shrug:
Not irrational at all CT. It's probably a speed thing. The MF gear almost demands that you take your time and focusing is just part of a fairly time consuming setup. With 35mm we are probably more "in the moment" so anything that detracts from the immediacy of that capture is going to interfere rather than enhance the experience.
So, you're pushing 35SLRs down the food-chain towards P&S cameras :bat:
Sure, with an 35SLR we can be "in the moment", but it's always best to "slow down" and consider the shot being taken .. and manual focus makes me do just that. If anything, it increases the number of keepers I get to have while reducing the number of time I force my 35SLR into a P&S mode.
So, you're pushing 35SLRs down the food-chain towards P&S cameras :bat:
Nope, but there is a kind of continuum in terms of format vs time. I've seen Gandhi set up a large format film camera ( I could cook breakfast quicker) Then there is MF where there is a degree of faffing about (note the use of a technical term) and then 35mm and last but not least digital SLR with one keeper out of 100 ratios (but it's quick)
So 35mm film is actually nicely in the middle being faster than LF/MF and slower than digital anything.
Bill Roberts
20-03-2009, 22:16
I think that's exactly it Ali. The whole slowed down process of using a medium format makes it an event when you press the shutter, and very satisfying somehow - two different animals.
To be honest I got a lot of satisfaction from manually focussing. Years ago I had Yashica 124G, a Bronica EC-TL and a Hasselblad 500CM. Of course you didn't have any option, but it never ever seemed to be a burden to manually focus them. In fact with the blad the mirror didn't even auto return until you wound it on to the next frame. I don't think I want to go back there, but I must admit to a certain amount of nostalgia.
The quality of the end result though... Oh Yes!
In fact with the blad the mirror didn't even auto return until you wound it on to the next frame. I don't think I want to go back there, but I must admit to a certain amount of nostalgia.
The quality of the end result though... Oh Yes!
LOL. I really do hear you. I have an RB67 and a 501CM and I love them both.
CScottMcQueen
20-03-2009, 22:29
I must admit to having thought about selling all my Canon gear and just buying myself a 2nd hand Leica M8 (any other of the leica digital range is just paying for a red dot)and a couple of lenses but I would love a digital version of the Contax G2 and if I had the time would just have a film version.
But for now I will stick with my Sigma DP1 and my 5D... but for how long, who knows? :)
It would have to be a Leica M7 for me - at least they have aperture priority. The cost of the lenses though! :eek:
CScottMcQueen
20-03-2009, 22:38
I would hate to see the price tag of a design it yourself 'Leica a la carte' build
Ouch, you wallet would sting after that!
Uneducated_Rick
20-03-2009, 22:58
To be honest, this is the first time in 31 years I have heard of them.
Ask people to name a camera manufacturer and leica will probably be in the top three (along with canon and nikon)
historically the only companies whocan compete with leica for fame and reverence is zeiss and hasselblad - but you may not have heard of them either.
I only recently developed an interest in photography and was only aware of the usual brands: Canon, Pentak, Panasonic, Sony etc.
No nikon, can't spell pentax but does include Panasonic and Sony for the 'usual bands' :cuckoo:
CScottMcQueen
20-03-2009, 23:07
Ask people to name a camera manufacturer and leica will probably be in the top three (along with canon and nikon)
I think if you were to stop 100 people in the street and ask them to name 3 camera manufacturers, I would bet very few of them mention Leica tbh
Well, I will have to say it then.
The Leica M8 is a complete hash of a camera. It doesn't work anything like the way it should, or how M-Series Leicas worked so wonderfully well. It is a betrayal of everything that was once great about this fine company. It lists at £4k, and it is really no wonder that you can buy one now for just £1k. Apart from the crazy price, it still has imaging problems fundamental to trying to fit a digital sensor into a body designed for 35mm film. It's a long and sad story, but it doesn't work and it cannot work, even with the frankly ludicrous IR filter that it has to wear. It is not even full frame (the lenses won't work) so cannot take full advantage of the wonderful lenses made for the film cameras. (The whole sorry saga has been played out on www.dpreview.com and many other forums in endless detail.)
Leica was forced to make the M8 to stay alive, but they have only bought a stay of execution. The company is once again in financial ruin and there can't be many more opportunities to down-size again, nor many more philanthropic billionaires ready to squander their fortunes on giving this dead horse a few more lashes.
The last great Leica made was the M6. The R-Series SLRs were always technologically retarded and at silly prices. They are now discontinued. If it wasn't for the instrument division, Leica cameras would never have survived into the 20th century. Their latest product, the medium format S2, fills a market niche that does not exist. It is due for release later this year, but don't hold your breath. The cost of the body, without lens, is Eur20,000 :shake:
Leica's only hope of survival lies in their association with Panasonic. The beautiful Pano LX3 is rebadged and restyled as the Leica D-Lux-4 and this camera is actually more true to the great Leica M-Series rangefinder heritage in digital form than the M8 can ever be. Cartier Bresson would have approved.
There. I've said it. And it gave me no pleasure at all :(
oldfella
21-03-2009, 06:08
I got a leica 111 off a drunk GI in 1944 in Brussels. 200 Belgian francs it cost me that was 25 shillings. Have you ever seen those Russian built Leica copies. God they are crap.
I got a leica 111 off a drunk GI in 1944 in Brussels. 200 Belgian francs it cost me that was 25 shillings. Have you ever seen those Russian built Leica copies. God they are crap.
Bleddy hell, and you can work a computer :lol: very apt user name then ;)
Flash In The Pan
21-03-2009, 06:42
You do realise that you're on borderline blasphemy with something like that going through your mind :bat:
I think there is a rule here that says such idiologies could get you tied to a stake and burnt alive, much like they did to witches in the old days. I'd be veeeery careful, if I were you :p
But Wail, the lower-end Leicas are just Panasonics in party frocks. I remember meeting a guy when I was out taking pics and he started going on about his new digital Leica, I was thinking he'd bought an M8, but when he brought it out I almost burst out laughing - it was exactly the same camera as my wee Panasonic, but had cost him three times as much. The only real difference was the Leica branding, but then even my Panasonic p+s has a "Leica" lens on it :lol:
Well, I will have to say it then.
