Leica M8 review on Luminous-Landscape

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Kinon O'Cann, Oct 30, 2006.

  1. deryck lant wrote:

    > The message <XMq1h.8$>
    > from "Kinon O'Cann" <> contains these words:
    >
    >>Reichman's review is up, and if you wish to believe him, Leica has hit a
    >>home run with this one.

    >
    >>www.luminous-landscape.com

    >
    >>I'd like to see some direct comparisons between this camera and the
    >>Canon 5D
    >>with L primes. Would be interesting.

    >
    > As the review says:
    >
    > In the case of the Leica M8 I am pleased to report that overall image
    > quality is
    > second to none. Only the Canon 5D and 1Ds MKII are better at high ISO,
    > and at ISO 400 and lower the M8 is their equal. Then again, right now there
    > are no other cameras producing as clean high ISO images as these two Canons.
    > But when combined with the superior quality of Leica lenses, and the
    > fact that
    > the M8 does not have a resolution reducing AA filter, I would argue that
    > there
    > are no current 35mm format cameras which offer superior image quality to the
    > Leica M8 at ISO 400 and lower.


    There are many cameras that beat the Leica M8 at high ISO.

    The sensor in the Leica is a Kodak KAF-10500 according to
    slin100 in the "Digital P&S and color bit depth" thread:

    http://www.kodak.com/ezpres/busines.../en/datasheet/fullframe/KAF-10500LongSpec.pdf

    The sensor has a full well of 60,000 electrons with 6.8 micron
    pixels. But the read noise is 15 electrons. Canons 1D Mark II
    has 80,000 electron full well and 3.9 electron read noise.
    High ISO images need low read noise. Canon's D20, D30, 350D
    have 6.4 micron pixels, full well ~ 51,000 electrons and read
    noise around 3.6 to 3.7 electrons. That read noise allows the
    20D class to go 4 times fainter (2 stops).

    Roger
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 31, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. Kinon O'Cann

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    "Scott W" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Kinon O'Cann wrote:
    >> Reichman's review is up, and if you wish to believe him, Leica has hit a
    >> home run with this one.
    >>
    >> www.luminous-landscape.com
    >>
    >> I'd like to see some direct comparisons between this camera and the Canon
    >> 5D
    >> with L primes. Would be interesting.

    >
    > The test photos makes it look like the 5D is blowing it out of the
    > water.
    > Note on the flags crop that not only does the 5D have much less noise
    > but you can easily make out the double lines around the crest on the
    > flag in the Canon photo and the Leica more or less blurs it all
    > together.
    >
    > I really think Leica's offering here falls far short of where it
    > should when they are asking that amount of money.


    I've taken a closer look at the pix and test results, and while the Canon is
    less noisy, at lower ISOs, like 800 and below, the Leica is simply
    excellent. The sharpness shown in the Leica shots exceeds the 5D. The Leica
    edge definition is superior to the 5D, which is probably lens-dependent. The
    image quality, plus the "rangefinder experience" that M users seek will make
    this cam a huge seller, for sure. I'd still like to see a direct comparison
    between the M8 and 5D with the 5D using L primes. Without paying for it, of
    course...

    >
    > Scott
    >
    Kinon O'Cann, Oct 31, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Kinon O'Cann

    Scott W Guest

    Kinon O'Cann wrote:
    > I've taken a closer look at the pix and test results, and while the

    Canon is
    > less noisy, at lower ISOs, like 800 and below, the Leica is simply
    > excellent. The sharpness shown in the Leica shots exceeds the 5D.


    Where are you finding these shots, I can't seem to find 100% crops from
    the Leica execpt
    the high ISO ones?

    Scott
    Scott W, Oct 31, 2006
    #23
  4. Kinon O'Cann

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <>, Scott
    W says...

