In this day and age never has that been a greater lie. Example: I've tested many makes and prices of polarizers in the past, tested against lab-grade polarizer material. Some of the $10 generic polarizers easily surpass the $90 top-shelf brand-name filters. The average purchaser just sees the brand-name and outrageous price and assumes it must be the best. They don't have the intelligence nor foresight in how to easily test them for polarizing strength and homogeneity.
The only thing that is true today is "A fool and his money are soon parted." You can tell which ones they are, they're the ones who are always running around yelling, "You get what you pay for!"
> Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically, it > falls apart. Yes, really.
> My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash. >Didnt that camera also have issues with purple discolorations.
Yes, the IR filter in front of the sensor is far too weak, so in order to record accurate colors, you'll need a hot filter on each and every lens. But Leica will give you two of them! Isn't that precious? Spend $5K on a camera, and they'll provide a couple of filters to cover an obvious defect.
> > Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically, it > > falls apart. Yes, really.
> > My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash. > >Didnt that camera also have issues with purple discolorations.
> Yes, the IR filter in front of the sensor is far too weak, so in order to > record accurate colors, you'll need a hot filter on each and every lens. But > Leica will give you two of them! Isn't that precious? Spend $5K on a camera, > and they'll provide a couple of filters to cover an obvious defect.
And the price for an extra filter is something outragous like 350 US. I cant figure out how they can actualy sell any cameras at those prices and stay in business, some of their models are simply upgraded Panasonics, all are overpriced by many times and the dumb design- performance issues. I wanted one, once, till I read reviews and heard of the issues.
ransley wrote: > I cant figure out how they can actualy sell any cameras at those > prices and stay in business, some of their models are simply upgraded > Panasonics, all are overpriced by many times and the dumb design- > performance issues. I wanted one, once, till I read reviews and heard > of the issues.
Leica bled money over at least 5 years through the 2005/2006 FY and has come into the black in the last two FY's. Nevertheless it is projecting a net loss this FY and to barely make it to BE in the next FY.
I didn't look at their total debt, but they are paying it down and have declared net assets of about E100M.
They remain in troubled waters with legal action from shareholders, the possibility that it be taken 100% private and personnel risks amongst their most talented engineers. So says the recent AR (though I just skimmed it...)
> > Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically, > > it falls apart. Yes, really.
> > My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash.
> Totally irrelevant! Like really, who would buy anything other than a Nikon, > other than a dumbass?
> Rita > -- > Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the > idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet > Stimulus Project page.
ransley wrote: > On Aug 13, 7:24 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote: >> Böwser wrote: >>> OK, I think it's time to nominate the Leica M8 as "Turkey of the >>> Decade." >>> http://photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00QTrU >>> Aparently, if you mount this thing on a tripod and shoot vertically, >>> it falls apart. Yes, really. >>> My sympathies to any of you who shelled out $5K for this trash. >> Totally irrelevant! Like really, who would buy anything other than a Nikon, >> other than a dumbass?
>> Rita >> -- >> Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the >> idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet >> Stimulus Project page.
> Your posts continue to prove you need to be kill filed. You are the > one that posts internet stupidity.
I disagree, I once owned a Leica, if memory servers me correctly is was a IIIc. Never took a picture with it, I inherited it from my father but a better motor bike was more in line with my tastes than photography at that time (1953). The point is that Leica, together with Contax and other pre-wwII German cameras were tops, arguably Leica being the top of the tops. But today things are different, yes both Leica and Zeiss lenses are still excellent, but so are many others with cameras to match. The Leica thing is nostalgia and bloody expensive nostalgia at that, and if performance doesn't match the price then who needs it. Pointing that out is not internet stupidity. Rita may be controversial but hardly stupid. Dave Cohen
> The point is that Leica, together with Contax and other pre-wwII German > cameras were tops, arguably Leica being the top of the tops.
They still are. In terms of putting images on film, the current Leica and Zeiss Ikon (and discontinued Contax G) rangefinder lenses are the best lenses you can find in focal lengths up to 90mm. The Contax and Leica R SLR lenses are nearly as good.
