[Leica] M8 and the Future

[hoppyman at bigpond.net.au (G Hopkinson)]

Thanks B.D. It seems it may have been the Reid reviews site which requires a 
subscription.
Perhaps someone who has access can comment on whether they have examples 
from a production camera, which seems unlikely? Perhaps
they have not heeded Leica's request that preproduction pics not be posted?
I understand what you are saying regarding those features that may be 
important to pro's.
I'm certainly not one of those. I rue that extension factor, whilst I do 
understand its genesis. Still, better than 1.5 or more, I
would think, as far as operation with existing lenses. To be fair, I'd have 
to acknowledge that it needn't be an issue for every
lens except for the 28. That is there is an equivalent or near equivalent 
for most, regarding size, performance, cost. 
Cheers
Hoppy

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+hoppyman=bigpond.net.au@leica-users.org 
[mailto:lug-bounces+hoppyman=bigpond.net.au@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
B. D. Colen
Sent: Friday, 27 October 2006 07:51
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] M8 and the Future

It was a subscription-only site someone pointed me to - and let me into -
with an extremely extensive, two-part review by someone who is clearly an M
enthusiast, but noted the short comings. I don't have it book-marked, but am
trying to get the name of it.

As to the question of whether I think it will be a pro or an 'am' camera -
no, I don't think many will sell to working pros, although some undoubtedly
will. But we agree that most sales will be to enthusiasts. I think that if
it was weather sealed, and had really good high iso performance, even with
the 1.3 crop factor it would have a much bigger pro market.


On 10/26/06 5:39 PM, "G Hopkinson" <hoppyman@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> B.D., I follow your observations on this and would like to add some 
> questions
> and comments. 
> Where are the review images located that you have used to compare the high 
> ISO
> performance?
> I have only read reviews thus far based on pre-production examples. Those
> reviewers, quite properly, have refrained from posting
> images, commenting that the firmware is not the commercial release.
> Do you consider that pros will be the most significant market? I would have
> thought that they would sell in greater quantity to
> amateur enthusiasts, notwithstanding that a few pros may well buy them too.
> Finally I think that you have identified the most significant factor that 
> may
> disappoint current M owners, being the 1.33 extension
> factor (as christened by Leica). For wide users, it means that you must pay
> for and use a much bulkier 21mm or the new Tri design to
> approximate the FOV of the lovely 28's.
> Cheers
> Hoppy
> 
> l Message-----
> From: lug-bounces+hoppyman=bigpond.net.au@leica-users.org
> [mailto:lug-bounces+hoppyman=bigpond.net.au@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
> B. D. Colen
> Sent: Friday, 27 October 2006 01:03
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] M8 and the Future
> 
> Not a point, Adam - merely an observation. The question is whether the
> demand, and the margin, will make up for the loss of demand and margin for
> film cameras. Remember that the company has been skittering on the edge of
> the abyss based on film camera sales. Doing better than barely surviving
> requires not only that the digital cameras sell well, but that they sell so
> well that the loss of film cameras isn't felt. (And one has to assume that
> there have been fairly large design and start -up costs associated with 
> this
> camera, costs that are absent from the film camera cost equation/)
> 
> Also, from the review images I've seen, there is not a hint that the camera
> produces images better than film at high isos - and its high iso images do
> not begin to touch those produced by the Canon 5D.
> 
> I'd suggest that the M8 clearly has three things going for it, which will
> make it appeal to the die-hard M base - It is clearly an extremely solidly
> built, very M-like, rangefinder digital. Beyond that, from a 
> pro-standpoint,
> it's mostly downhill - no real low-speed iso (160 is the lowest, apparently
> because Leica believes that the lower the starting iso, the harder it is to
> control noise at the high end of the scale); comparative very weak high iso
> performance; no weather or dust sealing; not full-frame, so the fabulous M
> lenses can't be used at their original focal lengths; odd and limited iso
> scale. All offered at a price that's $1500 higher than a film M for a 
> camera
> that simply will not have anything like the life expectancy of a film M.
> 
> But - with all that said, it's an M-like rangefinder that takes M lenses -
> and there's a great deal to be said for that.
> 
> B. D. 
>