 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / November 2006Leica M8 Best crop-frame pictures yet?
I saw some images from this thing recently. First time I've seen images at 100% that didn't look like they needed sharpening. I don't know what Leica did, but it looks like people will get their money's worth, even though the rig with a 50mm f2 lens will cost about $7000.00. This is definitely not another sad Panasonic clone with a 50% price premium. How on earth do you know what was done to the image before you saw it? Because they told you so? > How on earth do you know what was done to the image before you saw it? > Because they told you so? As usual he made it up. Mind you they should be sharper as they do not have an AA filter. > > How on earth do you know what was done to the image before you saw it? > > Because they told you so? > As usual he made it up. Mind you they should be sharper as they do not have > an AA filter. Made it up? Moron. Check out Reid Reviews, if you can spare the $23.00 >> > How on earth do you know what was done to the image before you saw it? >> > Because they told you so? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Made it up? Moron. Check out Reid Reviews, if you can spare the $23.00 $23, you made that up too! As if?? > How on earth do you know what was done to the image before you saw it? > Because they told you so? Yes, trust no one. http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/leica-m8.shtml Of course file size needs to be considered. At 10.3 MP the M8 offers enough resolution for most personal and professional applications. It's at the current sweet spot for digital camera resolution. There are a few cameras that offer more, but few to none that can beat the M8 in terms of overall image quality, regardless of file size. And since the camera lacks an AA filter I have found it possible to res-up files for very large prints to a greater extent than ones from cameras that do have an anti-aliasing filter installed. I have also found that M8 files need considerably less sharpening than those from Canon DSLRs. >> How on earth do you know what was done to the image before you saw it? >> Because they told you so? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > have an anti-aliasing filter installed. I have also found that M8 files > need considerably less sharpening than those from Canon DSLRs. So when did you get your M8? You write like you have one, which of course well all know isn't true. Is it possible to block messages to this news group from that annoying little man? >I saw some images from this thing recently. First time I've seen > images at 100% that didn't look like they needed sharpening. I don't > know what Leica did, but it looks like people will get their money's > worth, even though the rig with a 50mm f2 lens will cost about > $7000.00. This is definitely not another sad Panasonic clone with a > 50% price premium. > Is it possible to block messages to this news group from that annoying > little man? I suppose you'd like to ban TV programs you don't like because for some reason, you are "forced" to watch them? Just skip the post. > > Is it possible to block messages to this news group from that annoying > > little man? > > I suppose you'd like to ban TV programs you don't like because for some > reason, you are "forced" to watch them? Just skip the post. Promise you won't morph to evade kill files? >> Is it possible to block messages to this news group from that annoying >> little man? > > I suppose you'd like to ban TV programs you don't like because for some > reason, you are "forced" to watch them? Just skip the post. Why? I can configure my TV to skip the channels that I'll never watch. Why can't the other person add you to his killfile so he never has to see your obnoxious posts? Greg  Signature"All my time I spent in heaven Revelries of dance and wine Waking to the sound of laughter Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons > >> Is it possible to block messages to this news group from that annoying > >> little man? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Greg Why would someone like you even care about any post about the Leica? It's like asking the family dog if they'd prefer to ride in a Lexus or a Trabant. If I could justify the cost of an M8 I would order one tomorrow. > If I could justify the cost of an M8 I would order one tomorrow. It's very tempting, yes. But having to go into the menu to do exposure compensation and set ISO *really* sucks, and I hope they address that in an M9. I'd probably still buy one, though, if I wanted to drop that much cash, which I really don't... SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > > If I could justify the cost of an M8 I would order one tomorrow. > > It's very tempting, yes. But having to go into the menu to do exposure > compensation and set ISO *really* sucks, and I hope they address that > in an M9. I'd probably still buy one, though, if I wanted to drop that > much cash, which I really don't... I don't think having to use the menu for those settings is too much of an issue for Leica shooters. You have to remember that your approach with this sort of camera is completely different to that of an SLR. You ain't buying it for speed! Less, is more. Signaturewww.nikongear.com Share, learn, win. > I don't think having to use the menu for those settings is too much of > an issue for Leica shooters. You have to remember that your approach > with this sort of camera is completely different to that of an SLR. You > ain't buying it for speed! I could live with ISO, but exposure compensation? Having to even take the camera away from your eye to use that is just plain stupid. I use it all the time. And since half the thing of a Leica is street shooting, I can't even *imagine* not having fast access to exposure compensation; it would be utterly crippling. Just thinking about it, it seems to me that it negates most of the reason to use the camera instead of an SLR. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > I could live with ISO, but exposure compensation? Having to even take the > camera away from your eye to use that is just plain stupid. I use it all > the time. I am not a Leica user but I guess the reason is most Leica people shoot with manual exposure. There you need no "compensation", just set the exposure over or under as much as you want, using the aperture and shutter speed controls. >> I could live with ISO, but exposure compensation? Having to even take the >> camera away from your eye to use that is just plain stupid. I use it all [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > exposure over or under as much as you want, using the aperture and > shutter speed controls. It's a stupid joke surely. Put high-tech electronics in an anachronistic shell, then cripple ergonomic access to features that provide significant advances in usability. If it's sensible to cripple a camera in such a way - just for the sake of nostalgia - then you may as well be an authentic luddite and just stick to using film. > It's a stupid joke surely. > Put high-tech electronics in an anachronistic shell, then cripple > ergonomic access to features that provide significant advances in > usability. Well, I frequently use a Canon FTb. It has manual exposure with a needle meter. I prefer it's method of setting exposure, which is, I set the aperture and shutter speeds manually but (mostly) according to the needle meter. I think I get a good "touch" on the scene this way instead of letting the camera