[Leica] Leica M8?

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

On 9/15/06 6:32 PM, "Afterswift@aol.com" <Afterswift@aol.com> typed:

> Hi Tom,
> 
> Read your review of the Leica M8 on LUG. You made little reference to the
> reduction factor; I think it's 1.3 in the M8. With the advent of Canon's 
> FF35
> sensor, methinks the M8 will soon be replaced by a FF35mm version, which is
> probably in production now by Solms.
> 
> I don't think Leica will ever produce anything but 35mm format lenses for 
> the
> M8 series of digitals. I don't think anyone with a mind would ever buy 1.3
> frame lenses, like the 18-70mm, the kit lens for my Nikon D70. It's 
> worthless
> with use on any FF body. It produces a circle on the 35mm focal plane.
> 
> I believe your ultimate review will occur when Leica releases their true FF
> M8 body. I don't know what they'll call it. An M9? The M8 will be a
> collector's 
> item. Nikon will probably market their FF digital reflexes in a few months,
> all but obsoleting all the fancy (D2X, D200, etc.) sub-35mm models they're
> selling now.
> 
> The M8 is an inertial product developed before the Canon breakthrough in 
> FF.
> Would you buy it?
> 
> Best,
> Bob?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
I was using a 24-85 4.5-5.6 on my first Leica digital DSLR and got the 18-70
you mention disparagingly. I got it became I like the idea of having a DX
lens. It was after all; cheap.
But Nikon missed the boat on the new lens and all their early DX digital
smaller image circle lenses because they had not yet had the wherewithal to
tackle compactness issues. Which would have been much of the point it if was
me.
Put the full film frame filling (FFFF) 24-85 next to the smaller format
digital 18-70 and they look like twins.
They appear ideal in size and weight.
So where's the beef?
The beef is the lens should have been a lot smaller and lighter although it
was a lot cheaper.

NOW however Nikon has gotten on the boat.
Check out the Ken Rockwell blurb.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm

Nikons new DX lens is slightly more conservative in zooming.
Its an 18-55. Which becomes a 27 to 82.5mm lens when used.
A 28 to 80 in my book. Cost just a few pitiful bucks. Weighs half as much or
less and has half the elements and is a lot smaller.
It is what a DX lens should be all about.
As it is a smaller format. A whole different ball of wax.
We'd not try to pass off a medium format lens design in all its bulk as a
35mm lens but in effect all these early DX lenses for digital camera were
doing in effect the same. In effect.  Erwin said I think all this breathing
room makes for great optical design. Great images get produced. But I'm
complaining about my paramiters which is tired wrists. Compactness.

Butting up all too perfectly with this 18-55 which I don't quite have my
paws on yet is the 55-200 which I do and have been hawking to death on the
list for a year. And yesterday. "toy dogs?"
Tiny. Sharp. Cheap. Light.
Ok plastic

99.99% of all professional digital photography now is done in the APS-2 or
close to it format. 1.5 or 1.33 or in there's abouts.
A digital camera does not have to be filling 24x36mm hunks of film to be a
true real noteworthy or otherwise "professional" camera. That's a different,
much less popular and less useful format.
Just get one focal length wider than you had before and you are in business.
As you were before.

Mark Rabiner

40?46'58.65"N  73?49'31.68"W
Whitestone NY 11357

http://rabinergroup.com/