The Leica M8 is a complete hash of a camera. It doesn't work anything like the way it should, or how M-Series Leicas worked so wonderfully well. It is a betrayal of everything that was once great about this fine company. It lists at £4k, and it is really no wonder that you can buy one now for just £1k.
Where can you buy Leica M8s for a grand? Point me in the right direction and I'll have one at that price :thumbs:
Ask people to name a camera manufacturer and leica will probably be in the top three
bull crap. maybe to camera enthusiasts (:geek:). But the average man in the street would never have heard of Leica.
No nikon, can't spell pentax but does include Panasonic and Sony for the 'usual bands' :cuckoo:
I'm refering to the usual £120 from Argos standard digital cameras, not DSLR. FFS :bang:
Flash In The Pan
21-03-2009, 06:56
So the M8 is the digital version? To be honest, this is the first time in 31 years I have heard of them. It does look beautiful, will admit. And I do want one, but, my God, couldn't justify paying that much in a million years.
Why exactly do you want one? Because of how it looks?
Probably not the soundest rationale for choosing a camera :naughty:
May I suggest one of these
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/03/minox_leica.jpg
might be more what you're looking for ;)
Canon Bob
21-03-2009, 07:15
Ask people to name a camera manufacturer and leica will probably be in the top three (along with canon and nikon)
...the average man in the street would never have heard of Leica.
You may well be right, nowadays "Joe Average" doesn't have any class. :(
Bob
Well, I will have to say it then.
The Leica M8 is a complete hash of a camera. It doesn't work anything like the way it should, or how M-Series Leicas worked so wonderfully well. It is a betrayal of everything that was once great about this fine company. It lists at £4k, and it is really no wonder that you can buy one now for just £1k. Apart from the crazy price, it still has imaging problems fundamental to trying to fit a digital sensor into a body designed for 35mm film. It's a long and sad story, but it doesn't work and it cannot work, even with the frankly ludicrous IR filter that it has to wear. It is not even full frame (the lenses won't work) so cannot take full advantage of the wonderful lenses made for the film cameras. (The whole sorry saga has been played out on www.dpreview.com and many other forums in endless detail.)
Leica was forced to make the M8 to stay alive, but they have only bought a stay of execution. The company is once again in financial ruin and there can't be many more opportunities to down-size again, nor many more philanthropic billionaires ready to squander their fortunes on giving this dead horse a few more lashes.
The last great Leica made was the M6. The R-Series SLRs were always technologically retarded and at silly prices. They are now discontinued. If it wasn't for the instrument division, Leica cameras would never have survived into the 20th century. Their latest product, the medium format S2, fills a market niche that does not exist. It is due for release later this year, but don't hold your breath. The cost of the body, without lens, is Eur20,000 :shake:
Leica's only hope of survival lies in their association with Panasonic. The beautiful Pano LX3 is rebadged and restyled as the Leica D-Lux-4 and this camera is actually more true to the great Leica M-Series rangefinder heritage in digital form than the M8 can ever be. Cartier Bresson would have approved.
There. I've said it. And it gave me no pleasure at all :(
Interesting read.
You may well be right, nowadays "Joe Average" doesn't have any class. :(
Bob
or perhaps doesn't want to spend over a grand on a camera when a Sony Cybershot will do the job at a gig, birthday party, night out in the town.
Flash In The Pan
21-03-2009, 07:24
or perhaps doesn't want to spend over a grand on a camera when a Sony Cybershot will do the job at a gig, birthday party, night out in the town.
I don't think Leicas are targeted towards people that will use them for "a gig, birthday party, night out in the town"
There are plenty of people out there who would see even a couple of hundred quid spent on a camera as a lot of money, when you can buy one for a tenner...
I don't think Leicas are targeted towards people that will use them for "a gig, birthday party, night out in the town".
Who said it was?
I'm just stating the fact if you stop someone on the street and ask them to name a camera brand, most would give the usual name: Sony, Panasonic etc. Leica would hardly get a mention. When did you ever see a Leica advert on TV? This is just going back to the guy who claimed most people will recognise the Leica brand name.
I did a household test (asked round my family who have no interest in photography at all) and they DID include Hasselblad and Leica.
Perhaps it's a generation thing. The ones you mention (Sony and Panasonic) I'd rate for making TV's not cameras.
Advertising is not a mark of quality. When did you ever see Hasselblad, Ferrarri, Lambourghini, Tiffany, Asprey, Bentley, Harrods........... advertise on TV? Some things don't need advertising to sell, they sell themselves.
Uneducated_Rick
21-03-2009, 08:13
Who said it was?
I'm just stating the fact if you stop someone on the street and ask them to name a camera brand, most would give the usual name: Sony, Panasonic etc. Leica would hardly get a mention. When did you ever see a Leica advert on TV? This is just going back to the guy who claimed most people will recognise the Leica brand name.
I recon people would say Leica as Sony, Panasonic et al. are all electronic manufacturers rather than specifically a camera manufacturer - then again society is dumbing down a hell of a lot
Advertising is not a mark of quality. When did you ever see Hasselblad, Ferrarri, Lambourghini, Tiffany, Asprey, Bentley, Harrods........... advertise on TV? Some things don't need advertising to sell, they sell themselves.
And who said it was? The people who want just a digital camera to capture birthdays, nights out, office party I am pretty sure far out number those who would spend over £2k and over on a Leica. ;)
And, you've never seen Harrods advert on TV? The Harrods sale advert? Never seen the Harrods owner Mo Al fayed on TV, newspaper, on the Ali G show? :D
I see Farrarri all the time on ITV/BBC in Formula 1 ;)
I only recently developed an interest in photography and was only aware of the usual brands: Canon, Pentak, Panasonic, Sony etc.