Nikon and Canon are a distant second. Which is why people with gobs of money put Leica R and Contax/Zeiss SLR lenses on their dSLRs, at gross cost. (Actually, the new Zeiss lenses for the Nikon dSLRs aren't all that expensive, and work on Canon with an adapter.)
> But today things are different, yes both Leica and Zeiss lenses are still > excellent, but so are many others with cameras to match. The Leica thing > is nostalgia and bloody expensive nostalgia at that, and if performance > doesn't match the price then who needs it.
The last 10% of performance always costs more than the first 90%. Diminishing returns.
Leica messed up big time with the M8. Arrogance on their part, I'd guess. But the lenses are as good as it gets.
> > The point is that Leica, together with Contax and other pre-wwII German > > cameras were tops, arguably Leica being the top of the tops.
> They still are. In terms of putting images on film, the current Leica and > Zeiss Ikon (and discontinued Contax G) rangefinder lenses are the best > lenses you can find in focal lengths up to 90mm. The Contax and Leica R SLR > lenses are nearly as good.
> Nikon and Canon are a distant second. Which is why people with gobs of money > put Leica R and Contax/Zeiss SLR lenses on their dSLRs, at gross cost. > (Actually, the new Zeiss lenses for the Nikon dSLRs aren't all that > expensive, and work on Canon with an adapter.)
> > But today things are different, yes both Leica and Zeiss lenses are still > > excellent, but so are many others with cameras to match. The Leica thing > > is nostalgia and bloody expensive nostalgia at that, and if performance > > doesn't match the price then who needs it.
> The last 10% of performance always costs more than the first 90%. > Diminishing returns.
> Leica messed up big time with the M8. Arrogance on their part, I'd guess. > But the lenses are as good as it gets.
> -- > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan
DJL so a Zeiss can work on a Canon with an adapter, is there increased image quality compared to Canon lenses, what do you use with your 5d.
DJL so a Zeiss can work on a Canon with an adapter, is there increased image quality compared to Canon lenses, what do you use with your 5d. <<<<<<<<<<
People claim the 21/2.8 Zeiss Distagon is wonderful. I've not tried it. If Zeiss reissues it for under US$1,500, I might buy one, but at US$3,000, I'll pass. The other Zeiss lenses are less interesting here. The Canon 35/1.4 (which I don't own) and the Canon 50/1.4 (which I do) are very good, and the Canon 24TSE is a great 24mm lens unshifted.
Remember that with its fat pixels, the 5D doesn't really stress lenses all that much; the lowly Tamron 28-75/2.8 produces lovely sharp images from f/5.6. It's really only at 21mm and wider that one begins to get interested in something other than Canon. And even there, in real life, the 17-40 is a great landscape lens at f/11 or f/16. At f/5.6, the Zeiss 21/2.8 tromps all over it, but I don't shoot landscapes at f/5.6.
Also remember that the 5D with Canon superwides looks way better in the corners than any 35mm film camera can, even with Zeiss or Leitz lenses.
If Canon ups the pixel count significantly, Zeiss lenses will become more interesting.
He took along the M8 and found that in real life situations, it was not a very useful camera and that color consistency was atrocious.
Too bad, the M6 and prior Leica's were favoured by combat correspondents and photogs for their reliability, simplicity, compactness not to mention image quality.
>He took along the M8 and found that in real life situations, it was not >a very useful camera and that color consistency was atrocious.
>Too bad, the M6 and prior Leica's were favoured by combat correspondents >and photogs for their reliability, simplicity, compactness not to >mention image quality.
Wow. Every photo (the M8 ones) in that article aren't even up to the quality of a $150 P&S camera when using the same settings. I don't think I've ever seen any camera do that nasty color-cast vignetting that are in some of them. That would be nearly impossible to fix in editing. Even the start-up time on most any P&S camera is faster than the M8. Thanks for re-posting the link. It's nice to know that every P&S camera out there is drastically better than a $10,000 Leica+Lens.