do everything for me. In this method of setting exposure there is no need for a separate exposure compensation setting. So, IF one prefers this method of setting exposure, then one won't miss an exposure compensation setting on the M8. If not, well, Leica has never been a favourite of people who want automatic-everything and seems they're not changing that now. A quicker way to set the ISO would be useful though. >> It's a stupid joke surely. >> Put high-tech electronics in an anachronistic shell, then cripple [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > A quicker way to set the ISO would be useful though. The whole point of the simplicity of the Leicas (and for cameras like the Nikon FM) was not for luddites rejecting technological advances. It was for reliability in extreme conditions. If Leica can make a digital "M9" that doesn't need batteries - and works forever hundreds of miles from the nearest power outlet, then they will have achieved something. For now they have just made an expensive toy. > The whole point of the simplicity of the Leicas (and for cameras like > the Nikon FM) was not for luddites rejecting technological advances. It > was for reliability in extreme conditions. BS. > If Leica can make a digital "M9" that doesn't need batteries - and works > forever hundreds of miles from the nearest power outlet, then they will > have achieved something. > > For now they have just made an expensive toy. Clearly these are the words of a jerk who has never used a Leica (or any rangefinder, for that matter). Signaturewww.nikongear.com Share, learn, win. >> The whole point of the simplicity of the Leicas (and for cameras like >> the Nikon FM) was not for luddites rejecting technological advances. It [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Clearly these are the words of a jerk who has never used a Leica (or any > rangefinder, for that matter). Name any significant technical advance from Leica in the past 30 years. The M series lives back in the 50s. I did have one in the 60s. For image quality and also for usability, $800 dlsrs will outperform it. The M9 is a lombard toy. >Name any significant technical advance from Leica in the past 30 years. The M3 was already a very advanced camera in 1954. It was also very close to perfect. It has been steadily developed with the addition of viewfinder frames for a full range of lenses from 28mm to 135mm (M4-P), a uniquely accurate TTL light meter (M6), aperture priority AE and slow speed TTL flash synch at all shutter speeds (M7), with a rangefinder that is accurate enough to focus a 50mm f/1, 75mm f/1.4 or a 90mm f/2 with great precision and speed (all models). The technical advances from Leica have come in the form of outstanding lenses. It is the lens that forms the image, and Leica lenses are capable of producing outstanding images. The 35mm and 50mm f/2 Summicrons have consistently been the best lenses for 35mm photography in those focal lengths. Each version has been a significant technical advance on its predecessor. The latest 50mm f/1.4 ASPH Summilux is optically the best 50mm lens ever made for the 35mm format, with outstanding sharpness and remarkable absence of distortion and aberrations. The 50mm f/1 Noctilux is the only successful lens wider than f/1.2 for the 35mm format and is a remarkable performer, not least for a lack of optical quirks when used at more normal apertures. The now discontinued Canon EOS 50mm f/1 did not even come close, being optically far inferior despite costing even more than the Leica lens. The 21mm and 24mm ASPH f/2.8 Elmarits set new standards for ultra wide angle lenses, performing at their supreme best when wide open, rather than stopped down. Wide open, the 24mm f/2.8 is sharper than any other 24mm lens for the 35mm format, of any brand, at any aperture. The 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M and f/2 Summicron APO ASPH are outstanding portrait lenses with superb sharpness and a delightfully smooth rendition of out of focus elements of the image - a characteristic they share with many other Leica lenses. The 28-35-50mm f/4 ASPH Tri-Elmar brought zoom technology to rangefinder cameras, offering performance that equalled that of the equivalent Leica fixed focal length lenses. The new 16-18-21mm f/4 ASPH Tri-Elmar will offer much the same performance in the extreme wide-angle range of focal lengths. Now we have the digital M8 body, which like the R9/DMR digital SLR is capable of rendering detail at least as well as Canon's EOS 1Ds Mk II despite the latter having 60% more pixels. It includes the remarkable technical advance of offset micro-lenses, which ensure that light fall-off is kept below the levels seen with the same lenses on film, and that the superb optical qualities of Leica lenses are fully reflected in the resulting images. Don't be fooled by the traditional appearance of the M8. It has every possible technical advance included, except of course some of those found on other brands that are simply not required to produce excellent images. Less is more. The 2006 M8 looks very similar to the 1954 M3, and it handles much the same. That is no coincidence. There is no need to change the fundamental principles of a Leica rangefinder camera, because they work every bit as well now for photographers as they did 52 years ago. >> Name any significant technical advance from Leica in the past 30 years. > > The M3 was already a very advanced camera in 1954. True It was also very > close to perfect. Subjective. It has been steadily developed with the addition of > viewfinder frames for a full range of lenses from 28mm to 135mm > (M4-P), a uniquely accurate TTL light meter (M6), Care to offer a cite for the "uniquely accurate" claim? aperture priority AE > and slow speed TTL flash synch at all shutter speeds (M7), with a > rangefinder that is accurate enough to focus a 50mm f/1, 75mm f/1.4 or [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the 35mm format, with outstanding sharpness and remarkable absence of > distortion and aberrations. Photodo give it an MTF score of 4.2 - same as a 50mm f1.4 AF-D nikkor. Canon EF 50 1.4 gets a 4.4. The Summilux costs the same as a Canon 5d body - or a small case full of 50mm Nikkors or Canons. > The 50mm f/1 Noctilux is the only successful lens wider than f/1.2 for > the 35mm format and is a remarkable performer, not least for a lack of > optical quirks when used at more normal apertures. The now > discontinued Canon EOS 50mm f/1 did not even come close, being > optically far inferior despite costing even more than the Leica lens. And having a mirror box to contend with. > The 21mm and 24mm ASPH f/2.8 Elmarits set new standards for ultra wide > angle lenses, performing at their supreme best when wide open, rather > than stopped down. Wide open, the 24mm f/2.8 is sharper than any > other 24mm lens for the 35mm format, of any brand, at any aperture. Except they aren't ultra-wide on an M8 > The 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M and f/2 Summicron APO ASPH are outstanding > portrait lenses with superb sharpness and a delightfully smooth [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ASPH Tri-Elmar will offer much the same performance in the extreme > wide-angle range of focal lengths. Except even 16mm isn't extreme wide angle in M8 format. > Now we have the digital M8 body, which like the R9/DMR digital SLR is > capable of rendering detail at least as well as Canon's EOS 1Ds Mk II > despite the latter having 60% more pixels. Are you sure of that? "As you can