Strangely I don't really think of Panasonic and Sony as a 'usual camera brands'. They make electronic equipment.
Never heard of Lecia until Thursday this week.
I honestly find that level of ignorance astonishing. I know I knew what a Leica was when I was still a small child growing up in a family with little interest in photography....
Now that I've come across them, it is somewhat annoying that it seems the price indicates is more or less a rich mans play thing. Reading comments here and looking at the pic of the M8, I want one now.
Are you a rich man who needs a plaything?
But Wail, the lower-end Leicas are just Panasonics in party frocks. I remember meeting a guy when I was out taking pics and he started going on about his new digital Leica, I was thinking he'd bought an M8, but when he brought it out I almost burst out laughing - it was exactly the same camera as my wee Panasonic, but had cost him three times as much. The only real difference was the Leica branding, but then even my Panasonic p+s has a "Leica" lens on it :lol:
...
But by that same analogy, isn't there a Korean car manufacturer that makes 4x4 based on Mercedes components? Does that make it any better, or even close to the quality of a Mercedes?
Taking it from there, Lexus (which is really just a fancy branded Toyota) now make better quality cars than Mercedes .. that doesn't stop the masses from wanting to own a Mercedes as opposed to a Lexus!
Point is, it's a global market with a lot of shared resources. If Leica are re-branded Panasonic, then we'd have to give in to Porsche being a re-branded VW!
Personally, if I had the ££££ to buy an M8 (even if it is just a re-branded Panasonic) then I'd happily fork-out the money for it. If only to look at it.
I honestly find that level of ignorance astonishing.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v93/onikami/Looking_for_Cherry_blossoms_Still_1.jpg
I am happy you find it "astonishing" someone has never heard of a camera brand name. It is of such importance. Everyone must know it! :lol:
Strangely I don't really think of Panasonic and Sony as a 'usual camera brands'. They make electronic equipment.
True. But I mention Panasonic because of the adverts on tv recently. You may not have seen it, but many milions certainly have seen this on ITV, Sky etc:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVaafVtDlik
And here is a great Sony Cybershot one. Again you might have missed it. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jsHfWrPZdU
Are you a rich man who needs a plaything?
Have no idea what this means? :thinking:
I guess it has something to do with pedigree .. something which advancement in technology can not cater for :shrug:
And, you've never seen Harrods advert on TV? The Harrods sale advert? Never seen the Harrods owner Mo Al fayed on TV, newspaper, on the Ali G show? :D
I see Farrarri all the time on ITV/BBC in Formula 1 ;)
No, I don't watch that kind of TV.
No, I don't watch that kind of TV.
As you say yourself: you "live in your own world". Thats cool. No probs with that.
It's a much better place, trust me. :D
There are Hasselblads and Leicas and Mamiya's and Canon's and I'd even let the odd Nikon in on a Friday.:woot:
It's a much better place, trust me. :D
And the TV's play programmes about the history of photography and natural history with stunning scenery and tell me about places I'll never visit.
I am happy you find it "astonishing" someone has never heard of a camera brand name. It is of such importance. Everyone must know it!
It is. I'm sorry you know so little, but you are seemingly clearly happy that you are utterly oblivious to any photographic history.
I mention Panasonic because of the adverts on tv recently. You may not have seen it, but many milions certainly have seen this on ITV, Sky etc:
I rarely watch ITV. I don't pay Murdoch for the rubbish on Sky. I avoid adverts generally by pre-recording what I would like to watch and fast forwarding through them (or editiing them out of films and the like) on my Panasonic DVD recorder. Yet I know about the existence all sorts of photographic (as well as film and TV) equipment I never have seen or handled.
Have no idea what this means? :thinking:
That does not surprise me unduly.
That new limited edition Safari M8 they have on the site is absolutely stunning.
When they say that Leica do digital they mean that they take a panasonic camera and stick a red dot on it :D
Spot on! Like my DMC-LX3 for example!;)
Identical except no dot and because of that, well over £100 cheaper
Mine lives in the leather Leica LBC-01 case.:naughty: Not posing, it is simply one of the best cases out there.
:wave:
Kav
KavKav. How are you finding the LX3? It looks exactly what I need for close up street photography. Are you having fun with it? I'm actually quite intrigued by the short focal length and apparently outstanding low light capabilities.
It is. I'm sorry you know so little, but you are seemingly clearly happy that you are utterly oblivious to any photographic history.
a true crime against humanity. Up there with the Rwanda genocide. Holocaust. Rape of Nanking. We must put Lecia on the national cirriculum :(
ujjwaldey8165
21-03-2009, 10:27
To be honest, not knowing about Leica and carrying on posting in a photography site is a 'crime against humanity'.
We are not here to talk about rwanda or holocaust, but to share and learn about photography and camera.
And if someone, who is on a photography forum and hasn't heard of Leica and its history, he may be a true average man on the street ( which street?), but he surely should spend some time educating himself on it rather than pretending that ignorance on the history of cameras such as Leica and contax is the best thing since sliced bread.
Yes, I would consider it truely bizzare if someone who has a modicum of interest in photography and its history has not heard of Leica; and shows not even a cursory interest in learning about Leitz Camera Company.
Ujjwal
P.S : This post is not about belittling any particular memeber; merely my personal opinion on Leica
KavKav. How are you finding the LX3? It looks exactly what I need for close up street photography. Are you having fun with it? I'm actually quite intrigued by the short focal length and apparently outstanding low light capabilities.
KayJay,
I did a real mountain of research before buying the LX3! I ended up with a 'head-to-head choice between the LX3 and the Canon G10. What finally swung it in favour of the LX3 was:-
1. Superb Leica F2.0 Vario-Summicron lens
2. Canon used the old G9 sensor in the G10, just crammed more pixels in which as 'any fule now' equals more noise!
3. Build quality of the LX3 and the fact that I have had the LX1 since it came out.
4. New sensor and processing engine in the LX3
OK, that is why I bought it,now having owned it for a few months let me tell you what I think of it:-
Having been extremely pleased with the LX1, this LX3 really is a step beyond. It does everything I could ask for and the picture quality is quite superb. One thing I cannot understand is that in the marketing blurb, they made little mention of the macro facility. The macro on this is the finest I have seen. A few months ago I sold a Lange & Sohne 1815 wristwatch over on TZ-UK and the guys said the macro pictures of the movement were the best they had ever seen and in all modesty, the pics were pretty damn good!
