«

OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the Decade."

http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU

Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically, it
falls apart. Yes, really.

My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:51:11 -0400, Böwser <> wrote:

>OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the Decade."
>
>http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU
>
>Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically, it
>falls apart. Yes, really.
>
>My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.

The more detailed thread with photos of more camera body failures (and other
camera problems, focusing, color-balance, IR filter errors, etc.):
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-...e-failure.html


As they say, "You get what you pay for!"

In this day and age never has that been a greater lie. Example: I've tested many
makes and prices of polarizers in the past, tested against lab-grade polarizer
material. Some of the $10 generic polarizers easily surpass the $90 top-shelf
brand-name filters. The average purchaser just sees the brand-name and
outrageous price and assumes it must be the best. They don't have the
intelligence nor foresight in how to easily test them for polarizing strength
and homogeneity.

The only thing that is true today is "A fool and his money are soon parted." You
can tell which ones they are, they're the ones who are always running around
yelling, "You get what you pay for!"

On Aug 13, 7:51*am, Böwser <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote:
> OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the Decade."
>
> http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU
>
> Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically, it
> falls apart. Yes, really.
>
> My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.

Didnt that camera also have issues with purple discolorations.

"ransley" <> wrote in message
news:d43f82a5-5c23-4358-8d15-...
On Aug 13, 7:51 am, Böwser <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote:
> OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the Decade."
>
> http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU
>
> Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically, it
> falls apart. Yes, really.
>
> My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.

>Didnt that camera also have issues with purple discolorations.

Yes, the IR filter in front of the sensor is far too weak, so in order to
record accurate colors, you'll need a hot filter on each and every lens. But
Leica will give you two of them! Isn't that precious? Spend $5K on a camera,
and they'll provide a couple of filters to cover an obvious defect.

On Aug 13, 2:07*pm, Bõwser <b0w...@h0me.c0m> wrote:
> "ransley" <Mark_Rans...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d43f82a5-5c23-4358-8d15-...
> On Aug 13, 7:51 am, Böwser <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote:
>
> > OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the Decade.."
>
> >http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU
>
> > Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically, it
> > falls apart. Yes, really.
>
> > My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.
> >Didnt that camera also have issues with purple discolorations.
>
> Yes, the IR filter in front of the sensor is far too weak, so in order to
> record accurate colors, you'll need a hot filter on each and every lens. But
> Leica will give you two of them! Isn't that precious? Spend $5K on a camera,
> and they'll provide a couple of filters to cover an obvious defect.

And the price for an extra filter is something outragous like 350 US.
I cant figure out how they can actualy sell any cameras at those
prices and stay in business, some of their models are simply upgraded
Panasonics, all are overpriced by many times and the dumb design-
performance issues. I wanted one, once, till I read reviews and heard
of the issues.

"Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
news: m...
> Böwser wrote:
>
>> OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the
>> Decade."
>> http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU
>>
>> Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically,
>> it falls apart. Yes, really.
>>
>> My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.
>
> Totally irrelevant! Like really, who would buy anything other than a
> Nikon,
> other than a dumbass?

I agree, even Nikons are purchased by dumbasses. Sometimes.

On Aug 13, 7:24*pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote:
> Böwser wrote:
> > OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the
> > Decade."
> >http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU
>
> > Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically,
> > it falls apart. Yes, really.
>
> > My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.
>
> Totally irrelevant! *Like really, who would buy anything other than a Nikon,
> other than a dumbass?
>
> Rita
> --
> Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. *Never empower the
> idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. *For more details go to the Usenet
> Stimulus Project page.
>
> http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com

Your posts continue to prove you need to be kill filed. You are the
one that posts internet stupidity.

ransley wrote:
> On Aug 13, 7:24 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Böwser wrote:
>>> OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the
>>> Decade."
>>> http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU
>>> Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically,
>>> it falls apart. Yes, really.
>>> My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.
>> Totally irrelevant! Like really, who would buy anything other than a Nikon,
>> other than a dumbass?
>>
>> Rita
>> --
>> Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
>> idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
>> Stimulus Project page.
>>
>> http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com
>
> Your posts continue to prove you need to be kill filed. You are the
> one that posts internet stupidity.

I disagree, I once owned a Leica, if memory servers me correctly is was
a IIIc. Never took a picture with it, I inherited it from my father but
a better motor bike was more in line with my tastes than photography at
that time (1953).
The point is that Leica, together with Contax and other pre-wwII German
cameras were tops, arguably Leica being the top of the tops.
But today things are different, yes both Leica and Zeiss lenses are
still excellent, but so are many others with cameras to match. The Leica
thing is nostalgia and bloody expensive nostalgia at that, and if
performance doesn't match the price then who needs it. Pointing that out
is not internet stupidity. Rita may be controversial but hardly stupid.
Dave Cohen

On Aug 15, 1:56*am, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
> "Dave Cohen" <u...@example.net> wrote:
>
> > The point is that Leica, together with Contax and other pre-wwII German
> > cameras were tops, arguably Leica being the top of the tops.
>
> They still are. In terms of putting images on film, the current Leica and
> Zeiss Ikon (and discontinued Contax G) rangefinder lenses are the best
> lenses you can find in focal lengths up to 90mm. The Contax and Leica R SLR
> lenses are nearly as good.
>
> Nikon and Canon are a distant second. Which is why people with gobs of money
> put Leica R and Contax/Zeiss SLR lenses on their dSLRs, at gross cost.
> (Actually, the new Zeiss lenses for the Nikon dSLRs aren't all that
> expensive, and work on Canon with an adapter.)
>
> > But today things are different, yes both Leica and Zeiss lenses are still
> > excellent, but so are many others with cameras to match. The Leica thing
> > is nostalgia and bloody expensive nostalgia at that, and if performance
> > doesn't match the price then who needs it.
>
> The last 10% of performance always costs more than the first 90%.
> Diminishing returns.
>
> Leica messed up big time with the M8. Arrogance on their part, I'd guess.
> But the lenses are as good as it gets.
>
> --
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

DJL so a Zeiss can work on a Canon with an adapter, is there increased
image quality compared to Canon lenses, what do you use with your 5d.

"Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
news: ...

: Too bad, the M6 and prior Leica's were favoured by combat correspondents
: and photogs for their reliability, simplicity, compactness not to
: mention image quality.

Indeed.

All Leica were trying to do was try and maintain the qualities
for which they've always been renowed, in the face of the totally
different demands being made on the familiar body shape by digital
reproduction.

It's not particularly edyifying to watch people jumpimg up and down
in glee over their failure, in what's turned out to be a difficult if not
impossible task.

Yes it cost far too much, yes it turned out to be a pile of crap,
yes Leica were the Nazis camera of choice, but it was a noble enterprise
neverthless IMO.



michael adams

....





--
-- 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.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.