    > Except we have heard for years about how great the Leica is in low
    > light, partly because there is no mirror slap and partly because you
    > can shoot with the lens wide open. But the 5D will blow away the Leica
    > in low light shooting and for a whole lot less money. If your selling
    > point has been low light photography for years you better make a
    > digital that can work at high ISOs.


    Then just make a cooperation between Canon and Leica, placing the sensor
    and electronics of Canon into a Leica M8 body. Combine the best of both
    worlds - Canon's low noise electronics with Leica's no-mirror and shoot-
    wide-open camera.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    Olympus E330 resource - http://myolympus.org/E330/
    Alfred Molon, Oct 31, 2006
    #24
  5. "Alfred Molon" <> wrote:
    > Scott W says...
    >
    >> Except we have heard for years about how great the Leica is in low
    >> light, partly because there is no mirror slap and partly because you
    >> can shoot with the lens wide open. But the 5D will blow away the Leica
    >> in low light shooting and for a whole lot less money. If your selling
    >> point has been low light photography for years you better make a
    >> digital that can work at high ISOs.

    >
    > Then just make a cooperation between Canon and Leica, placing the sensor
    > and electronics of Canon into a Leica M8 body. Combine the best of both
    > worlds - Canon's low noise electronics with Leica's no-mirror and shoot-
    > wide-open camera.


    If you actually look at the sort of images Leica street shooters have
    produced, what you see is grainy, blurry, out of focus mush that is
    interesting and forgivable for its content. If you really tried, a 5D with
    the 35/2.0 (or other prime in the 24 to 85mm range) would produce worlds
    better images for that work. You can do the same zone focus game (and
    produce the same out of focus mush) as the Leica, or you can just turn on
    all the AF points and actually get your subject in focus some percentage of
    the time. Mirror slap simply isn't an issue at the shutter speeds and focal
    lengths used.

    The Leica is a buck-nekked emperor, the 5D the far better tool.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 31, 2006
    #25
  6. Kinon O'Cann

    jdear64 Guest

    Kinon O'Cann wrote:
    > "Scott W" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > Kinon O'Cann wrote:
    > >> Reichman's review is up, and if you wish to believe him, Leica has hit a
    > >> home run with this one.
    > >>
    > >> www.luminous-landscape.com
    > >>
    > >> I'd like to see some direct comparisons between this camera and the Canon
    > >> 5D
    > >> with L primes. Would be interesting.

    > >
    > > The test photos makes it look like the 5D is blowing it out of the
    > > water.
    > > Note on the flags crop that not only does the 5D have much less noise
    > > but you can easily make out the double lines around the crest on the
    > > flag in the Canon photo and the Leica more or less blurs it all
    > > together.
    > >
    > > I really think Leica's offering here falls far short of where it
    > > should when they are asking that amount of money.

    >
    > I've taken a closer look at the pix and test results, and while the Canon is
    > less noisy, at lower ISOs, like 800 and below, the Leica is simply
    > excellent. The sharpness shown in the Leica shots exceeds the 5D. The Leica
    > edge definition is superior to the 5D, which is probably lens-dependent. The
    > image quality, plus the "rangefinder experience" that M users seek will make
    > this cam a huge seller, for sure. I'd still like to see a direct comparison
    > between the M8 and 5D with the 5D using L primes. Without paying for it, of
    > course...
    >
    > >
    > > Scott
    > >


    Did you read this little gem:

    "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."

    Or this:

    "What he told me is that the M8's DNG files are definitely 8 bit, not
    16 bit."

    So you can't get >8 bit depth pictures but Leica makes it up to you by
    giving you all the aliasing a bayer filtered sensor can give. Great.
    Anyone who buys this camera deserves what they get.