At the beginning of this year I treated myself bigtime, I bought a Nikon D700, a Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED and SB 900 flash. Super super kit and I cannot fault it, that lens does what it is designed for, i.e. it replaces a bag of primes! However, I have hardly used the Nikon kit as the LX3 does everything I want, it is supremely portable on the hip! Mad to buy the Nikon kit you might think, maybe so but as a long-standing Nikon fan, I 'wanted it'.
The LX3 is that good that I am now seriously thinking of selling the Nikon kit on. Crazy you might say, but the LX3 just does it for me in terms of quality pics and delightful portability.
Sorry to ramble on, I hope you find my comments of some interest!:)
Tom
To be honest, not knowing about Leica and carrying on posting in a photography site is a 'crime against humanity'.
We are not here to talk about rwanda or holocaust, but to share and learn about photography and camera.
And if someone, who is on a photography forum and hasn't heard of Leica and its history, he may be a true average man on the street ( which street?), but he surely should spend some time educating himself on it rather than pretending that ignorance on the history of cameras such as Leica and contax is the best thing since sliced bread.
Yes, I would consider it truely bizzare if someone who has a modicum of interest in photography and its history has not heard of Leica; and shows not even a cursory interest in learning about Leitz Camera Company.
Ujjwal
P.S : This post is not about belittling any particular memeber; merely my personal opinion on Leica
:lol:
So, I cant join your "club" as I dont know about Leica? I must learn the history of Photography in order to post on this forum? If anyone moves on from digital and decideds they want to try a dslr, they *must* learn a little bit about the history of photography and Leica to join your club?
I've only just developed an interest in DSLR. Spent £332 on a camera, another £130 on a lens, £55 on a tamron lens, £30 on a colour printer and more on ink and photo paper. Joined this forum to get some opinion/learn how to take shots on some of the pics I've taken, but will not be fully accepted by some snobs who cannot stand anyone who does not the "history of photography". :lol:
P.S : This post is not about belittling any particular memeber; merely my personal opinion.
Thanks for sharing Tom, very interesting. I'm about to finish off a website so will have some money coming my way. Problem with the SLR is it makes it quite tricky to do any real street photography candids without getting spotted, the LX3 seems to be ideal for that.
I'm also looking at the Ricoh G2. Some of my contacts on flickr are using that and the results are equally spectacular, as far as point and shoots go.
:lol:
So, I cant join your "club" as I dont know about Leica? I must learn the history of Photography in order to post on this forum? If anyone moves on from digital and decideds they want to try a dslr, they *must* learn a little bit about the history of photography and Leica to join your club?
I've only just developed an interest in DSLR. Spent £332 on a camera, another £130 on a lens, £55 on a tamron lens, £30 on a colour printer and more on ink and photo paper. Joined this forum to get some opinion/learn how to take shots on some of the pics I've taken, but will not be fully accepted by some snobs who cannot stand anyone who does not the "history of photography". :lol:
P.S : This post is not about belittling any particular memeber; merely my personal opinion.
Friend, haul your hackles in! You are missing the point here, this is nothing to do with digital. Members are just surprised that you have not heard of Leica which is like a car owner saying they had never heard of Rolls-Royce. People on here are a friendly crew and will offer you help 'in spades' but be a little careful, just because you have not heard of Leica, when people expressed surprise, you thought they were taking the *iss and you got defensive. Slagging Leica just because you have not heard of it, and calling people snobs when this is as 'snob-free' a forum as I have encountered,will not win you any friends on here. Chill a bit and have a nice weekend!
:lol:
So, I cant join your "club" as I dont know about Leica? I must learn the history of Photography in order to post on this forum? If anyone moves on from digital and decideds they want to try a dslr, they *must* learn a little bit about the history of photography and Leica to join your club?
I've only just developed an interest in DSLR. Spent £332 on a camera, another £130 on a lens, £55 on a tamron lens, £30 on a colour printer and more on ink and photo paper. Joined this forum to get some opinion/learn how to take shots on some of the pics I've taken, but will not be fully accepted by some snobs who cannot stand anyone who does not the "history of photography". :lol:
P.S : This post is not about belittling any particular memeber; merely my personal opinion.
I would say you're on the right track; also, I believe others are just pulling your leg when they mark you down for not knowing much about Leica.
It's just that certain brands are highly sought after, and it's "funny", in an odd way, when someone doesn't know about them.
I hope no harm is done :wave: from all this picking on you :)
Friend, haul your hackles in! You are missing the point here, this is nothing to do with digital. Members are just surprised that you have not heard of Leica which is like a car owner saying they had never heard of Rolls-Royce. People on here are a friendly crew and will offer you help 'in spades' but be a little careful, just because you have not heard of Leica, when people expressed surprise, you thought they were taking the *iss and you got defensive. Slagging Leica just because you have not heard of it, and calling people snobs when this is as 'snob-free' a forum as I have encountered,will not win you any friends on here. Chill a bit and have a nice weekend!
Who said anything about slagging Leica off? Yet another poster who fails to read the thread in full. :p
Near the start after a few posts from members, I said I wanted to buy the camera myself because people here were saying it is practically a rolls royce camera. World class lens, quality etc. I cant afford it because its too expensive. We then get a guy come with his "rich mans play thing" comment which made no sense at all.
I cant complain about the help/advice I've had here since joining. Whats bizare is people expecting someone who has only started taking an interest in photography as a hobby (just over a month now) to start learning about the history of photography. Thanks, but I would rather learn how to use my A300, learn about the type of lens, how to compose shots, what shutter/apperature to use etc. After that, everything else will follow. ;)
I would say you're on the right track; also, I believe others are just pulling your leg when they mark you down for not knowing much about Leica.
