My guts feeling is that many a Leica M8 users are pretty new to digital. I could be wrong.
<snip>
The whole issue is IMHO pretty much a matter of poor expectations mgt. Leica is by the way probably only partially responsible for this.
<snip>
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=87809\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think you're right about a lot of M8 users being new to digital -- this has been an on-going issue at the rangefinder forum. Lots of film users don't consciously consider film development as "post processing." It's simply a necessity. When they get to a digital camera, they expect the digital photograph to be at the same place as a negative after processing: immediately printable. It never occurs to many that there is a "negative development" process in digital, and they are unhappy (or just surprised) when they find out about it, and about the learning curve in post-processing. They are amazed to find that while digital has many advantages over film, it's not necessarily easier.
You're absolutely right about expectations management. German firms tend to be engineering-intensive and PR-challenged.
Edmund's comments are essentially (not to be impolite) beside the point. He had the camera only for a short time. The general assessment emerging on most of the boards (from both testers like Sean Reid and professional users) is that the M8 image quality is about the equivalent of the 5D, better in some areas and not quite as good in others; in other words, generally equivalent to a 1DsII (the 5D is apparently somewhat better than the 1DsII in high ISO noise quality.)
One or two people have said that the monochrome looks like Tri-X, but most disagree. It's too smooth. But it certainly can be made to look like Tri-X, especially with plug-in filters.
The M8's auto white balance, in mixed lighting, is not good at the moment, possibly because of the high IR sensitivity. That should be fixed with the new firmware, which is now being delivered in new cameras, which also fix an electronic fault that led to streaking and ghost images in some unusual conditions. The finder and frame lines are as accurate as on any M; the finder is certainly brighter than any SLR, the frame lines you either live with or you get an SLR. The battery is good for ~400 shots after its been conditioned, which takes three full cycles. The charger could be smaller, but then, it's also delivered with a car-charging cord and a built-in 12-volt adapter, so that may account for some of its size. Some people think that's great; others would prefer a smaller charger. The 5D, which is considered the state-of-the art for ISO noise, delivers plainly cleaner images at 1600 and 3200 (not at 800; at 800 it's a pick-your-poison.) But how many 5Ds are routinely used with lenses as fast as a Leica's? Is it better to shoot an f4 zoom at 3200 on a 5D (which is how a 5D is typically used) or a prime Leica f1.2 at 400 or 800?
I shoot a D2x in addition to the M8, an M7 and a G7. The D2x is a great camera for most uses and I will always own its equivalent; but I would hesitate to take it into a club at night, simply because of its size and the size of its lenses (probably the most-used modern Nikon zoom is, all by itself, larger than the Leica.) And the 1DsII is larger than the Nikon. The Leica is simply a different kind of a camera, and comparing it to a Canon or a Nikon is like comparing an SLR to an Arca.
In my view, the Leica has had some regrettable glitches, like any radical new product, including the Canons (frame deletion) the D2x (focus problems) the D200 (banding) etc. But that's life in the big city. A month after it first came out, the fixes are underway, and IMHO, it's going to be a classic.
JC
