So, as a long term film camera (Nikon F3 plus six lenses) user, I think that this new camera needs attention.

Does anyone know how well it works?

I know f**k all about digital cameras and the Amateur Photographer article is full of scary references to 'raw' and 'JPEG' systems.

These mean nothing to me. But is this the digital camera that I need?

And what WOULD I need, from taking photographs to having prints (or slides)?

I've been told that Vuk knows the answers to all this.

Graham

You don't need it. £3K for a body which appears to have issues with infrared contamination, requiring you to mount IR filters on all your lenses in order to achieve accurate colour rendition.

Buy a much cheaper digital SLR if you want to start with digital. The Pentaxes seem to have many fans.

-- Ian

Graham,

Take a look at : http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/leica-m8.shtml

The answers are there.

I would say :


If you have a Leica M keep it and shoot film/slides (I use Provia),
If you dont buy a Leica MP, M6 ttl or M7 SH for a steal


For the price of the M8 you can get a film Vg SH scanner+A fast Desktop+very good printer+a lot of film+developments+a lot of prints

In 5 years time the M8 will be out of date whatever happens. Leica will have to keep up the pace in that fast moving digital world. The M9, M10 and so on.

You may destroy your digtal files oneday, HD dies, unless you keep on making backups all the time. Maybe one day we will not be able to read CD or DVD's? Does that sound stupid? Well 15 years ago the standard for backups was floopy disks, what can you do with those thesedays??? And we all said at that time "this is so practical"..humm they still make prints from the negatives Cartier Bresson exposed...see my point?? Yes you may destroy your slide or negatives but only out of a lack of care not due to technology being made redundant.

I shoot 35mm, MF and LF do all the lab stuff myself BW + Color (yes even E6 with a Jobo) and even though I used to have digital cameras (Nikon D1x for one) I have never looked back since I stepped (?) back to traditional.

Tim

Graham,

Getting good prints from a digital camera is relatively straightforward, but if you have any passion for the art of photography (i.e., want more than snaps) you'll need a decent computer loaded with image-editing software like Photoshop, an excellent monitor and a photo-quality printer. It's not quantum physics, but getting good digital prints requires effort to learn the software and the vagaries of the medium you're printing on.

It wouldn't at all be straightforward to get 35mm slides from a digital camera, but it could be done with a film recorder. A film recorder essentially is a film scanner in reverse but using one today is quite honestly the equivalent of transferring your CDs via a computer to an LP cutting lathe. In principle it could be done but why would you bother? If you like slides load your F3 with film and snap away.

The M8 is a beautiful camera -- the nicest digital I've ever seen -- but, as Ian has noted, it's flawed, something that's inexcusable given its price and the time taken to get it to market. These sorts of flaws shouldn't be turning up on any modern digital camera, let alone such an expensive one. (See http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06112402leicam8fixes.asp for details for the problems.)

Buying a Nikon D-SLR is the easiest route into digital since you already have several F-mount lenses. If your lenses are the older manual-focus ones I'd suggest the D200 since it'll meter with old glass. If your lenses are auto focus the D80 is the place to start.

By the way, are you aware that the sensors in most D-SLRs are smaller than film, so they effectively use what would be the middle of a standard 35mm frame as the capture area? (See http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/digital-crop-factor.html for an explanation.) It may not be an issue if you tend to shoot long focal lengths, but it's pain in the arse if you prefer wider angles of view.

Joe

You may destroy your digtal files oneday, HD dies, unless you keep on making backups all the time. Maybe one day we will not be able to read CD or DVD's? Does that sound stupid? Well 15 years ago the standard for backups was floopy disks, what can you do with those thesedays???

There are plenty of reasons to shoot film instead of digital, but that is not one of them. Backup to MAM-CDRs (with a data retention of over 100 years), backup to a second set of MAM-CDRs and mail to another family member (in case your house ever burns down) and presto ... photos are preserved for as long as you'll care.

Floppy drives still exist, and are cheap. HD drives are cheap. You should copy your photos to a new HD drive every 3 years.

'raw' files are uncompressed images. Multiply the megapixels by the number of bits per pixel (to represent color and luminence) and you've got a big file that captures exactly what the sensor captured.

'JPEG' files are compressed. jpeg compression allows you to trade-off file size (degree of compression) versus loss of detail. It's possible to greatly reduce file size with very minimal loss of detail, but if you are at all worried about loss of detail use raw.

accurate colour rendition is the sort of thing the photography equivalent of merlin goes on about even though he can't actually shoot a good picture. that said, the price is absurd. i say: get a pentax.

vuk.