I enjoyed this section of his commentary:
"SD card removal: As I said earlier, in Baghdad I frequently cover the scenes of car bomb. It is illegal to shot these scenes until they are completely cleaned up, and the Iraqi police frequently confiscate flash cards and cameras if they see us shooting. Occasionally a photographer is beaten bloody. One of the ways around this is to try to sneak a photo and have a spare SD card to swap out; the police end up confiscating a blank card and the images are safe in your pocket. ..."
I have had to document many life-threatening situations in the past--poachers, drug-runners, illegal police-actions, etc. The stealth quality of nearly any P&S camera is mandatory for this type of photography. It isn't uncommon for me to have to swap out memory cards discreetly, put one in the camera with some junk photos on it, and then hide the card with the incriminating evidence in my boot or sock, or quickly toss the memory-card aside in the brush where I could come back later when it's safe to retrieve it. In fact I had to do that again just last month when documenting poachers in a wildlife sanctuary. They wouldn't think twice about leaving your carcass where the 'gators can get rid of the evidence. If nothing else, at least someone going over the crime scene would eventually find the memory-card that was tossed aside. I can't imagine any photojournalist, or any photographer for that matter, buying a camera where you have to half-disassemble a camera to swap cards.
: Too bad, the M6 and prior Leica's were favoured by combat correspondents : and photogs for their reliability, simplicity, compactness not to : mention image quality.
Indeed.
All Leica were trying to do was try and maintain the qualities for which they've always been renowed, in the face of the totally different demands being made on the familiar body shape by digital reproduction.
It's not particularly edyifying to watch people jumpimg up and down in glee over their failure, in what's turned out to be a difficult if not impossible task.
Yes it cost far too much, yes it turned out to be a pile of crap, yes Leica were the Nazis camera of choice, but it was a noble enterprise neverthless IMO.
> : Too bad, the M6 and prior Leica's were favoured by combat correspondents > : and photogs for their reliability, simplicity, compactness not to > : mention image quality.
> Indeed.
> All Leica were trying to do was try and maintain the qualities > for which they've always been renowed, in the face of the totally > different demands being made on the familiar body shape by digital > reproduction.
> It's not particularly edyifying to watch people jumpimg up and down > in glee over their failure, in what's turned out to be a difficult if not > impossible task.
> Yes it cost far too much, yes it turned out to be a pile of crap, > yes Leica were the Nazis camera of choice, but it was a noble enterprise > neverthless IMO.
For a camera maker that has been proven for over 80 years to make the best equipment to put out a crap product with several stupid defects, the weak body and lack of proper filter makes one wonder what kind of drunk cheap idiot tested and approved their design. The mistakes were so obvious. Nobody is jumping for glee but rather are happy they didnt mortgage their house for what should have been a great camera, to last their lifetime. Everybody wants one, few can afford one. What is so difficult about making and testing a piece of equipment when that is your business, there are millions of tough little good cameras made every year by many companies. Leica should go out of business for rebadging Panasonics at double the price, the failure of the M8 and Leicas lack of customer support of the issues. At the outragous prices people shelled out these issues should have been fixed free. I am happy I will now never want or consider a Leica body.
> For a camera maker that has been proven for over 80 years to make the > best equipment to put out a crap product with several stupid defects, > the weak body and lack of proper filter makes one wonder what kind of > drunk cheap idiot tested and approved their design. The mistakes were > so obvious. Nobody is jumping for glee but rather are happy they didnt > mortgage their house for what should have been a great camera, to last > their lifetime. Everybody wants one, few can afford one. What is so > difficult about making and testing a piece of equipment when that is > your business, there are millions of tough little good cameras made > every year by many companies. Leica should go out of business for > rebadging Panasonics at double the price, the failure of the M8 and > Leicas lack of customer support of the issues. At the outragous prices > people shelled out these issues should have been fixed free. I am > happy I will now never want or consider a Leica body.