It's just that certain brands are highly sought after, and it's "funny", in an odd way, when someone doesn't know about them.
I hope no harm is done :wave: from all this picking on you :)
Nah. Its all cool. At least I now know about Leica and will never forget it :D :D
Thanks for sharing Tom, very interesting. I'm about to finish off a website so will have some money coming my way. Problem with the SLR is it makes it quite tricky to do any real street photography candids without getting spotted, the LX3 seems to be ideal for that.
I'm also looking at the Ricoh G2. Some of my contacts on flickr are using that and the results are equally spectacular, as far as point and shoots go.
A fair point about the 'street candids' The LX3 is quite unobtrusive whereas a D700 with a 24-70f/2.8 is quite a bit more obvious!:lol:
Did you mean the Ricoh GR2? If so, that was one of the cameras that made my shortlist. A fine camera but I rejected it for noise starting to creep in at ISO 200 :shake: getting quite noticeable at ISO 400, (or so the review I read said!)
But by that same analogy, isn't there a Korean car manufacturer that makes 4x4 based on Mercedes components? Does that make it any better, or even close to the quality of a Mercedes?
Taking it from there, Lexus (which is really just a fancy branded Toyota) now make better quality cars than Mercedes .. that doesn't stop the masses from wanting to own a Mercedes as opposed to a Lexus!
Point is, it's a global market with a lot of shared resources. If Leica are re-branded Panasonic, then we'd have to give in to Porsche being a re-branded VW!
Personally, if I had the ££££ to buy an M8 (even if it is just a re-branded Panasonic) then I'd happily fork-out the money for it. If only to look at it.
It's a bit unfair to say Lexus is a rebadged Toyota. Made by Toyota maybe. But then Rolls Royce is now made by BMW. And Porsche actually controls the entire VAG empire, including VW, Audi and even Bentley. The deeper you look, the more complicated international branding and ownership becomes - in Japan it's so confusing I've given up trying to keep track. They tend to keep it quiet, too.
But one thing's for sure - the Leica M8 is not a re-branded Panasonic, and I have to say it is probably the worse for it. It is 100% a West German product (except for the Japanese bits!).
Edit: I find it quite revealing that the OP has not heard of Leica before, and puts Panasonic and Sony so high up the camera awareness list. And that's not any criticism BTW, just an interesting observation on how the present market is viewed. I wonder who is most in touch with current trends?
Nah. Its all cool. At least I now know about Leica and will never forget it :D :D
Leica are expensive mainly because of the superbly engineered manufacture allied to the fact that it is a premium brand name that asks (and gets) high prices. If you get the opportunity to hold an M8 in your hands you will see what I mean, the controls operate with silk-like precision and the camera feels sooooo good to hold.
Given the choice of sitting in a Rolls-Royce for an hour or fiddling with the M8 for an hour, I would take the M8!
I may be off, by today's measure, about the Porsche & VW; but Lexus is nothing more than a rebranded Toyota.
As a matter of fact, when Lexus were first launched, it was offered in Japan under the Toyota brand; and up to a few years ago, all the parts were Toyota.
Please don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with Toyota / Lexus, I've owned no less than 6 Lexus since their launch, and God knows how many Toyota. It's just that however you look at these two brands, there is one thing missing from them, as opposed to Mercedes, and that's pedegree. Just because a product is a better product doesn't make the less-good product less desirable (another example, Aston Martin which is always hampered with quality issues).
But, I only mentioned cars here as an analogy ... may be I ought to keep it on Leica so as not to take things off track.
Philx1979
21-03-2009, 11:36
would this picture make you wanna spend £27,000 on a camera???? haha i wouldn`t.
http://www.roundshot.ch/pictures/Giessenfaelle.jpg
cressers
21-03-2009, 11:39
Vertu is Nokia - same insides - different exterior. By the logic listed here, you should buy a 8800 Arte as they are the "same"
www.vertu.com
There is more to manufacture than just circuit boards and optics - its how these are put together that makes the difference.
I don't know for sure, but having visited panasonic production lines, I doubt the Leica version comes off the same one as the LX3
cressers
21-03-2009, 11:41
would this picture make you wanna spend £27,000 on a camera???? haha i wouldn`t.
This is a different argument. If I would step into a Ferrari F1 car, would I automatically drive to become F1 World Champion?
- Well I probably would as its ferrari, but you get my point ;)
Who said anything about slagging Leica off? Yet another poster who fails to read the thread in full. :p
Near the start after a few posts from members, I said I wanted to buy the camera myself because people here were saying it is practically a rolls royce camera. World class lens, quality etc. I cant afford it because its too expensive. We then get a guy come with his "rich mans play thing" comment which made no sense at all.
I don't want to sound like a pedant, but:
I only recently developed an interest in photography and was only aware of the usual brands: Canon, Pentak, Panasonic, Sony etc.
.
.
.
Now that I've come across them, it is somewhat annoying that it seems the price indicates is more or less a rich mans play thing. Reading comments here and looking at the pic of the M8, I want one now.
You did say it first. Or am I quoting the wrong person? :)
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=1391070&postcount=14
Philx1979
21-03-2009, 11:45
This is a different argument. If I would step into a Ferrari F1 car, would I automatically drive to become F1 World Champion?
- Well I probably would as its ferrari, but you get my point ;)
Dont really get your point, prob me being stupid, but that picture does nothing for me, not the kind of picture i would put on the front of a website if i was selling a camera for that amount of money, could of picked a better picture dont you think? lol
cressers
21-03-2009, 11:54
Dont really get your point, prob me being stupid, but that picture does nothing for me, not the kind of picture i would put on the front of a website if i was selling a camera for that amount of money, could of picked a better picture dont you think? lol
OK, agree with that :)
I don't want to sound like a pedant, but:
You did say it first. Or am I quoting the wrong person? :)
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=1391070&postcount=14
OK. Maybe that came across differently than what I wanted. :D
But anyway. Leica is a quality brand. Over 80 posts has shown me that. :D
The Leica was actually the very first 35mm camera. You have to realise the scorn that was heaped on this tiny negative format at the time, in a world full of large format cameras. The quality of available 35mm film in the early days didn't help it's reputation.
