Leica M8 - is the lens mount THAT expensive?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Chris Loffredo, Sep 20, 2006.

  1. Chris Loffredo

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Well, yeah, that's what most of us here on the newsgroup are here for.
    Of course that gratification can show up in the pictures, just like
    you may be able to get a better musical performance out of yourself on
    a really good instrument than on a cheap one.

    This guy expresses the Leica situation pretty well:

    http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/cassidy/leicaslacker/
    Yeah, that might be. I have a Canonet that doesn't work all that
    well. I haven't shot with it in years. I've shot with other people's
    Leicas a few times and Leicas are certainly nicer, but the Canonet is
    a reasonable introduction. I had a chance to buy a double-stroke M3
    for $350 in the early 1990's and was tempted but passed it up (I
    bought Nikon stuff instead). The M3 is worth almost 3x that amount
    today while the Nikon stuff has diminished to near nothing. But the
    Nikon stuff fit my technical desires better, if not my shooting habits
    of the time.
     
    Paul Rubin, Sep 24, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Chris Loffredo

    Scott W Guest

    Yes he did sum it up and pretty much what he said was there was little
    if any
    reason to ever buy a Leica.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Sep 24, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Chris Loffredo

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Shrug. You could say the same thing about single malt scotch. I
    often sense some kind of irrational jealousy on the part of the Leica
    bashers. Those who choose to spend their bucks on Leicas probably
    don't care.

    I somewhat regret not buying that M3 back in the day. There was a
    type of shooting that I did with SLR's, that might have been better
    suited for a rangefinder. But the M system seemed way too expensive
    and fussy for me at the time. And now, shooting film at all seems
    like an unimaginable hassle. Oh well.
     
    Paul Rubin, Sep 24, 2006
  4. SNIP
    While I agree with that statement, it doesn't change the IMHO odd
    behaviour that as soon as there is a Leica logo on a camera, image
    quality, or rather the lack of it, becomes less of an issue.

    Leica have bravely chosen for a non-AA-filtered Bayer CFA sensor
    approach. That will inevitably result in colored aliasing artifacts
    that are difficult to avoid in most subjects, it's fundamental
    physics. Just because it is a Leica, doesn't mean it's less of a
    problem for image quality. In fact, with good lenses it is even more
    of an issue.
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Sep 24, 2006
  5. Chris Loffredo

    Bill Crocker Guest

    Leica is highly overrated IMHO. It is the "Gray Poupon" of cameras for the
    "Hoyty-Toyty" class!

    Truth be known, Leica probably has little to do with the manufacturing of
    the digital cameras that carry their name. They most likely make the lens,
    but I think the cameras themselves are produced by Panasonic.

    Bill Crocker
     
    Bill Crocker, Sep 24, 2006
  6. Chris Loffredo

    Bill Funk Guest

    Exactly.
    While I'm not a fancier of rangefinders, I understand the concept of
    the method of getting there being the point, rather than the
    destination.
    Classic cars do bring out the same feeling for many people. The simple
    fact that you're driving a true classic overcomes lousey brakes,
    distorted windshields, wind noise (if it will go that fast! :)), lack
    of safety devices, and on and on. It's, "Look at me! I'm in THIS!"
     
    Bill Funk, Sep 24, 2006
  7. Calm down, "The Leica" makes miniature negatives,
    sub-miniature is Minox. Thank God Leica didn't
    make a Minox. Oh-oh, they do. It is sure to
    happen:

    "The Spherical 3-Dimensional Luminosity of the Minox
    can not be equaled by ..."
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Sep 24, 2006
  8. Chris Loffredo

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Minox was actually a subsidiary of Leica for a while. It split off
    again, and both are on the rocks now.

    I've owned a few Minoxes. They are beautiful little cameras. I
    remember wondering why there were no 35mm cameras made with that kind
    of beauty and precision. Then I remembered, oh yeah, the Leica.
     
    Paul Rubin, Sep 24, 2006
  9. David Ruether, Sep 24, 2006
  10. Chris Loffredo

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Paul Rubin, Sep 24, 2006
  11. Is this rec.photo.equipment.subminiature ?
     
    William Graham, Sep 24, 2006
  12. Yes he did sum it up and pretty much what he said was there was little
    Well, he did mention one reason. He said that, like a good quality musical
    instrument, it may give you an incentive to do more photography,
    To me, this is what having well made, expensive equipment is all about.
    It doesn't necessarily give you better pictures, but it is more fun to use
    it, and this means a lot to me who, at 71, is kind of getting tired of it
    all, and thinking of hanging it up all too often.......
    The same thing is true of my music....When I find that I'm not
    practicing as much as I should, I go down to the local music store and buy
    myself a new horn......
     
    William Graham, Sep 24, 2006
  13. It appears to be cross-posted to the subminiature group, but I'm reading and
    writing in the digital group. If the truth hurts, remove rec.photo.digital
    from the to list.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Sep 24, 2006
  14. Touché.......We should go to a "sarcastic competition" sometime.......
     
    William Graham, Sep 24, 2006

  15. Been there, done that (and with *many* other cameras, some with much
    brighter/better viewfinders than the Nikons you mentioned - and with
    matte, H, G & many other screens). Faster lenses as well.

    Based on my experience, my order of preference for focusing in most low
    light situations is:
    1) a good rangefinder
    2) a Leicaflex SL (I guess I'll get flamed, since this is an anti-Leica
    thread)
    3) a Nikon with a G or H screen

    Granted, using a rangefinder *is* very different from using a SLR. You
    need to be able to mentally pre-visualise a lot more. Also the depth of
    field needs to be mentally visualised, if necessary with the aid of the
    DOF scale (experience helps).
    All that of course has advantages and disadvantages.

    I'm not maintaining that a rangefinder is always better and is good for
    all situations, just that it *usually* is easier to focus in low-light
    situations (and is certainly not a PITA, the statement which I was
    responding to).
     
    Chris Loffredo, Sep 24, 2006
  16. I have a rangefinder camera that takes images 4x5 inches. I
    am impressed with it. It was made in 1947, though I do have
    modern lenses, a couple of them apo, for it. It works
    rangefinder with lenses at 90, 135 and 180 mm. The
    rangefinder works, and works well. It even works in the
    pitch dark!

    Doug McDonald
     
    Doug McDonald, Sep 24, 2006
  17. One of the presumable advantages of the M8 is that you can accurately
    focus in the first place...
     
    Chris Loffredo, Sep 24, 2006
  18. Truth was always there -> rec.photo._equipment_ <> not
    rec.photo.taking_pictures

    "I do it because it feels good" is held to be a sin, at the
    least not a topic for polite conversation.
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Sep 24, 2006

  19. What "feels good" to me is bringing home good photos --
    by whatever means.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Raphael Bustin, Sep 24, 2006
  20. David Ruether, Sep 24, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.