It makes one wonder if the people who created Windows Vista have bought Leitz. Allen
> ransley wrote: > <snip> >> For a camera maker that has been proven for over 80 years to make the >> best equipment to put out a crap product with several stupid defects, >> the weak body and lack of proper filter makes one wonder what kind of >> drunk cheap idiot tested and approved their design. The mistakes were >> so obvious. Nobody is jumping for glee but rather are happy they didnt >> mortgage their house for what should have been a great camera, to last >> their lifetime. Everybody wants one, few can afford one. What is so >> difficult about making and testing a piece of equipment when that is >> your business, there are millions of tough little good cameras made >> every year by many companies. Leica should go out of business for >> rebadging Panasonics at double the price, the failure of the M8 and >> Leicas lack of customer support of the issues. At the outragous prices >> people shelled out these issues should have been fixed free. I am >> happy I will now never want or consider a Leica body.
> It makes one wonder if the people who created Windows Vista have bought > Leitz. > Allen
And here's the worst part: I have Vista 64 loaded on three machines, none of them have ever failed. All run perfectly.
Bõwser wrote: > "Allen" <all...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message [] >> It makes one wonder if the people who created Windows Vista have >> bought Leitz. >> Allen
> And here's the worst part: I have Vista 64 loaded on three machines, > none of them have ever failed. All run perfectly.
Strange that - I had just the same experience with Vista 32 here. Must be something in the mains!
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 15:54:15 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-tay...@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote: >Bõwser wrote: >> "Allen" <all...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message >[] >>> It makes one wonder if the people who created Windows Vista have >>> bought Leitz. >>> Allen
>> And here's the worst part: I have Vista 64 loaded on three machines, >> none of them have ever failed. All run perfectly.
>Strange that - I had just the same experience with Vista 32 here. Must be >something in the mains!
The most common complaint I hear/see about Vista is not about the stability of the OS, but about compatibility of older programs with this OS. Many of us have older ("older" in the computer sense of being purchased one year or more ago) programs that we don't want to upgrade to fit a new OS.
If I was concerned only with the stability/functional aspects of an OS, I'd have no problem buying a new computer with Vista. It's the integration with my extant programs that concern me.
> The most common complaint I hear/see about Vista is not about the > stability of the OS, but about compatibility of older programs with > this OS. Many of us have older ("older" in the computer sense of > being purchased one year or more ago) programs that we don't want to > upgrade to fit a new OS.
> If I was concerned only with the stability/functional aspects of an > OS, I'd have no problem buying a new computer with Vista. It's the > integration with my extant programs that concern me.
I can appreciate that, Tony, but so far I haven't found any modern software (say from year 2000 onwards, intended for Windows 2000 or XP) which won't run. I understand that 16-bit software won't work (but perhaps it might under a virtual machine), but the only 16-bit software I still have is from 1999 and would not be transferred to a new PC in any case as it runs on its own dedicated machine. I have seen some software which has a 16-bit installer, but even that software worked if the files were simply copied from another PC. A note to the author quickly resulted in a 32-bit installer version!
I do hear that some hardware manufacturers have been rather late in producing drivers for their hardware, and I may be about to encounter that problem myself with a new PC install for someone else shortly.
> : Too bad, the M6 and prior Leica's were favoured by combat correspondents > : and photogs for their reliability, simplicity, compactness not to > : mention image quality.
> Indeed.
> All Leica were trying to do was try and maintain the qualities > for which they've always been renowed, in the face of the totally > different demands being made on the familiar body shape by digital > reproduction.
> It's not particularly edyifying to watch people jumpimg up and down > in glee over their failure, in what's turned out to be a difficult if not > impossible task.
Don't count me as 'gleeful'. It's always a benefit to the industry to have companies dedicated to excellence.
(OTOH: it is a bucket of cooling water for those blinded by faith).
Leica, from the linked report, did not do enough design engineering, user consultation and user testing before release. They were under very high pressure to get their camera into the market as film camera sales were all but dead.
Leica, although posting rare earnings in the last two years after 5 or more of losses (and forecasting a loss this year and 'maybe' break even next year) made the error of rushing the M8 to market before it was really ready for photographers.
> Yes it cost far too much, yes it turned out to be a pile of crap, > yes Leica were the Nazis camera of choice, but it was a noble enterprise > neverthless IMO.