    JDear
    jdear64, Oct 31, 2006
    #26
  7. Kinon O'Cann

    Rich Guest

    Scott W wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > > "Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote:
    > > > "Scott W" <> writes:
    > > >> Except we have heard for years about how great the Leica is in low
    > > >> light, partly because there is no mirror slap and partly because you
    > > >> can shoot with the lens wide open. But the 5D will blow away the Leica
    > > >> in low light shooting and for a whole lot less money. If your selling
    > > >> point has been low light photography for years you better make a
    > > >> digital that can work at high ISOs.
    > > >
    > > > The traditional Leica low light shot was also black and white, while
    > > > the M8 (and 5D) use a color Bayer filter that kills somewhere between
    > > > one and two stops of the light reaching the sensor.

    > >
    > > Reality check. The 5D at ISO 1600 will make 13x19 B&W prints that look
    > > better than ISO 400 8x10s from a Leica loaded with Tri-X that will later be
    > > developed in Rodinal.

    > But Paul is suggesting a monochrome FF CCD, which would be pretty neat
    > but also pretty limited in appeal.
    >
    > Scott


    The Japanese have no concept of modularity or upgrading expensive
    products.
    If they did, you'd be able to remove the colour CCD and replace it with
    a monochrome CCD for black and white work.
    Rich, Nov 1, 2006
    #27
  8. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    []
    > If you actually look at the sort of images Leica street shooters have
    > produced, what you see is grainy, blurry, out of focus mush that is
    > interesting and forgivable for its content. If you really tried, a 5D
    > with the 35/2.0 (or other prime in the 24 to 85mm range) would
    > produce worlds better images for that work.


    .... and loose 90% of the character which is in the shot!

    "Noise-free" isn't the only game in town.

    David
    David J Taylor, Nov 1, 2006
    #28
  9. "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    wrote in message news:gdX1h.45010$...
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > []
    >> If you actually look at the sort of images Leica street shooters have
    >> produced, what you see is grainy, blurry, out of focus mush that is
    >> interesting and forgivable for its content. If you really tried, a 5D
    >> with the 35/2.0 (or other prime in the 24 to 85mm range) would
    >> produce worlds better images for that work.

    >
    > ... and loose 90% of the character which is in the shot!
    >
    > "Noise-free" isn't the only game in town.


    That's BS. Look at one image, and grain is cute. Look at a series of 10 or
    15 images, and you'll realize that there's no detail in people's hair, that
    all surfaces have the same bogus texture.

    The only reason we put up with the cr@p is that (a) they were there and we
    weren't, and (b) at that time there wasn't any other way to get the shot.
    Bresson (sp?), Winogrand (sp?), and those guys sold on the content, not the
    quality.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 1, 2006
    #29
  10. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote in
    > message news:gdX1h.45010$...
    >> David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >> []
    >>> If you actually look at the sort of images Leica street shooters
    >>> have produced, what you see is grainy, blurry, out of focus mush
    >>> that is interesting and forgivable for its content. If you really
    >>> tried, a 5D with the 35/2.0 (or other prime in the 24 to 85mm
    >>> range) would produce worlds better images for that work.

    >>
    >> ... and loose 90% of the character which is in the shot!
    >>
    >> "Noise-free" isn't the only game in town.

    >
    > That's BS. Look at one image, and grain is cute. Look at a series of
    > 10 or 15 images, and you'll realize that there's no detail in
    > people's hair, that all surfaces have the same bogus texture.
    >
    > The only reason we put up with the cr@p is that (a) they were there
    > and we weren't, and (b) at that time there wasn't any other way to
    > get the shot. Bresson (sp?), Winogrand (sp?), and those guys sold on
    > the content, not the quality.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan


    You prove my point nicely. The character is in the image, not in just
    seeing the last strand of someone's hair.

    David
    David J Taylor, Nov 1, 2006
    #30
  11. On Oct 31, 10:59 pm, "jdear64" <> wrote:
    [snip]
    > "What he told me is that the M8's DNG files are definitely 8 bit, not
    > 16 bit."
    >
    > So you can't get >8 bit depth pictures but Leica makes it up to you by
    > giving you all the aliasing a bayer filtered sensor can give. Great.
    > Anyone who buys this camera deserves what they get.


