Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/09/15

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] M8: To buy or not to buy. . .
From: hoppyman at bigpond.net.au (G Hopkinson)
Date: Fri Sep 15 23:24:44 2006

Peter those are very good reasons.
I want one too; and keep using my M7

Cheers
Hoppy
M10 would be M18 guy

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+hoppyman=bigpond.net.au@leica-users.org 
[mailto:lug-bounces+hoppyman=bigpond.net.au@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
Peter Klein
Sent: Saturday, 16 September 2006 16:16
To: lug@leica-users.org
Subject: [Leica] M8: To buy or not to buy. . .

So much for The Dismal Science. Now, here's why I want an M8 anyway:

1. I hate scanning. It eats time. Time is precious, and I don't have a lot 
of it. Even if I get a 6 megapixel scan from the film lab, I need to rescan 
my best shots myself at 4000 dpi if I want the very best quality. Sometimes 
I'm lazy and I don't.

2. If I shoot only five or ten pictures in a week, I won't have to wait 
until I finish the roll to see them.

3. I'll get more immediate feedback about my technique, and how my lenses 
work at various distances and apertures.

4. I have vaguely to intensely disliked every digital camera I've tried or 
owned. I want to photograph, not program a computer. I don't care much for 
SLRs unless I'm shooting photos that really need the SLR view. In other 
words, macro and telephoto. For everything else, I prefer RF, and I prefer 
Leica. The M8 is the camera I already love, with digital guts.

5. Digital available light has some real possibilities. Many photogs have 
noted more low-light shadow detail in ISO 400 and above digital shots than 
in their film equivalents. Yes there is noise, too. I'm waiting to see how 
the M8 does, and I suspect it will do well. C*non will surpass it on 
empirical noise tests, and I suspect the M8 will take just as good or 
better pictures overall. Jury's still out on this one.

6. Ten megapixels may be the sweet spot where the details available on a 
digital picture, printed 8x10 and bigger, approach good color print film. 
I'm not talking about whether you prefer the "look" or not. I'm talking 
about whether the leaves on that tree in the background look like real 
leaves or sponge blobs when you look closely. I'm talking about whether the 
picture looks artificially sharpened or truly sharp, because there are 
enough pixels for the edges to look real.

7. For me, the crop factor is a non-issue. And I rarely shoot wider than 
35mm. I have a mix of Leica and CV lenses from 21mm to 90mm. I'll live. And 
like it.

8. Just because.

Oh, my aching wallet. . . I'm going to be watching tests and reviews, and 
gauging my emotions and finances very carefully for a while.

--Peter


_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



In reply to: Message from pklein at 2alpha.net (Peter Klein) ([Leica] M8: To buy or not to buy. . .)