Legendary street/ candid photographers like Henri Cartier- Bresson were quick to realise the potential of this small camera and working unnoticed compared to the large commonly used cameras. Work by Bresson and other great photographers enhanced the popularity of the format enormously, but there was still a lot of scorn for 35mm in the late 50's (when I became interested) from photograhers who almost universally used medium format cameras, the Rolleiflex, being almost a badge of office for working pros. As available 35mm film improved, so more pros gradually adopted the smaller format.
Leicas were always made to the highest standards of German engineering and the M Series has always been considered pretty much the pinnacle of rangefinder perfection.
I'm not in the least surprised that a newcomer to photography, wouldn't have heard of Leica these days since the digital explosion.
This is a different argument. If I would step into a Ferrari F1 car, would I automatically drive to become F1 World Champion?
- Well I probably would as its ferrari, but you get my point ;)
It didn't work for Massa last year. And I think he was trying quite hard ;)
onikami, Leica WAS a quality brand. Not now. It lost that status many years ago due to a complete failure to embrace the future, and a head-in-the-sand belief that quality engineering would win through over everything. That attitude doesn't sit well with digital, and the M8 is a very good example of how to get it absolutely wrong with a blind and dogmatic view.
The brand is in tatters and its future hangs in the balance. Only a few die-hards use them, and people with more money than sense. Like this bloke on the link below, who is clearly struggling to get the hang of it. The best Leica today is made by Panasonic, and has never been near Germany.
I'm not surprised you have not heard of them. Why should you? They are hardly headline camera makers. And now that you do know a little, what difference has that made to your photography, the camera you use, or the way you take pictures? Nothing. That is how relevant Leica is today, and that saddens me greatly.
Eric Clapton in trouble with his Leica M8 :D
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-472172/Eric-Clapton-No-Lens-Scapon.html
iammartin
21-03-2009, 12:57
This thread is pretty awful towards the original poster in places.. you all had to learn about Leica at some point. His only mistake was posting a topic instead of googling the brand.
This thread is pretty awful towards the original poster in places.. you all had to learn about Leica at some point. His only mistake was posting a topic instead of googling the brand.
I agree, some of the posters in here have been quite condescending.
The Leica was actually the very first 35mm camera. You have to realise the scorn that was heaped on this tiny negative format at the time, in a world full of large format cameras. The quality of available 35mm film in the early days didn't help it's reputation.
Legendary street/ candid photographers like Henri Cartier- Bresson were quick to realise the potential of this small camera and working unnoticed compared to the large commonly used cameras. Work by Bresson and other great photographers enhanced the popularity of the format enormously, but there was still a lot of scorn for 35mm in the late 50's (when I became interested) from photograhers who almost universally used medium format cameras, the Rolleiflex, being almost a badge of office for working pros. As available 35mm film improved, so more pros gradually adopted the smaller format.
Leicas were always made to the highest standards of German engineering and the M Series has always been considered pretty much the pinnacle of rangefinder perfection.
I'm not in the least surprised that a newcomer to photography, wouldn't have heard of Leica these days since the digital explosion.
That's an interesting post, thank you :)
I cant see how they can a be better than a top range digital SLR. :shrug:
It doesn't have to have a flipping mirror (hehe) to mean good quality.
You are paying for the pleasure of using a camera of unrivaled quality, which is a joy to use
My first exposure to Leica was its mention in the 1985 BBC TV adaptation of Tom Sharpe's Blott on the Landscape :)
Some old woman with a camera (http://boomer-cafe.net/version2/images/stories/objets/leica/Queen_leica.jpg)
http://boomer-cafe.net/version2/images/stories/objets/leica/Queen_leica.jpg
This thread is pretty awful towards the original poster in places.. you all had to learn about Leica at some point. His only mistake was posting a topic instead of googling the brand.
I agree, some of the posters in here have been quite condescending.
There have been a few patronising posters who have been added to my ignore list, but the thread has also been rather interesting to read.
Some old woman with a camera (http://boomer-cafe.net/version2/images/stories/objets/leica/Queen_leica.jpg)
http://boomer-cafe.net/version2/images/stories/objets/leica/Queen_leica.jpg
You might know a lot about cameras, but you can't post links for ****. :D
Leica is the dogs danglies (for those who can afford them!!)
http://www.lhsa.org/vf_covers/v34_04b.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_Freedom_Train
http://leica-users.org/v29/msg15270.html
My first exposure to Leica was its mention in the 1985 BBC TV adaptation of Tom Sharpe's Blott on the Landscape :)
Blimey. It's been some time since I heard that program mentioned! I used to love it. I believe it was my very first exposure to breasts that weren't my mothers.
Steve Smith
21-03-2009, 17:15
Are these people the Rolls Royce of the camera indusrty?
Yes they are.... but all of their good cameras take film.
Steve.
Steve Smith
21-03-2009, 17:20
So 35mm film is actually nicely in the middle being faster than LF/MF and slower than digital anything.
I would say that 35mm was faster than 'digital anything' as you don't waste time looking at the back at the picture you have just taken whilst missing the next shot.
Steve.
You might know a lot about cameras, but you can't post links for ****. :D
:D Probably some bandwidth/hotlink issues from that site.
Here's the old dear with a '50's M3.
http://www.athz90.dsl.pipex.com/Pics/Queen_leica.jpg
I think everyone shooting digitally should spend some time shooting with a hefty dollop of gaffa tape over the screen.:D
Shooting film again has taught me not to chimp, I'll check the first shot for blinkies and after that one I won't look again. I do it deliberately so I concentrate on my shooting. :thumbs:
grumpybadger
21-03-2009, 18:33
It amazes me the number of people who miss the moment whilst "chimping". As you say Ali, check the histrogram and then ignore the screen.