    The look-up table in the M8 DNG file, used by raw converters to
    generate the linear values, is the equivalent of squaring the 8-bit bit
    values then dividing by 4.

    (I've read elsewhere that the M8 has 16-bit values internally and takes
    the square root of them to yield the 8-bit values, but I can't confirm
    that).

    So this isn't the same as a linear 8-bit value. It is equivalent to
    holding a 14-bit value but with only just over 250 values, with unequal
    spacing, used within that range.

    --
    Barry Pearson
    http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
    Barry Pearson, Nov 1, 2006
    #31
  12. "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    wrote in message news:UTX1h.45020$...
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >> "David J Taylor"
    >> <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote in
    >> message news:gdX1h.45010$...
    >>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >>> []
    >>>> If you actually look at the sort of images Leica street shooters
    >>>> have produced, what you see is grainy, blurry, out of focus mush
    >>>> that is interesting and forgivable for its content. If you really
    >>>> tried, a 5D with the 35/2.0 (or other prime in the 24 to 85mm
    >>>> range) would produce worlds better images for that work.
    >>>
    >>> ... and loose 90% of the character which is in the shot!
    >>>
    >>> "Noise-free" isn't the only game in town.

    >>
    >> That's BS. Look at one image, and grain is cute. Look at a series of
    >> 10 or 15 images, and you'll realize that there's no detail in
    >> people's hair, that all surfaces have the same bogus texture.
    >>
    >> The only reason we put up with the cr@p is that (a) they were there
    >> and we weren't, and (b) at that time there wasn't any other way to
    >> get the shot. Bresson (sp?), Winogrand (sp?), and those guys sold on
    >> the content, not the quality.
    >>
    >> David J. Littleboy
    >> Tokyo, Japan

    >
    > You prove my point nicely. The character is in the image, not in just
    > seeing the last strand of someone's hair.


    BS again. Looking at page after page of grainy grit gets old quick. The
    grain detracts from the images, not enhances them.

    Beside, if you capture clean, you can always add noise. (And some people do,
    although I think it ridiculous.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 1, 2006
    #32
  13. In article <>,
    Rich <> wrote:
    >The Japanese have no concept of modularity or upgrading expensive
    >products.


    Hmm. If I take a look at the Nikon F, then maybe they should have made it
    more modular such that you can replace the shutter as well (and maybe
    also the mirror) but those are just the only non-modular parts of the
    system.

    >If they did, you'd be able to remove the colour CCD and replace it with
    >a monochrome CCD for black and white work.


    As far as I know, there have never been digital cameras where you could do
    that. Of course, with digital backs, you can replace one back with another
    (for example, Kodak made both color and B/W backs), but those where
    expensive enough that you sort of got the camera for free.


    --
    That 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
    Philip Homburg, Nov 1, 2006
    #33
  14. In article <ei9iql$din$>,
    David J. Littleboy <> wrote:
    >BS again. Looking at page after page of grainy grit gets old quick. The
    >grain detracts from the images, not enhances them.


    That maybe true for you, but I quite enjoyed HCB's pictures, even as poster
    sized prints. I have to admit that this was an exposition, and it was
    possible to stand at the right distance to admire what he had done.

    The only pictures that bothered me, were the ones where he should have
    gotten the focus better.


    --
    That 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
    Philip Homburg, Nov 1, 2006
    #34
  15. In article <>,
    Barry Pearson <> wrote:
    >The look-up table in the M8 DNG file, used by raw converters to
    >generate the linear values, is the equivalent of squaring the 8-bit bit
    >values then dividing by 4.
    >
    >(I've read elsewhere that the M8 has 16-bit values internally and takes
    >the square root of them to yield the 8-bit values, but I can't confirm
    >that).
    >
    >So this isn't the same as a linear 8-bit value. It is equivalent to
    >holding a 14-bit value but with only just over 250 values, with unequal
    >spacing, used within that range.