see the 1Ds Mk. II provides quite a bit more detail to work with. In any case we most of the time we would be happy with the DMR resolution." - Outback Photo R9 DMR review. (Translation - it doesn't render detail nearly as well as a 1Ds Mk II) > It includes the remarkable > technical advance of offset micro-lenses, which ensure that light > fall-off is kept below the levels seen with the same lenses on film, > and that the superb optical qualities of Leica lenses are fully > reflected in the resulting images. Now that is yet to be proved. > Don't be fooled by the traditional appearance of the M8. It has every > possible technical advance included, except of course some of those [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > fundamental principles of a Leica rangefinder camera, because they > work every bit as well now for photographers as they did 52 years ago. Subjectively, some may choose to like it. I think that they're nuts. >Photodo give it an MTF score of 4.2 - same as a 50mm f1.4 AF-D nikkor. >Canon EF 50 1.4 gets a 4.4. There is no comparison between the Summilux and the Canon/Nikon lenses. As a photographic tool, the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 is a very poor lens unless you value unpleasant out of focus characteristics, which of course over-simplistic MTF testing completely fails to recognise. Having owned two of these lenses, including the current version, I can state that its poor optics were at the root of my reasons for abandoning Nikon for Pentax and Leica. The absence of any optically competent Nikon lenses in the 35mm and 50mm focal lengths was key to that decision, although I recognise that other focal lengths were better served in the Nikon range. Photodo's bizarre and highly subjective testing "methods" consistently fail to recognise optical excellence that translates into superior images and reward optical mediocrity with ridiculously high scores. The arbitrary nature of Photodo's results, and the fact that high scores seem more often to correlate with optical incompetence, mean that people who understand optics tend to avoid it like the plague. Photodo is the last refuge of idiots who don't understand optics but love simplistic numbers that seem to tell them something while meaning absolutely nothing. >> Photodo give it an MTF score of 4.2 - same as a 50mm f1.4 AF-D nikkor. >> Canon EF 50 1.4 gets a 4.4. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lens unless you value unpleasant out of focus characteristics, which > of course over-simplistic MTF testing completely fails to recognise. There is a "comparison" I directed you to photodo. They did one. As far as OOF rendering goes, fans of the new Zeiss lenses said exactly the same thing - about the wonderful boket. Then someone tested them, posted sample images on the net. The funniest thing were the gasps from the fans saying that the Zeiss lenses *do* have better boket - more sharply defined small bright OOF highlights - rather than smoothed out. Too funny - it makes me cry from laughing. > Having owned two of these lenses, including the current version, I can > state that its poor optics were at the root of my reasons for > abandoning Nikon for Pentax and Leica. The absence of any optically > competent Nikon lenses in the 35mm and 50mm focal lengths was key to > that decision, although I recognise that other focal lengths were > better served in the Nikon range. Now that's rich. The score of 4.2 that Photodo gave the Summilux (and Nikkor) is a very good score - there aren't many lenses that score over 4. Leica do have more than their share - they make some fabulous lenses. But the Canon 50mm 1.4 scores a little bit higher yet costs a fraction of the price. > Photodo's bizarre and highly subjective testing "methods" consistently > fail to recognise optical excellence that translates into superior > images and reward optical mediocrity with ridiculously high scores. > The arbitrary nature of Photodo's results, and the fact that high > scores seem more often to correlate with optical incompetence, mean > that people who understand optics tend to avoid it like the plague. What nonsense. The problem some may have is that the tests are too objective - and don't take into consideration airy-fairy waffle. > Photodo is the last refuge of idiots who don't understand optics but > love simplistic numbers that seem to tell them something while meaning > absolutely nothing. > > Waffle about intangibles is very much worse. > There is no comparison between the Summilux and the Canon/Nikon > lenses. As a photographic tool, the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 is a very poor > lens unless you value unpleasant out of focus characteristics, which > of course over-simplistic MTF testing completely fails to recognise. It gets a bit tiresome, how people treat MTF as a "goodness" score of lenses. It's really just one factor, certainly not anywhere near the most important. The Nikon 50/1.4 AF is a pretty good lens. I don't care what the MTF chart says; it's not up there with the Best Of Nikon. > The absence of any optically competent Nikon lenses in the 35mm and > 50mm focal lengths was key to that decision, although I recognise that > other focal lengths were better served in the Nikon range. I've got a Nikon 50/1.2 AI-S, and a 50/1.8 AI-S (early model), and both of them are better than the AF ones. I haven't even looked at the MTF charts and don't really care what they say; they are both very good lenses, better than the 50/1.4. Photodo wouldn't matter anyway because places like that never seem to realize that there are optical differences between different models of the 50/1.8, and they rarely even tell you which version they tested. > Photodo's bizarre and highly subjective testing "methods" consistently > fail to recognise optical excellence that translates into superior > images and reward optical mediocrity with ridiculously high scores. > The arbitrary nature of Photodo's results, and the fact that high > scores seem more often to correlate with optical incompetence, mean > that people who understand optics tend to avoid it like the plague. Well, you'll notice that the people who think it is important tend also to be the ones for whom "sharpness" is the main or only criteria for image quality. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > Well, you'll notice that the people who think it is important tend also > to be the ones for whom "sharpness" is the main or only criteria for > image quality. Leica leaving off an anti-alias filter? Many of us feel this was a cheap way to make their images look sharper but will have bad effects in some shooting situations. In fact the more jaded amongst us wonder if they had to leave the filter off to try and keep the Leica lens myth alive. Scott >>Well, you'll notice that the people who think it is important tend also >>to be the ones for whom "sharpness" is the main or only criteria for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > if they had to leave the filter off to try and keep the Leica lens myth > alive. Anti aliasing can be done in software as well, in camera or postprocessing. I don't know if Leica do that in-camera, but it is an available avenue. If well done then it may be preferable to permanent optical A-A in the body as it leaves more options open. Most s/w A-A applications are for the output end of the process, where the A-A applies to the exact size of the produced image taking into account the physical resolution of the display or printer. In the end this may be the overall very best way to handle aliasing, so capturing the image with highest definition is also the best input to the system. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > >>Well, you'll notice that the people who think it is important tend also > >>to be the ones for whom "sharpness" is the main or only criteria for [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Anti aliasing can be done in software as well, in camera or postprocessing. No it can not. If this were true no digital camera would have an anti aliasing filter on it. There are things you can do to try and reduce the effects but these only work to a limited extent. Aliasing take high frequency content and translates in with the low frequencies, it is then not possible to tell what is real and what is from aliasing. For many images leaving off the AA filter will give a better looking image, but in some cases it will be a disaster and not amount of post processing will bring it back. Even camera with an anti-alias filter are not immune to this problem since they tend to be weaker then is needed to eliminate the problem, but by leaving it out all together the M8 will run into this problem much more often. Here is an exterme example of what you can get http://www.pbase.com/northqueenslandphotos/image/62850197 This shows that even with an AA filter you can get it http://www.pbase.com/ccpandq/image/29265458 But if the D70 did not have the AA filter it would go from looking a bit odd to being unusable. Here is another one http://www.pbase.com/image/53309505 And another http://www.pbase.com/image/41028203 Looks like maybe the D70 needs a stronger AA filter Oh and here is another camea without a AA filter http://www.pbase.com/image/42103676 Scott >>>>Well, you'll notice that the people who think it is important tend also >>>>to be the ones for whom "sharpness" is the main or only criteria for [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > No it can not. You're right. Had my Nyquist on backwards. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>Anti aliasing can be done in software as well, in camera or postprocessing. > > No it can not. If this were true no digital camera would have an anti > aliasing filter on it. OTOH: from the Leica data sheet: ""Moiré-Filter no, full utilization of lens performance. Moiré detection and elimination in digital signal processing."" Which is not "anti-aliasing" per se, but some technique they've developed for Moiré detection and presumably dedicated smoothing. Cheers, Alan >> There is no comparison between the Summilux and the Canon/Nikon >> lenses. As a photographic tool, the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 is a very poor [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >to be the ones for whom "sharpness" is the main or only criteria for >image quality. Exactly. Either that, or they simply don't know anything. Photodo's simplistic "rating" system has a certain appeal to the ignorant. It is only when you delve into the way the tests are done that you realise how completely misleading they are, even assuming that MTF tells you anything worthwhile about optical quality, which is moot. > Exactly. Either that, or they simply don't know anything. Photodo's > simplistic "rating" system has a certain appeal to the ignorant. > > It is only when you delve into the way the tests are done that you > realise how completely misleading they are, even assuming that MTF > tells you anything worthwhile about optical quality, which is moot. You are precisely right about the weighted ratings and blatently wrong about what MTF says about a lens. Proving again that you really do not understand what is useful at photodo and what is not. Of course with photography like http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000b.jpg one wonders why lens resolution is of anything but passing interest to you in the first place. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Photodo give it an MTF score of 4.2 - same as a 50mm f1.4 AF-D nikkor. > Canon EF 50 1.4 gets a 4.4. > The Summilux costs the same as a Canon 5d body - or a small case full of > 50mm Nikkors or Canons. What is MTF and how is it important in the manufacturing of a great image? Oh BTW, Leica lenses costs what they do because of factors relating more to economies of scale than anything else. Quality and quantity are seldom bedmates. > Subjectively, some may choose to like it. > I think that they're nuts. That doesn't give you the right to claim that the camera is inferior to anything when clearly you have never used one (and are probably unlikely to ever do so either). Signaturewww.nikongear.com Share, learn, win. >> Photodo give it an MTF score of 4.2 - same as a 50mm f1.4 AF-D nikkor. >> Canon EF 50 1.4 gets a 4.4. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > relating more to economies of scale than anything else. Quality and > quantity are seldom bedmates. As far as "manufacturing a great image goes", that's something that is far more dependent on who is holding the camera than on what kind of camera is being held. Spend a hundred grand on Leica equipment without learning the basics and you aren't going to be doing nearly as well as someone who got a point-and-shoot and spent that same money on a good training program and apprenticeship. Put Cartier-Bresson or Ansel Adams or Halsman behind a cheap point-and-shoot and you'll get better images than Joe Schmoe with the most expensive hardware on the market. But with regard to "what is MTF", it's an objective measure of contrast and sharpness and in general higher is better. Unless you're going for soft-focus and all else being equal it's generally easier to "manufacture a great image" using a lens with high MTF than with low MTF. Leica lenses generally are superbly made, but if they are showing lower MTF chan cheap Canons then the days when Leicas ruled the roost on optical performance are over. >> Subjectively, some may choose to like it. >> I think that they're nuts. > > That doesn't give you the right to claim that the camera is inferior to > anything when clearly you have never used one (and are probably unlikely > to ever do so either). When you compare Lieca M to any SLR you're really comparing different approaches to photography. The Leica lets you see more than what the lens is seeing--in many circumstances (some types of action photography for example) that is an advantage because it lets you what is going on out of frame without taking the camera down from your eye--you may get a shot that you would miss with an SLR because you were following some other part of the action and couldn't see it. Downside is that you're not looking through the lens--thus no magnification of the image with long lenses and composition is by frames in the finder so with the Leica M zooms are not an option, at least not unless Leica does something fiendishly clever. If the rangefinder and fixed-focal-length float your boat then the M is the way to go, if not then it's not he system for you. It's that simple. > As far as "manufacturing a great image goes", that's something that is far > more dependent on who is holding the camera than on what kind of camera is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and you'll get better images than Joe Schmoe with the most expensive > hardware on the market. You let Joe Schmoe chose what he want to photograph with the expensive gear and let the others try to get the same photo with the point and shot and see what happens. Let's say we give Joe a 5D and one