Americans, Brits and many others (military and other agencies) did not throw out their extensive inventory of Zeiss and Leica (and other) equipment in the war; but used same to good measure (Likewise Browning in Utah used to send the "HP" pistol to Germany complete to engraved eagle and swastika before the war...)
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 15:54:15 GMT, "David J Taylor" > <david-tay...@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>>Bõwser wrote: >>> "Allen" <all...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message >>[] >>>> It makes one wonder if the people who created Windows Vista have >>>> bought Leitz. >>>> Allen
>>> And here's the worst part: I have Vista 64 loaded on three machines, >>> none of them have ever failed. All run perfectly.
>>Strange that - I had just the same experience with Vista 32 here. Must be >>something in the mains!
> The most common complaint I hear/see about Vista is not about the > stability of the OS, but about compatibility of older programs with > this OS. Many of us have older ("older" in the computer sense of > being purchased one year or more ago) programs that we don't want to > upgrade to fit a new OS.
True that...
Where I work, we have two enterprise apps that need to be updated, which means pushing a new app or two out to 80,000 seats. But the IT Security folks want to make the move to Vista sooner, not later, so away we go...
> If I was concerned only with the stability/functional aspects of an > OS, I'd have no problem buying a new computer with Vista. It's the > integration with my extant programs that concern me.
> > : Too bad, the M6 and prior Leica's were favoured by combat correspondents > > : and photogs for their reliability, simplicity, compactness not to > > : mention image quality.
> > Indeed.
> > All Leica were trying to do was try and maintain the qualities > > for which they've always been renowed, in the face of the totally > > different demands being made on the familiar body shape by digital > > reproduction.
> > It's not particularly edyifying to watch people jumpimg up and down > > in glee over their failure, in what's turned out to be a difficult if not > > impossible task.
> Don't count me as 'gleeful'. It's always a benefit to the industry to > have companies dedicated to excellence.
> (OTOH: it is a bucket of cooling water for those blinded by faith).
> Leica, from the linked report, did not do enough design engineering, > user consultation and user testing before release. They were under very > high pressure to get their camera into the market as film camera sales > were all but dead.
> Leica, although posting rare earnings in the last two years after 5 or > more of losses (and forecasting a loss this year and 'maybe' break even > next year) made the error of rushing the M8 to market before it was > really ready for photographers.
> > Yes it cost far too much, yes it turned out to be a pile of crap, > > yes Leica were the Nazis camera of choice, but it was a noble enterprise > > neverthless IMO.
> Americans, Brits and many others (military and other agencies) did not > throw out their extensive inventory of Zeiss and Leica (and other) > equipment in the war; but used same to good measure (Likewise Browning > in Utah used to send the "HP" pistol to Germany complete to engraved > eagle and swastika before the war...)
I was possibly a bit over-hasty there. While Leicas with Eagles and Swastikas are well known, and prized as collectors' items, apparently some members of the Leitz family were instrumental (no pun intended) in helping Jews escape their otherwise inevitable fate. Although there were rumours that it was at Eishenhower's request as a pre-war Leica owner, that the factories be spared in bombing raids, in fact they were already earmarked as being useful in helping in post-war German reconstruction. I discoverd all this 5 minutes after making the rather glib Nazi remark. They also like Becks beer in the U-Boats as confirmed by many photographs - Leica presumably in "U-Boot Krieg".
It would have been nice to think that that classic shape of rangefinder camera could have survived into the digital age, nevertheless.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember ransley <Mark_Rans...@yahoo.com> saying something like:
>I cant figure out how they can actualy sell any cameras at those >prices and stay in business, some of their models are simply upgraded >Panasonics, all are overpriced by many times and the dumb design- >performance issues. I wanted one, once, till I read reviews and heard >of the issues.
Ditto. Mind you, I was willing to wait until used prices came down a bit. There's no way I'd pay even used prices for the M8 now, though. I'm just really disappointed that a name that stood for quality and reliability has become so debased with this crock of shit. --
|