    That's gamma of 2.0. Not that different from the 2.2 commonly used in
    other systems.

    Both leaving out the AA filter and the lack of a true RAW format strike
    me a strange design decisions.

    The RAW format should just be a firmware update. I guess that the lack of
    an AA filter can be compensated by stopping down well beyond the
    diffraction limit (or by shooting wide open and not focusing correctly).


    --
    That 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
    Philip Homburg, Nov 1, 2006
    #35
  16. "Philip Homburg" <> wrote:
    > Rich <> wrote:
    >>The Japanese have no concept of modularity or upgrading expensive
    >>products.

    >
    > Hmm. If I take a look at the Nikon F, then maybe they should have made it
    > more modular such that you can replace the shutter as well (and maybe
    > also the mirror) but those are just the only non-modular parts of the
    > system.


    Or the Mamiya 645 system. Or lots of other products as well.

    >>If they did, you'd be able to remove the colour CCD and replace it with
    >>a monochrome CCD for black and white work.

    >
    > As far as I know, there have never been digital cameras where you could do
    > that. Of course, with digital backs, you can replace one back with another
    > (for example, Kodak made both color and B/W backs), but those where
    > expensive enough that you sort of got the camera for free.


    Not always "sort of". At one point, one of the mfrs was throwing in a free
    Mamiya 645 AF model with the back. And there may have been a similar Rollei
    6000 deal as well.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 1, 2006
    #36
  17. On Nov 1, 9:10 am, (Philip Homburg) wrote:
    [snip]
    > That's gamma of 2.0. Not that different from the 2.2 commonly used in
    > other systems.
    >
    > Both leaving out the AA filter and the lack of a true RAW format strike
    > me a strange design decisions.


    The Leica DMR back didn't have an anti-alias filter either. I know 2
    users of DMR backs who favour not having an anti-alias filter! They
    said they don't want anything interfering with the sharpness.
    Apparently, Leica consulted their users and were told by a majority not
    to have one.

    I've seen results from the DMR showing very sharp results, with just a
    few of them having aliasing problems in relatively small areas. Mostly,
    this wasn't causing the users any problems. The users were willing to
    cater for the occasional problems some other way.

    The Nikon D70 (and perhaps other Nikons?) is claimed to have a lossy,
    but "visually lossless", compression of raw data before storage. This
    was apparently to achieve smaller raw files. I assume the M8 has it for
    the same reason. It enables the raw file for a 10 MP camera to be 10 MB
    without any other compression, and if it is run through the DNG
    Converter to (losslessly) compress it, that typically reduces to 7 MB
    or less. (And the D70 had a weaker than normal anti-alias filter).

    > The RAW format should just be a firmware update. I guess that the lack of
    > an AA filter can be compensated by stopping down well beyond the
    > diffraction limit (or by shooting wide open and not focusing correctly).


    The users of the DMR back that I know typically don't appear to have
    significant problems with the lack of an anti-alias filter, and were
    getting very sharp results bigger than A3. They were not using such
    techniques to compensate!

    Reviews of the M8 suggest that the use of 8-bits isn't causing
    problems. I've had a look at 3 M8 DNG images myself (ACR 3.6 &
    Photoshop CS2) and those looked good to me. (I haven't attempted to see
    if I can use "vigorous" Photoshop editing to generate banding or such
    visual problems). If users are happy, why would Leica change the
    firmware? I suspect Leica are very aware of what they are doing - in
    fact, I think this is the first use I've seen of the DNG
    LinearizationTable feature to achieve this form of compression, so this
    was a very deliberate choice by Leica, different from the DMR back.

    --
    Barry Pearson
    http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
    Barry Pearson, Nov 1, 2006
    #37
  18. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    []
    > BS again. Looking at page after page of grainy grit gets old quick.
    > The grain detracts from the images, not enhances them.


    Whatever works for you - I do not think that technical excellence or
    complete freedom from grain is essential for an image to be worth looking
    at, or for me to enjoy.