of your guys a point and shoot and Joe wants to take photos inside using avalible light. No matter how much skill you might have or artisic of an eye you are not going to get as good of photos. In fact they will pretty much get crap photos. Say I am shooting a whale and am using a 300mm lens while they are using a lens that does not go longer then 80 and is a cheap zoom lens at that. The point is better gear opens up the photos we can take, it is still up to us to make use of it but a least the camaera is not getting in the way. Scott >> As far as "manufacturing a great image goes", that's something that is >> far [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > much skill you might have or artisic of an eye you are not going to get > as good of photos. In fact they will pretty much get crap photos. Not as "crap" as Joe gets at ISO 100 and f/8, which somebody told him gives the best sharpness. > Say I am shooting a whale and am using a 300mm lens while they are > using a lens that does not go longer then 80 and is a cheap zoom lens > at that. Well, now, my cheap point and shoot has a Leica lens that goes to 400 equivalent. And Joe would of course turn off his image stabilization and use a slow shutter speed because he doesn't know any better. > The point is better gear opens up the photos we can take, it is still > up to us to make use of it but a least the camaera is not getting in > the way. The point is that lack of skill spoils more images than lack of camera performance. The difference between, say, and FZ30 and a Leica M8 is not as great as the difference between your average Yuppie and Cartier-Bresson. [] > The point is that lack of skill spoils more images than lack of camera > performance. > > The difference between, say, and FZ30 and a Leica M8 is not as great > as the difference between your average Yuppie and Cartier-Bresson. I think I could agree with that, although perhaps the average Rita or Rich just wants some pictures, and isn't that interested in the technicalities .......... I have been surprised how well even the mobile phone camera or movie (yuck) can capture an event in the absence of anything else. David > I think I could agree with that, although perhaps the average Rita or Rich > just wants some pictures, and isn't that interested in the technicalities > .......... I have been surprised how well even the mobile phone camera or > movie (yuck) can capture an event in the absence of anything else. My cell phone camera can make really awful photos but also can take great shots... bigger than my 21-inch monitor can display. Here's one that came out well: <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/gritt y/2006-10-19-valencia> SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com >> I think I could agree with that, although perhaps the average Rita >> or Rich just wants some pictures, and isn't that interested in the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that came out well: > <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/gritt y/2006-10-19-valencia> Indeed - surprisingly good. David >> I think I could agree with that, although perhaps the average Rita or >> Rich just wants some pictures, and isn't that interested in the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > out well: > <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/gritt y/2006-10-19-valencia> Oh, crap, why did you have to show us that? Now I want a better cell phone. What kind were you using, anyway? >>>I think I could agree with that, although perhaps the average Rita or >>>Rich just wants some pictures, and isn't that interested in the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > What kind were you using, anyway? Motorola razr 1280x1024 1.3MP it does sunsets beautifully but most backlit scenes have awful purple fringing, flare & blown highlights galore. The biggest problem is that Verizon charges to email them to myself so I downloaded BitPim shareware and have to save as an email draft to access the pics deep in the file system with that utility & a USB 'modem' connection. I guess you just have to get the unlimited messaging service option? SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com > Not as "crap" as Joe gets at ISO 100 and f/8, which somebody told him gives > the best sharpness. So now it is that a good photographer and take a better photo then one that does not have a clue? > > Say I am shooting a whale and am using a 300mm lens while they are > > using a lens that does not go longer then 80 and is a cheap zoom lens [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > equivalent. And Joe would of course turn off his image stabilization and > use a slow shutter speed because he doesn't know any better. So when you said that a good photographer could get a good photo with a point and shoot you meant a point and shootin with a $2000 lens? Scott >> Not as "crap" as Joe gets at ISO 100 and f/8, which somebody told him >> gives [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > So when you said that a good photographer could get a good photo with a > point and shoot you meant a point and shootin with a $2000 lens? I believe that I paid about $300 for said point-and-shoot, with the Leica lens included, brand new. >The point is that lack of skill spoils more images than lack of camera >performance. Only among the incompetent. >>The point is that lack of skill spoils more images than lack of camera >>performance. > > Only among the incompetent. Yes, incompetent photography has little to do with the equipment: http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000b.jpg http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000c.jpg http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000d.jpg http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000a.jpg ;-) > >> Photodo give it an MTF score of 4.2 - same as a 50mm f1.4 AF-D nikkor. > >> Canon EF 50 1.4 gets a 4.4. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > and fixed-focal-length float your boat then the M is the way to go, if not > then it's not he system for you. It's that simple. I know all that. I was being sarcastic. This is a ridiculous conversation... Signaturewww.nikongear.com Share, learn, win. > I know all that. I was being sarcastic. > > This is a ridiculous conversation... It is a ridiculous conversation. Spawned from a review that commences with a link to a statement suggesting that reviewing cameras using objective measurement isn't reasonable, then following this with statements about image quality that aren't born out by any of the examples shown. >It is a ridiculous conversation. >Spawned from a review that commences with a link to a statement >suggesting that reviewing cameras using objective measurement isn't >reasonable If you knew anything about Photodo's test methods you would realise that they are about as far from "objective" as you will ever find. If you knew anything about optics you would realise that MTF testing is a useful aid to lens designers but almost completely useless for comparing lenses of different designs. But it appears you are ignorant on both counts. Clearly you have never used any of the lenses discussed, let alone comparatively tested them. Instead, you rely for your "expertise" on arbitrary and subjective ratings (they are in no way objective) on Photodo's discredited web site, which you patently do not understand in any case. You are most certainly "lost @ sea", my friend. Drowning in ignorance. >> It is a ridiculous conversation. >> Spawned from a review that commences with a link to a statement [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > You are most certainly "lost @ sea", my friend. Drowning in ignorance. You assume some things about me without knowing, and seek to perpetuate arguments dreamed up many years ago. Lieca-glow, three-dimensionality, roundness - it's all a load of crock. When objective thought fails to deliver what you want to see, then grasping at intangibles smacks of religion. > You assume some things about me without knowing, and seek to perpetuate > arguments dreamed up many years ago. > Lieca-glow, three-dimensionality, roundness - it's all a load of crock. > When objective thought fails to deliver what you want to see, then > grasping at intangibles smacks of religion. There are none more blind then those who will not see. The only assumption that can be made about you is that based on your input you are nothing more than a palooka who doesn't know sh.t from shinola. >> You assume some things about me without knowing, and seek to perpetuate >> arguments dreamed up many years ago. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > input you are nothing more than a palooka who doesn't know sh.t from > shinola. Oh well - at least I see with my eyes open. >> Subjectively, some may choose to like it. >> I think that they're nuts. > > That doesn't give you the right to claim that the camera is inferior to > anything when clearly you have never used one (and are probably unlikely > to ever do so either). A "street" camera with a two-second startup time. Brilliant. You're right that I won't use one. It's a joke. > >> Subjectively, some may choose to like it. > >> I think that they're nuts. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > A "street" camera with a two-second startup time. > Brilliant. You're right that I won't use one. It's a joke. I missed that, you are right 2 seconds is a joke there is no reason for it to be that long and yes it does make a big differance. But I am sure the Leica fans will tell us why it is a good thing to have to wait 2 second before we can take a photo. Scott >> >> Subjectively, some may choose to like it. >> >> I think that they're nuts. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > But I am sure the Leica fans will tell us why it is a good thing to > have to wait 2 second before we can take a photo. Really depends on the design. I leave my 30D on all the time. If the Leica doesn't have some "feature" that kills the battery if you do that then the "turn on" time should be a non-issue. > I missed that, you are right 2 seconds is a joke there is no reason for > it to be that long and yes it does make a big differance. > > But I am sure the Leica fans will tell us why it is a good thing to > have to wait 2 second before we can take a photo. 2 second startup time remains one of the biggest red-herring non-issues of all time. Shutter lag: that's a real issue and one thing the Leica rangefinders have is shutter lag an entire order of magnitude faster than the fastest SLR's. Other than special (1 stop light loss) cameras like the 1n RT (pelicule) EOS, the fastest SLR's come in at about 45 msec shutter lag. The Leica rangefinders (M6...) are at a blazing 4 msec. I don't know if the M8 achieves the same 4 msec, but there is no reason it should not. This is far more useful to a "timely" photo than a less than 2 second start up time. By the time I've turned on the camera and raised it my eye for the shot and verified where I want focus, and that the shutter speed is appropriate, 2 seconds are long gone. (My camera takes about 1 second to start, but 2 seconds would not bother me in the least). My camera (Max 7D) also has a disappointingly long 100 - 150 msec shutter lag and that makes sports shooting very difficult v. my Maxxum 9 at about 50 msec. Anticipating in sports (or street) for the perfect shot is a bit challenging at 50msec, it is very difficult at 100+ msec. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > > I missed that, you are right 2 seconds is a joke there is no reason for > > it to be that long and yes it does make a big differance. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 2 second startup time remains one of the biggest red-herring non-issues > of all time. Whereas in most cases a 2 second startup time might not matter there should be no reason for it to be that long. I have a camera that has a 1.5 second startup time and a couple with a 0.25 second startup time, It does make a difference. The world does not always sit still and wait for your camera to turn on. > Shutter lag: that's a real issue and one thing the Leica rangefinders > have is shutter lag an entire order of magnitude faster than the fastest [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > rangefinders (M6...) are at a blazing 4 msec. I don't know if the M8 > achieves the same 4 msec, but there is no reason it should not. I have not seen a spec on this, we will just have to wait and see. You might be surprised, I did notice that its continues shooting mode is a dismal 2 shots/second. It would not be a bad guess that you would not be able to shot any faster then this when not in continues mode. This is lethargic for even a low end DSLR. Scott >>>I missed that, you are right 2 seconds is a joke there is no reason for >>>it to be that long and yes it does make a big differance. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > It does make a difference. The world does not always sit still and > wait for your camera to turn on. Any meaningful composition and monitoring of exposure far outwaits startup time. >>Shutter lag: that's a real issue and one thing the Leica rangefinders >>have is shutter lag an entire order of magnitude faster than the fastest [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > be able to shot any faster then this when not in continues mode. This > is lethargic for even a low end DSLR. Frames per second is a data transfer issue that has nothing to do with shutter lag once the sensor is ready to be exposed. The great contributor to shutter lag is getting the mirror out of the way before the shutter can begin travel. No such problem with a rangefinder. Should be the same with the M8. Further, it is not shooting at n frames/sec that is important, it is exposing as soon as possible after the shutter is depressed that is important. I'll repeat what is essential that you snipped from my other post: "By the time I've turned on the camera and raised it my eye for the shot and verified where I want focus, and that the shutter speed is appropriate, 2 seconds are long gone." Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Frames per second is a data transfer issue that has nothing to do with > shutter lag once the sensor is ready to be exposed. The great [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > exposing as soon as possible after the shutter is depressed that is > important. In some cases this is true, in others not so much. But given the high cost of the camera why not do well at both? > I'll repeat what is essential that you snipped from my other post: > "By the time I've turned on the camera and raised it > my eye for the shot and verified where I want focus, > and that the shutter speed is appropriate, 2 seconds > are long gone." As I recall your camera has a 1 second startup time so you might find 2 a bit more of a bother. There were times that I found the 1.5 on the F828 slower then I would have liked. My little waterproof camera takes 3 seconds and this is a huge problem for me. Scott Scott > As I recall your camera has a 1 second startup time so you might find 2 > a bit more of a bother. Not likely. It takes me a lot longer than that to compose a photo. When I do photography it is a deliberate act that takes time to do. If I see myself entering a situation where the unexepected might occur, then I'll fire up the camera to save time. If this happens more than a few times a year, I'd be very surprised. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > The 2006 M8 looks very similar to the 1954 M3, and it handles much the > same. That is no coincidence. There is no need to change the > fundamental principles of a Leica rangefinder camera, because they > work every bit as well now for photographers as they did 52 years ago. You don't have to sell me on the virtues of the Leica M. I'm right there with you. What I'm not sold on is needing to go into a menu to get to exposure compensation. That sucks so unbelievably badly that it would make me hesitate to buy the camera, had I decided to do so. Leica has had aperture priority for years. There's no excuse to bury exposure compensation like that. I can live with ISO being in the menu. It's stupid, but it's not that big a deal. I can live with SD cards instead of CF. I can live with a 2-second startup time; just leave it turned on. But exposure compensation in the LCD menu? That's just idiotic beyond comprehension. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >Leica has had aperture priority for years. There's no excuse to bury >exposure compensation like that. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >a 2-second startup time; just leave it turned on. But exposure >compensation in the LCD menu? That's just idiotic beyond comprehension. Can you explain to somebody who uses just full manual why it would be important to have fast access to exposure compensation? SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > >Leica has had aperture priority for years. There's no excuse to bury > >exposure compensation like that. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Can you explain to somebody who uses just full manual why it would be > important to have fast access to exposure compensation? My main two modes of shooting are manual or aperture priority. If you find that you are shooting most of your shots with the needle centered anyway then aperture priority has the advantage of letting you quick frame and grab a shot that might only be there for a half a second. As an example you are shooting people standing in the shade on the beach and a whale jumps out of the water. But just because most of your shots have the needle centered does not mean you want them all that way and so having exposure compensation can be handy. Also some people have found that their cameras tend to either over or under expose a bit consistently, in these cases being able to adjust the compensation is handy. What I would find the most useful would be two button, you push one and your next shot is exposed +1EV you push the other and your next shot is exposed -1EV. The camera would go back to shooting normal after that. Not every one limits themselves to shooting static subjects and so for a lot of people auto-exposure it a big help in many shooting situations. Scott >My main two modes of shooting are manual or aperture priority. If you >find that you are shooting most of your shots with the needle centered [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >consistently, in these cases being able to adjust the compensation is >handy. This all makes sense. And I have to admit that the lack of both AF and automatic exposure does cost me the occasional shot. However, you didn't say anything about sudden or frequent changes to the exposure compensation. >What I would find the most useful would be two button, you push one and >your next shot is exposed +1EV you push the other and your next shot is >exposed -1EV. The camera would go back to shooting normal after >that. That makes sense. However, I don't know any cameras that have such buttons. On Nikon cameras it is either one of the control wheels or a rather inconvenient dial on top. >Not every one limits themselves to shooting static subjects and so for >a lot of people auto-exposure it a big help in many shooting >situations. It has nothing to do with static subjects. It is about predictable lighting. And this context, whether the camera is consistently right or wrong wrt exposure or not. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > Can you explain to somebody who uses just full manual why it would be > important to have fast access to exposure compensation? Sure. The cameras have aperture priority, too, and have for a long time. That's my "default" shooting mode, especially when doing street shooting. Having the light vary by 5 or 6 stops from one second to the next is not just normal, it's frequent. Pointing the camera at something where you have maybe a second or two to get the shot, but the light is so odd that you honestly have no idea even what ballpark to start in, isn't quite as frequent, but happens often enough that just saying "looks like 1/30 at f/1.4, go from there" will result in a missed shot, versus just being able to say "needs a bit of positive compensation on account of those bright lights" and letting the camera choose the shutter speed. Once you say "needs a bit of compensation", you have to dial it in. So that will require a trip into the menu (during which you've missed your shot). Then you make the shot, which, if it's still there, you had time to use manual exposure anyhow. Then, in 100% of cases, every single time, you need to reset the EC back to zero after taking the shot, so, it's back into the menu *again*. So every use of EC requires two trips into the menu. Why did they even include aperture priority mode in the first place? It's useless. I use aperture priority quite a lot, but the one time I wouldn't want to do without it is street shooting. I'd rather just stick with my SLR, which offers other benefits like auto-ISO, than try to do it with full manual exposure. In the daytime, maybe, you can just set it and go, but I do it at night, and that's not going to happen in full manual. And since the main reason I'd want a Leica would be street shooting, well, the design flaw is enough to change my view from "expensive, but very tempting to buy it anyway" to "expensive, and not very tempting anyway". SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > And since the main reason I'd want a Leica would be street shooting, well, > the design flaw is enough to change my view from "expensive, but very > tempting to buy it anyway" to "expensive, and not very tempting anyway". M7 and Diafine and a good scanner. > > Can you explain to somebody who uses just full manual why it would be > > important to have fast access to exposure compensation? [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > the design flaw is enough to change my view from "expensive, but very > tempting to buy it anyway" to "expensive, and not very tempting anyway". If you can't shoot in manual mode you may as well stick to your SLR. Besides, its fairly easy to make adjustments of several stops in PP when shooting in RAW. We're not dealing with film here. <snip> >> And since the main reason I'd want a Leica would be street shooting, well, >> the design flaw is enough to change my view from "expensive, but very [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Besides, its fairly easy to make adjustments of several stops