[Leica] (no subject)

[firkin at ncable.net.au (Alastair Firkin)]

On 19/11/2006, at 17:06, Robert Schneider wrote:

> First off, anti-alias filter is not the same as an infrared cutoff  
> filter.  The DMR does not have an anti-alias filter (neither did  
> the Kodak 14/n and 14/c), but the DMR clearly has adequate infrared  
> filtration -- it doesn't have the color shifting of the M8.
>
> You wrote: "If you are a fashion or product photographer who needs  
> exact colors, you would not be using a Leica M anyway."  One  
> person's opinion.  Leica Ms certainly have been used for fashion  
> work in the past (Jeff Dunas leaps to mind).  And if you are  
> actually saying that fashion and product photography are  
> inappropriate uses for a Leica rangefinder, then why stop there?   
> It can be argued cogently that 35mm is a ridiculous format for  
> landscape photography, architecture photography, high-quality  
> portraiture, jumbo enlargements, etc., etc.  But 35mm cameras (and  
> their digital equivalents) are used for these purposes everyday.

Fine, and correct, but in the same vein, it does not mean others  
shouldn't be happy with a camera that suits them as long as it works  
in the environment they are shooting. The colour "shift" as you call  
it seems to be more specific to me. It only occurs in specific  
situation and filtering out the IR may fix it. Leica have not yet  
told us what they intend to do, so being too critical at this stage  
is premature.

>
> More to the point, however, I shoot weddings.  I would LOVE to have  
> a digital rangefinder camera to supplement (and in many cases  
> supplant) my two Canon 5Ds.  Wedding couples usually aren't fashion  
> editors or fabric manufacturers, but very few couples I've worked  
> with would be happy with purple tuxedos and other odd-colored  
> clothing (and skin) in their wedding photos. The fact that my  
> $5,000 German rangefinder camera is "supposed to" produce images  
> that way will carry little water when the unhappy newlyweds  
> complain about their funky photos.

You could try to sell them as 'funky' but I see your point ;-)

>
> I have quality-destroying UV filters on all my lenses, Leica,  
> Canon, Xpan, etc., so I am certainly not averse to another layer of  
> glass on my optics.  But telling photographers that they have to  
> shell out $150 per filter for each M lens they own just to get  
> their camera to work the way it is intended to work strikes me as  
> grotesque.
>
> To me it's simple: If the camera's above-average infrared  
> sensitivity is not documented in the M8 instruction manual, if the  
> need for an infrared cutoff filter when photographing people  
> wearing clothes is not documented in the M8 instruction manual,  
> then the camera is, in fact, defective.  It does not function as it  
> was intended to function.

This is a very reasonable point and one that many people will  
subscribe to. I'm surprised you have read the manual: I found the  
camera so easy to use it remains unopened ;-)

>
> I am astonished that many people who bought this camera are making  
> excuses for Leica rather than storming the gates in Solms.  A  
> serious, EXPENSIVE, digital camera from any other manufacturer  
> would have its users howling for blood, or at least a permanent,  
> internal, non-half-assed fix.

Again we will have to wait for the "fix". I still maintain that I am  
happy to have Leica making a Rangefinder camera, it may not be  
perfect, but I have yet to find a camera which is. If Leica did not  
step up to the plate then I suspect my investment in glass would like  
Tina's gather dust. Leica simply DO NOT have the resources that Canon  
possess, but I maintain that it is good to have more than one camera  
maker in the market. Its this reality not the fact that the "fault"  
is potentially going to put people like you off getting a digital  
rangefinder that allow some of us to be patient and "hopeful". To be  
honest, I don't think Canon got their first DSLR right or even nearly  
as right as this M8. They had to put the foot in the water and learn  
as well. On a personal point, the dealings I have had with Leica have  
always turned out in my favor, even if I did have to be patient with  
a company that is really only sited in Solms and cannot repair almost  
any fault in Australia.

>
> If the Canon D30 or EOS1d had come to market with imaging defects  
> on the order of those in the Leica M8, I suspect that Canon might  
> not be the alpha dog in the digital realm.
>
> IMO, YMMV, IOKIYAR, YYSSW, etc., etc.

ditto ;-)

cheers

Alastair