M8 Rapidwinder ?

A while ago I was using my M8 and M7 in a room full of artists sketching a model ... I had been using the M7 and it had attracted little attention. Then I picked up the M8 and pulled the trigger :eek: ... in that so silent room of people concentrating on their drawing it sounded like a gun going off in comparison to the M7 ... they soon got used to it though! :p
 
No Terry there is nothing in the water in London, but out of respect to Mr. Pierce and everyone else on this list I am not going to explain what I think you meant or were implying by your remarks; nor get into a prolonged discussion about this.

Everyone would be bored to tears and ultimately it's a waste of energy.

I still stand by my observations regarding the M8, but I think the best thing for us to do is to agree to disagree and leave it at that.


HL
 
Terry does bring up a good point regarding noise, the D40x is really quiet for a DSLR. The viewfinder blows (to me) but the thing is small and darn quiet. I use our labs D40x in the field, but I've thought about 'borrowing' it for non-research purposes. A 35mm lens and a 50 finder on it wouldn't be too bad.
 
Bill Pierce said:
Sadly, it's absolutely true about about folks hearing the camera at thirty feet. At least, they immediately turn and look in my direction. I, and I think most folks, normally work even closer to subjects on the street with a rangefinder camera. People don't respond every time I shoot, but there is enough response to worry me. Bruce Gilden, the Magnum photographer, once told me that he had more people go after him when he was shooting on the streets of Manhattan than some of the more exotic locations we think would be more edgy. I'm getting too old to run and too grouchy to charm my subjects.
Click to expand...
I've been hearing about this, and I'm beginning to wonder if there is some variation from batches of M8s to other batches of M8s. I say this because my M8 certainly makes noise, but nobody seems to mind the noise at all, except, of course, when you're in a concert hall with quiet/silent performance passages or at an absolutely quiet room.

I've shot mine within 3-10 ft. of other people in reasonably quiet places, and nobody has ever turned around; the only time I heard a comment was from a photo enthusiast, who at first thought I had an M7: "Oh, I also used to have an M7 ... it's an M8?!?" (honest).

It certainly is a heck of a lot quieter than my Canon 5D. I wonder if what helps is the Luigi case I have almost-permanently on it?

In any case, I too am very bugged about the shutter cocking mechanism. I really really wish they had put an "advance knob" that triggered the motor when you want to. A simple interrupt circuit. Not too difficult. Perhaps next time?

I hope us current M8 owners could retro-fit it if Leica decides that we really really really want one. This way, you can take the photo, then move the camera to a part of your body where you can muffle the re-cocking sound.

I want to know how much they paid their consultants, and I'll take half of that. This shouldn't have been too hard to think about.
 
When I want to go unnoticed I use my 1953 IIIf.

Getting back to Bill's point, Leica needs to mod the M8 to let you use a Leicavit/Rapidwinder. You would think that someone at Leica would remember that Leicas are known for their silent operation.
 
Why digital B&W?

Why digital B&W?

I'm wondering why folks would be interested in a digital B&W. Be nice to me, this is an earnest question without implication, but then again, I'm on RFF so I know I won't have to worry. Ok, so here goes:
It seems to me that you'd want to capture the color information. That way you can use channel mixer to make the tonal adjustments that are traditionally made with filters. Instead you'd be letting the camera make the decision for you and giving up a fair amount of post exposure processing control. Why let the camera make a creative decision that you could have control over by making yourself?
This seems especially inconsistent with the complaints I frequently hear about auto focus and auto exposure cameras and the perception that these auto functions take control away from the photographer. Especially since in these cases one actually does have control over the process (via exp. comp or manual setting) where as with a B&W sensor one really would be giving up significant control.
Would a B&W sensor have improved dynamic range or some other qualitative advantage?
 
Bill Pierce said:
But if someone ever built a camera with 14 or 16 bit that didn't have to record three colors, it could kick butt. And I know two people who would buy it.
Click to expand...
I'd be in line for it.

I hope that Leica stop their bizarre stance on not having the 16-bit raw image option available to users. Their statement that "they tested it and saw no difference between 8-bit and 16-bit files" flies in the face of needing a raw format in the first place.
 
What puzzles me (and some people at Leica) is why anyone would want a B+W-only digicam. Digital is OK for colour, and very convenient; but film and silver halide is just so much nicer in mono.

Of course there are those who disagree (and have posted above) but I can't help suspecting that they are a very small group compared with (a) those who prefer film for monochrome and (b) those who don't give a toss about image quality anyway in colour or mono.

Cheers,

Roger
 
I have to agree with Mr Hicks. One of the main reasons that I prefer film over digital is that I primarily shoot in black and white – and digital b&w just doesn't look 'right' to my eyes. It's a combination of limited dynamic range leading to blown highlights and blocked-out shadows, plastic granularity and a visually (although hard to define) lack of depth. No digital mono shot I've ever seen gets anywhere near a good film/developer combo (like APX100 in Rodinal 1+50!)

With colour though, digital's great – the dynamic range is no worse than slide film and the lower running costs and greater convenience of digital really come into their own when viewed against the cost and time involved in having a lab process E6 film. Personally, if I were buying an M8 I'd be wanting it precisely for shooting colour - black and white would stay with the M6 and M2.

I've never handled an M8, but for what it's worth, what I'd like to see from Leica is a digital M9 with a high dynamic-range sensor (like that in the Fuji S5 Pro - think C41 rather than E6), a shutter sound like my M6, no need for additional IR cut filters and, ideally, no crop factor for the lenses (either by using full-sized sensors or by some internal digital or optical jjiggery-pokery). Oh, and price parity with the M7 and MP. Then I might just spring for one – for colour shooting, naturally :)
 
i continue to be puzzled by the "wait for the full frame m9" buisiness. with a little research you will find ton's of information as to WHY there is no full frame m anything and why there's no full frame m in the pipe. one very BIG reason is leica would have to commit to a new line up of m mount lenses and that is not going to happen any time soon... could you imagine the uproar? it is more than likely the m9 or next generation m is going to have a cropped sensor as i am pretty sure leica is knee deep in a new dslr. the "optical jiggery-pokery" involved in putting a full frame sensor in an m body is immense and more than likely would involve a new lens line up that would destroy one of the cornerstones to the m philosophy... backwards compatibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top