    David
    David J Taylor, Nov 1, 2006
    #38
  19. In article <>,
    Barry Pearson <> wrote:
    >On Nov 1, 9:10 am, (Philip Homburg) wrote:
    >[snip]
    >> That's gamma of 2.0. Not that different from the 2.2 commonly used in
    >> other systems.
    >>
    >> Both leaving out the AA filter and the lack of a true RAW format strike
    >> me a strange design decisions.

    >
    >The Leica DMR back didn't have an anti-alias filter either. I know 2
    >users of DMR backs who favour not having an anti-alias filter! They
    >said they don't want anything interfering with the sharpness.
    >Apparently, Leica consulted their users and were told by a majority not
    >to have one.
    >
    >I've seen results from the DMR showing very sharp results, with just a
    >few of them having aliasing problems in relatively small areas. Mostly,
    >this wasn't causing the users any problems. The users were willing to
    >cater for the occasional problems some other way.


    Well, it strikes me as strange trade-off. But it is true that Leica has
    to cater to their users.

    If seems to me that the point where you see the difference between
    cameras with and without AA filters, is also the point where who will be
    able to see aliasing effects.

    >Reviews of the M8 suggest that the use of 8-bits isn't causing
    >problems.


    I haven't seen any reviews of the M8 where they really try to push
    the limits of the sensor (i.e. masking in Photoshop to bring out more
    shadow details).

    8-bits (gamma corrected) is enough for properly exposed frames. It is only
    when you want something special that you need all the bits.

    Even if there is a use for 8-bit RAW, how much would it have cost Leica
    to provide a losslessly compressed version as well?

    >I think this is the first use I've seen of the DNG
    >LinearizationTable feature to achieve this form of compression, so this
    >was a very deliberate choice by Leica, different from the DMR back.


    Usually it is the goal of RAW formats to provide the user with all the
    bits captured by the sensor. Lossy compression is at odds with this idea.


    --
    That 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
    Philip Homburg, Nov 1, 2006
    #39
  20. On Nov 1, 12:41 pm, (Philip Homburg) wrote:
    [snip]
    > Usually it is the goal of RAW formats to provide the user with all the
    > bits captured by the sensor. Lossy compression is at odds with this idea.


    The sensor itself doesn't capture bits. I thought it typically
    collected electrons as a result of being struck by photons? Then those
    collections, although integral, are treated as analogue amounts to be
    converted by an ADC to a number in a CHOSEN range?

    I'm not trying to quibble - I'm pointing out that the numbers in a raw
    file are always derived numbers. For some Nikons, I read that they are
    further lossy-compressed (but claimed to be visually lossless). Other
    changes might take place before we see the numbers - is the
    black-subtraction after a long exposure applied to the raw data? Might
    there be other corrections too?

    I tend to think of "raw data" as "what the camera manufacturer claims
    to be raw, and certainly less processed than JPEG or TIFF". But I don't
    believe it is some ultimate distilled truth!

    Furthermore - I've seen an M8 menu that didn't say "raw" or "Raw" or
    "RAW". It said "DNG" (and JPEG). "Raw" is a bit ambiguous.
    http://www.dpreview.com/articles/leicam8/page8.asp

    --
    Barry Pearson
    http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
    Barry Pearson, Nov 1, 2006
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Barney

    Camera review for the LEICA R9?

    Barney, Apr 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,508
    Barney
    Apr 12, 2004
  2. Thad

    DP Review Leica Digilux 2 Review

    Thad, May 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    518
    ArtKramr
    May 12, 2004
  3. jim evans
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    1,171
    Dave Martindale
    Mar 1, 2005
  4. John Navas

    Is Lumix Leica real Leica?

    John Navas, Nov 17, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    615
    Dennis Pogson
    Nov 18, 2007
  5. TJ
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,710
    Tony Polson
    Dec 23, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page