I have ordered one of these:

http://www.minox.com/index.php?id=1088&L=1

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JohanR

See the Constantine Manos link in an earlier thread
http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28453

There's a video clip of him discussing it on his web site. He seems to like the low light performance for street photography.

Leica have developed some interesting technology to deal with the light path from their compact wide angle lenses to the film chip, but I will wait for a full frame version a few years down the line.

Nick

Sean,

Granted solutions exist to effectively use digital with no doubt about being able to retrieve and use files in the future. And I can only image a proffesional photographer taking that route. My comments were based from an amateurs perspective.

I was also refering to the 5¼-inch disk floppy disk (In 1988 the 3½-inch was outselling the 5¼-inch that then phased out) not the 3½-inch that is still currently available. Current lap and desktops do not systematicaly have a floppy disk drive (3½-inch) installed to read them (unless you install one).

From a practical point of view I don't know if there is any interest for an amateur to invest in storage units beyond a HD.

I just feel that the film/slide route is better for the amateur: Selecting the frames on a lightbox and either do it in the dark or scan for printing or other usages. And film/slides keep for a very long time withot recourse to technology.

Maybe another aspect top consider is travel. You can shoot with the likes of a Leica M6/Hassy/Nikon Fs/..... without any batteries (sunny f/16 rule) and have quite a few films in a pocket.

Tim

So, as a long term film camera (Nikon F3 plus six lenses) user, I think that this new camera needs attention.

Does anyone know how well it works?

I know f**k all about digital cameras and the Amateur Photographer article is full of scary references to 'raw' and 'JPEG' systems.

These mean nothing to me. But is this the digital camera that I need?

And what WOULD I need, from taking photographs to having prints (or slides)?

I've been told that Vuk knows the answers to all this.

Graham


Since you already have Nikon lenses and they're fairly recent, for less money than the Leica, you could have Nikon's best DSLR, the D2Xs.

Click (http://www.purelygadgets.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=2082&gclid=CJed173U7ogCFUwIQgodOWIWog)

Rack,

I have a D2H, which essentially is a D2Xs but with a lower-res, crappier sensor. The thing is a beast and if I were buying a D-SLR today I'd get the much more sensibly sized D200.

Joe

I would too if i was a Nikon user but if Graham's got 3k to burn on just the body, he might as well have the best they do if the size thing is no problem.

I was also refering to the 5¼-inch disk floppy disk (In 1988 the 3½-inch was outselling the 5¼-inch that then phased out) not the 3½-inch that is still currently available. Current lap and desktops do not systematicaly have a floppy disk drive (3½-inch) installed to read them (unless you install one).


If you still have files of interest on 5 1/4 inch floppy then you have only yourself to blame. Digital formats come and go, but there is usually an overlap of at least 5-10 years during which you can transfer to the new medium at any time.

I would too if i was a Nikon user but if Graham's got 3k to burn on just the body, he might as well have the best they do if the size thing is no problem.

I think you are both right. He should give me £3k for my D200, both issues are resolved. I'd go and buy a new one and trouser the change.

Happy to help, carry on.

Alex, I'm quite certain nobody has ever offered you £3K for your body.

-- Ian

Shhhh.

VFM, Ian, VFM.

Shhhh.

VFM, Ian, VFM.

PFM, surely?

Depends what you want it for, but around the £3k mark is too much for a day to day digital, even if a very good one, and not enough for a pro with enough resolution to be able to blow up really big. Canon's EOS 1DS mk II would be everything you'd ever need, but you're looking close to £5.5k for that and they're too new to get any bargains yet.

But unless you're shooting something for publication in a glossy, why bother? I shoot pro digital work mostly on Canon, but you'd be surprised at what actually produces some of the published images you see around. Big colour work I still tend to do on film, 'cause digital backs for big-format stuff are still not portable enough.

As for storage, it's a red-herring. Trannies need to be stored in light and moisture proof conditions, and even then, colours will change over time. Of course stuff shot in the 20s will be fine - it's in mono. For digital stuff, I double back-up onto two stand-alone hard drives, but that's because it's my income that's at stake! You can pick up a really high quality, large capacity hard drive for less than £100 and most anything will be able to read from it in the future if it's formatted correctly.

If you really want something for normal use, you will be very happy at much lower prices. The real joke of it is that the massive file sizes produced by high resolution cameras mostly go to waste. Phot libraries and the like, look for certain sizes of file to indicate the sort of camera that must have been used, but there is software that will 'fill in the gaps' to enlarge files and disguise the origin effectively. I have had a shot published by a respected magazine that was actually taken on a £300 Canon compact......