I've never had a Leica camera (although I lust after a D-LUX 4) but my Leica binoculars are simply stunning. Come with a 30 year warranty too!
I have to agree with one of the above points. A couple of very condescending posts on this thread.
I've gotten into photography over the last year and a half and have become more and more addicted as I've gone on. Thanks to this forum and some members, I recorded all of the Genius of Photography series and the BBC Photography night. This was the first time I'd really seen Leica mentioned (I think that Joel the street photographer uses one, might be wrong ***) and learnt a great deal about the history of photography itself, fantastic viewing and learning (Bresson etc..)
I'm 35, and I can absolutely guarantee that if I asked my friends of the same age to name camera brands, Leica would be a very rare mention indeed, if at all. Although I now know through following this thread that they hold a very special place in photography history and hopefully long may they continue.
Some good info on the history and evolution of the Leica HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_Camera)
I think everyone shooting digitally should spend some time shooting with a hefty dollop of gaffa tape over the screen.:D
Shooting film again has taught me not to chimp, I'll check the first shot for blinkies and after that one I won't look again. I do it deliberately so I concentrate on my shooting. :thumbs:
I've turned the preview option on my 5d2 off. It's great now, no more distractions. The only thing that I'd like to still be able to see is the histogram.
grumpybadger
21-03-2009, 18:53
I always turn off auto preview if that is what you mean. If not, the screen will shine up and reduce contrast and visibility in the view finder. You can always press the "play" button if you want to check
The saddest thing of all about these cameras, is that they are highly prized by collectors, particularly special and limited editions, like the one used by the Nazis which bore the emblem of the Luftwaffe. Condition is everything to collectors, to the extent that if you remove the shrink celluloid wrapping you've already reduced it's value, so they don't ...ever! Sad, sad, sad! :gag:
Graham00
21-03-2009, 19:02
My dad's never even held a camera, not to my knowledge anyway but mentions Leica as a top make of camera (probably being in the removal business) and as a kid i always thought Olympus were the top make because David Bailey used them.
cressers
21-03-2009, 19:08
Leica WAS niche - and its niche was rich people. The attempt to go mainstream will kill them as it devalues their brand.
Same as if Louis Vuitton started selling 50quid handbags. Brand is everything and the current management seem to have missed this.
Zeiss have done the same thing - Nokia is about the only company who benefitted from them in recent years.
PS: ok, i want to try one - anyone have a D LUX or C LUX lying around and want some cash - PM me :)
Flash In The Pan
21-03-2009, 19:12
But by that same analogy, isn't there a Korean car manufacturer that makes 4x4 based on Mercedes components? Does that make it any better, or even close to the quality of a Mercedes?
Taking it from there, Lexus (which is really just a fancy branded Toyota) now make better quality cars than Mercedes .. that doesn't stop the masses from wanting to own a Mercedes as opposed to a Lexus!
Point is, it's a global market with a lot of shared resources. If Leica are re-branded Panasonic, then we'd have to give in to Porsche being a re-branded VW!
Personally, if I had the ££££ to buy an M8 (even if it is just a re-branded Panasonic) then I'd happily fork-out the money for it. If only to look at it.
Yes, Ssangyong, use old Merc technology in some of their cars, but that's not the same thing. You're nearer with the Toyota/Lexus analogy, after all the IS200 (the previous generation at least) is just a rebadged Toyota Altzezza, but that doesn't mean the IS200 is worth any more than the Altezza, but Leica market their rebranded Panasonics as if they are something special.
The M8, however, afaik as I know has nowt to do with Panasonic and, despite all it's faults, I'd still like one :D
M8 ... "like one" , , , that's an understatement.
If I could rebuild my whole photography kit, I'd probably just buy an M8 and a few lenses. Shame on me, I'm contemplating a D3x now :shake:
If only I had a much bigger cashpot, if only :'(
Leica WAS niche - and its niche was rich people. The attempt to go mainstream will kill them as it devalues their brand.
I don't think its niche was rich people, ok you had to have some money to buy one but its a professional camera.
A few grand isn't unusual for a top brand pro spec camera.
I'd guess £500 50 years ago was worth £5000, how much is a 40D these days ?
You don't need to be rich to buy a 40D, just interested enough.
I think sales of Leica's really hit the buffers with the arrival of digital, but then so did all film camera manufacturers.
I don't think they're quite hitting the mark with the M8, there will always be Leica nuts willing to buy Leica equipment whatever its flaws, its the non Leica nuts who in searching for a digital rangefinder weigh up the competition before a decision, flaws will kill Leica.
Flash In The Pan
21-03-2009, 20:29
its the non Leica nuts who in searching for a digital rangefinder weigh up the competition before a decision, flaws will kill Leica.
Plus Epson are relaunching the R-D1s.......:naughty:
I never really considered digital rangefinders before :thinking:
I have it in my head that digital = cheap plastic crap dead in 3 years :lol:
I'm kinda interested in the focussing...
https://secure.ffordes.com/Shop/Store/Itemdet.asp?Type=secd?=0&Code=DC&SubCode=&id=50059&promo=0
Flash In The Pan
21-03-2009, 21:38
https://secure.ffordes.com/Shop/Store/Itemdet.asp?Type=secd?=0&Code=DC&SubCode=&id=50059&promo=0
That looks like a piece of Scandinavian furniture :lol:
erm its one of the finest cameras ever produced....EVER
I wouldn't say the Leica M8 is... although a good argument could be made for the M series being some of the finest cameras ever made.
I've never used one, but I did go into a shop and hold an M6 and an M8 - I'm not normally a sucker for this sort of thing, but they feel unlike any other camera I've ever experienced; solid, beautiful and - judging by the photos I've seen taken with them, - amazing cameras.
and - judging by the photos I've seen taken with them, - amazing cameras.
