Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/04/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Robert, Why do you think we are ridiculing you? We just disagree with you. You have yor opinion and we respect that opinion. Personnaly the only thing I have had to do is purchase the filters, which were both less than $100. (With the 2 free ones, I should be set for some time.) Seems reasonalbe to me as most spend more on support in accessories and software for just about any digital camera. I am not using any special profiles or anything else different from my D200. My lenses are not coded and in fact only one of them can be coded, the UV/IR filters solve the problem all by themselves. My processing has been nothing more than white balance, maybe some exposure touch up, if that, very simple. I do more thanthat with the D200. The camera is so simple to set up and operate and then produce prints/images to view, my D200 has little appeal at this point. Prints made form both show the M8 easily out performs the D200. As to being right, we all are right as long as the solution we c hoose is right for us. For you the 5D is right - Great, for those who have tried the M8 and are happy with that choice, it is right for us. No big deal. Gene -------------- Original message from Robert Schneider <schneiderpix@mac.com>: -------------- > Look, I knew that my opinion would be ridiculed, but that doesn't > mean that you're right and I'm wrong. From what I've heard the camera > can work fairly well if you're willing to spend hundreds of dollars > for IR cut filters (yeah, yeah, "no charge" if you only have two > lenses -- har, har), have your lenses coded and/or create custom > processing routines in Camera Raw. When processing more than a > thousand files from a wedding, those are workflow issues I'd rather > not deal with. > > With Canon DSLRs there's little to do to the RAW files other than > some exposure and white balance adjustment -- all the way up to 1600 > ISO (and often 3200). > > The M8 would work for me no better than film, and with film I'd still > have a 35 acting like a 35. > > Horses for courses, YMMV, people who shoot weddings aren't real > photographers, you've never been anything other than a Leica hater > anyway, whatever you want to say or think is fine. > > I'm delighted the M8 works for you. It wouldn't work for me and I > think the way that Leica has dealt with its flaws and, yes, DEFECTS, > is laughable. I'll sit it out until (if?) there's a round two. > > M4, M6, and a bag of film still works if I want shoot Leicas. > > rs > > --------------------------- > > H-m-m-m? > It does bring a smile to my face each time I pick it up. > Maybe he's right. > No. > No punch line. > Or - > Perhaps those astounding files are the punch line. > No. > They're not funny. > They're simply gorgeous. > More like a lover ;~) > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > george@imagist.com > > > > On Apr 8, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Robert Schneider wrote: > > > The M8 is a joke. > > __________________________________ > http://www.robertschneider.com > http://www.schneiderpix.com > photoblog: Light Under a Bushel http://luab.blogtog.com > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information