in PP > when shooting in RAW. We're not dealing with film here. Try recovering blown highlights. I doubt that the metering system of the M8 is up to the task - certainly when compared with the brilliant multi-segment evaluative metering systems on some entry-level dslrs. > Try recovering blown highlights. > I doubt that the metering system of the M8 is up to the task - certainly > when compared with the brilliant multi-segment evaluative metering > systems on some entry-level dslrs. So what are you worrying about? You have your equipment, go and use it. Or are you one of these "photographers" who thinks that anything you are not using must be crap? There is no law that says you have to buy a Leica M8, so just leave it at that. I'm sure Leica won't go bankrupt without your patronage. >> Try recovering blown highlights. >> I doubt that the metering system of the M8 is up to the task - certainly [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > There is no law that says you have to buy a Leica M8, so just leave it > at that. I'm sure Leica won't go bankrupt without your patronage. Me - worried? Hell no! I've now seen some full size sample images, and they looked pretty good. But for street shooting, The M8 is comparatively not as cut out for the task as M series film cameras once were - times have moved on. So yes, I'll pass. Enjoy yours though. > If you can't shoot in manual mode you may as well stick to your SLR. A triumph of nostalgia over function? Why have automatic exposure at all? Why even have a light meter? > Besides, its fairly easy to make adjustments of several stops in PP > when shooting in RAW. We're not dealing with film here. No, you don't. Adjusting from underexposure loses quality, and if you overexpose, you can't save it. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > > If you can't shoot in manual mode you may as well stick to your SLR. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No, you don't. Adjusting from underexposure loses quality, and if you > overexpose, you can't save it. Nonsense. Shooting in RAW gives you at least 1.5 stops of latitude either way of +0-. If you can't get it right with that, you can't get it right. The loss of quality is all in your mind. > Shooting in RAW gives you at least 1.5 stops of latitude either way of > +0-. If you can't get it right with that, you can't get it right. That's just not true. You have no latitude whatsoever for overexposure; blown highlights are blown. All the latitude you have for underexposure comes necessarily at a cost of quality; maximum quality comes *only* if your exposure is exactly right. > The loss of quality is all in your mind. You're wrong. Read up on "expose to the right". SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >>> If you can't shoot in manual mode you may as well stick to your SLR. >> A triumph of nostalgia over function? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > The loss of quality is all in your mind. Hmmm... It depends very much on accuracy of metering - and if this means that highlights are blown, then you aren't going to get them back. OTOH underexposing and adjusting raw exacerbates noise at higher ISO. (I'd usually rather have additional noise than blown highlights) Nailing exposure is desirable. The M8 metering system seems very primitive. DD skrev: > Shooting in RAW gives you at least 1.5 stops of latitude either way of > +0-. If you can't get it right with that, you can't get it right. You might reason that way as long as you only shoot ISO100 or 200. But once you are up in high-ISO territory, you'll want to nail the exposure as exactly to the right as you possibly can to minimize noise in the shadows. And that means exposing to the right of the RAW headroom, not exposing to the right of a JPEG file where you can choose at will which channels to clip or not. A modestly underexposed ISO800 image can easily get considerably noisier than an image with ISO3200 where the exposure is nailed exactly. Jan Böhme >>Leica has had aperture priority for years. There's no excuse to bury >>exposure compensation like that. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Can you explain to somebody who uses just full manual why it would be > important to have fast access to exposure compensation? Since the camera does provide an A-mode, having exp. comp buried in a menu is not of any help at all to those shooters. I myslef prefer manual shooting but for some shooting, A-mode is my next choice and having the exp-comp on a dial is a clear neccesity. Being digital, the sensor behaviour will be every bit like slide film: very unforgiving of overexposure and certainly not at its best for under exposure. Exp comp is a requirement and best so on a direct control. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > > I could live with ISO, but exposure compensation? Having to even take the > > camera away from your eye to use that is just plain stupid. I use it all [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > exposure over or under as much as you want, using the aperture and > shutter speed controls. Exactly. Signaturewww.nikongear.com Share, learn, win. > > I don't think having to use the menu for those settings is too much of > > an issue for Leica shooters. You have to remember that your approach [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I could live with ISO, but exposure compensation? Having to even take the > camera away from your eye to use that is just plain stupid. Yeah, I completely agree there. My Rebel XT has too many things buried in menus, like FEC, that I'm glad exposure compensation can be done with a button and wheel. Greg > > > I don't think having to use the menu for those settings is too much of > > > an issue for Leica shooters. You have to remember that your approach [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Greg Tiny cameras = few outboard controls. Menus are the only option. > > > > I don't think having to use the menu for those settings is too much of > > > > an issue for Leica shooters. You have to remember that your approach [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Tiny cameras = few outboard controls. Menus are the only option. Yeah, all those earlier Leicas used menus for that reason. Idiot. > > > I don't think having to use the menu for those settings is too much of > > > an issue for Leica shooters. You have to remember that your approach [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Greg Ideally, you'd want it done with just the wheel. That way, you wouldn't have to take your finger off the shutter. > > > > I don't think having to use the menu for those settings is too much of > > > > an issue for Leica shooters. You have to remember that your approach [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Ideally, you'd want it done with just the wheel. > That way, you wouldn't have to take your finger off the shutter. Understood. I didn't phrase the above all that well but was considering a wheel only when I wrote it. Greg > > If I could justify the cost of an M8 I would order one tomorrow.It's very tempting, yes. But having to go into the menu to do exposure > compensation and set ISO *really* sucks, and I hope they address that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com It is all about f stops and shutterspeed, forget about "exposure compensation" and use the basic tools. Now where to get $4500 for a body, and how to get it by my wife... Leica user since 1972. Tom |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message