May I refer you to the first link in post #98? ;)
Does anyone have any links to pictures taken with a Leica?
http://www.die-feder-wetzlar.de/bilder/referenzen/bildbearbeitung/Leica-Camera_Kalender2000.pdf
http://shardsofphotography.blogspot.com/2005/09/nick-ut-and-napalm-girl-photo.html
Does anyone have any links to pictures taken with a Leica?
Many famous photographers used Leica's, but not always exclusively, its not often noted whether a famous image was shot with a Leica or not.
Did you see the BBC documentary on James Ravilious the other week, he shot Leica.
http://www.jamesravilious.com/gallery.asp
(http://www.jamesravilious.com/gallery.asp)
M8 particularly ? (http://search.pbase.com/search?q=leica+m8&b=Search+Photos&c=sp)
Bresson (http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.PhotographerDetail_VPage&l1=0&pid=2K7O3R14T1LX&nm=Henri%20Cartier%20-%20Bresson), Capa (http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.PhotographerDetail_VPage&l1=0&pid=2K7O3R14YQNW&nm=Robert%20Capa) and Winogrand (http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artMakerDetails?maker=1834) shot Leica mostly
to the extent that if you remove the shrink celluloid wrapping you've already reduced it's value, so they don't ...ever! Sad, sad, sad! :gag:
That's great for people who want to USE them as opposed to put them in a cupboard on display, surely!
Bring back the Olympus Trip and give it live view. Whoooooooooooooo!!! :lol:
I haven't had it long, but I'm very much enjoying using my Voightlander R2A. For those who are unfamiliar with them, it's a Japanese rangefinder film camera, built to roughly the same quality as a semi-pro DSLR like my D200, it takes Leica M-mount lenses and costs about 1/6 as much as a real Leica.
I think it's a case of choosing the right tools for different styles of photography myself. If I want to do macro, use any sort of telephoto lens, take lots and lots of pictures quickly, need autofocus, flash or a tripod, I'll use an SLRs. Whether film or digital (I use both) SLRs are very flexible tools that can do a lot of things pretty well.
A Leica-type camera is useless with anything but the shortest of teles, barely usable for macro only with added doo-dads and a lot of fiddling, has incredibly primitive metering if it's got a meter at all, what you see through the viewfinder isn't always what you're going to get (in terms of framing) and all of the ones that normal people can afford (until secondhand M8's get a bit cheaper) require you to use film.
That's OK though for certain types of photography which I enjoy and actually, for the limited range of photographic tasks where it's usable at all, I think that style of camera has some advantages over SLRs. It's not that much smaller or lighter than my F3 with an AIS lens on it for example, but it's just enough smaller and less bulky as to make the difference between taking it with me or not on a significant number of occasions, it doesn't draw attention like a big DSLR, doesn't say 'pro camera' to anyone but a fellow enthusiast and it handles very nicely indeed. For what it does it's 'just right'
If you're exposing manually anyway, and pre-focussing, it's actually very quick and easy to use once you get the hang of it. While the framing isn't always accurate, you can see what you're capturing because the viewfinder doesn't black out when you click. There's no delay while computers decide whether and what to take a picture of. You're completely in control of the focus point and exposure (for better or worse) Also, from short tele to wide angle, even the cheapish Voightlander lenses are really, really good, apparently because it's easier to design a good lens if you don't have to use retrofocus to accomodate the way that an SLR works. The somewhat more expensive lenses from Zeiss and the vastly more expensive ones from Leica are just stunningly good in most cases.
I've never owned an actual Leica nor shot with one much, so I can't really comment on whether the bodies are better enough to justify costing an order of magnitude more than my Voightlander. I suspect not personally, though with some of the lenses it's possibly a bit more arguable. The basic style of camera though, assuming you want to do that sort of photography at all and (unless you're really rich) enjoy using film, has a great deal going for it in my personal opinion.
Radiohead
24-03-2009, 08:33
I'm not seeing any condescending posts towards the OP.
What I did see was someone look at a price without knowing what the camera is or does, compare to to a DSLR when it's a very different tool, want it without knowing why, complain because it's not affordable for him, then label it as a rich-man's plaything and then act quite aggressively towards anyone pointing out that (whisper it, on a photography forum) it might be worth finding out more about something before taking an entrenched position.
Bizarre.
I'm not seeing any condescending posts towards the OP.
What I did see was someone look at a price without knowing what the camera is or does, compare to to a DSLR when it's a very different tool, want it without knowing why, complain because it's not affordable for him, then label it as a rich-man's plaything and then act quite aggressively towards anyone pointing out that (whisper it, on a photography forum) it might be worth finding out more about something before taking an entrenched position.
Bizarre.
:lol:
CScottMcQueen
24-03-2009, 20:21
Its all a pile off old toss, Leica superb no beautifully engineered film cameras that will go down in history just for that reason.
But as for digital the Leica M8, M8.2 and all their panasonic love children shot be crushed and never spoken of again. Their venture into the digital age has been a disaster and I hope the M9 if its everbuilt will be their saviour!
But don't get me wrong I would still own one they are lovely looking (pretty) cameras and im way too lazy to mess around with film.
:)
ujjwaldey8165
24-03-2009, 22:24
I'm not seeing any condescending posts towards the OP.
What I did see was someone look at a price without knowing what the camera is or does, compare to to a DSLR when it's a very different tool, want it without knowing why, complain because it's not affordable for him, then label it as a rich-man's plaything and then act quite aggressively towards anyone pointing out that (whisper it, on a photography forum) it might be worth finding out more about something before taking an entrenched position.
Bizarre.
:clap::clap::clap:
I bought my wife a second hand Leica Digilux 2 off fleabay a couple of years ago. It's a lovely bit of kit with a cracking zoom lens and produces some excellent pictures. At times you forget that it's on 5 megapixel. Downside is that it's not very quick to use and has an LCD viewfinder. Silent shutter though which comes in handy.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.