Why are m8 owners are so defensive?

PhotoTraveler said:

I think it's pretty easy.

They get bombarded with people continually bashing the camera and
asking why it cost so much and why would anyone buy it. That would
get real old real fast. If you don't understand the camera, or
have a problem with it's price, that's your problem. Don't go
around questioning people about there purchase.

I see very little of people defending the M8, but much more of
people asking dumb questions and attacking the whole thing, causing
folks to try and explain things to that person.

Click to expand...

I've had the pleasure of using the camera for an afternoon....and it was a complete pleasure.

Workmanship & build is better than ANY of my Canons. Leica glass speaks for itself. The sensor is superb.

The real problem are a bunch of uninformed, jealous whiners who have nothing to do but bash Leica users. Sad really. These whiners have no idea what they are missing.

JLK said:

...don't argue with the Nyquist police.

John doesn't get it, and he never will get it. It's best to let him
rant to himself.

--
Jim

Click to expand...

cheers Jim
similarly he burns the SD14 i guess too

--
Riley

not all that counts, can be counted

You bet. He dislikes the Kodak offerings as well. Margaret Wise Brown said it best:

"a comb, a brush, a bowl full of mush..."



--
Jim

Dave Luttmann said:

I've had the pleasure of using the camera for an afternoon....
The real problem are a bunch of uninformed, jealous whiners who
have nothing to do but bash Leica users. Sad really. These
whiners have no idea what they are missing.

Click to expand...

Dave - I do not debate the pleasure you had using the M8. I've used it too and liked it very much. My question is always, "Is it good va;ue for money?" Here the answer is, no. It's good, but not 300% better or even 100%. Leica is in a tough position. They held the high end niche in 35mm film, but we are not in film any more.

If I won the lottery and money were no object, would I buy an M8? The answer is no. - Jack

Rriley said:

cheers Jim
similarly he burns the SD14 i guess too

Click to expand...

Yep. I see "snap to grid" effects with the aliased Sigma imaging. Sharp Sigma images do not look like accurate renderings of scenes. They look like point captures forced to be area captures.

Too much color noise in blotches in dark areas as well, even at low ISOs.

--
John

Value for the money will always be a personal thing.

Many people would say the M8 is a massively better deal than a Canon 1DIII or 1DsII. It simply gets them what they want and they see as value and quality, where the Canon 1D doesn't. But others will see it all the opposite.

And of course value for the money is all relative. Many folks take it where they want to see a cheap price and get the most for that cheap price. Others see it as they want a high quality thing and it be priced at what it should be/ well priced. For the later, the M8 works just fine.

Is it really M8 owners? If you went to another camera (N, C, P, S, O...) forum and posted neg comments about their brand, you don't think you wouldn't get any flames or defensive comments? People like to think they made a good decision when they purchased their particular camera. In my own worthless opinion, I think the majority of the cameras, especially DSLRs, will do fine.

Jim_M said:

Is it really M8 owners? If you went to another camera (N, C, P, S,
O...) forum and posted neg comments about their brand, you don't
think you wouldn't get any flames or defensive comments? People
like to think they made a good decision when they purchased their
particular camera. In my own worthless opinion, I think the
majority of the cameras, especially DSLRs, will do fine.

Click to expand...

right on Jim

amazes me that people tour forums about cameras they have zero interest in, to so called 'inform' the user base that there cameras are junk. All to often it appears they sport Canon cameras themselves, which is not to say all Canon owners are like that, but you get sick to death of these self professed 'gurus' of photography flaming other camera makes, when often they have no idea of the facts that surround supposed issues with particular cameras.

out here i call them thread tourists, but it gets harder to explain when they go visit other forums such as Leica User Forum to expound their views for the sake of heated argument.

--
Riley

not all that counts, can be counted

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

The unfortunate fact that Leica basically stuffed up their first
version of a digital RF cam, didn't seem do basic testing (or
disregarded their results) to make sure the IR cut filter actually
did it's job and pushed it out the door with a basic flaw that
shouldn't be present in a US $5000 camera.

Click to expand...

is ignorant that it was intended to use the IR cut externally, that
it wont meter flash correctly without it, and the images are softer
without it.

Click to expand...

It is a rather sad kludge.

The only time I should have to use a filter is when I use a red, orange or green filters when shooting with B&W film to get the contrast effect with the sky or foliage.

Every other manufacturer of 35mm design based digital cameras has managed to put a working IR cut filter infront of the imaging sensor of their cameras.
Epson managed it with their RD1, so why not Leica?

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

That's not the only big problem - Leica omitted an AA filter, in a
system where the lenses are very sharp, and very much in need of a
AA filter. Leica RAW files have tremendous aliasing, including
color moire. The RAW converters hide the problem in its most
obvious form, but convert it into another.

Click to expand...

he seems to imply the RAW converters are special and 'hide'
problems, which is fatuous nonsense as the RAWs are DNG, common or
garden variety RAW. Yes some proprietary converters work better
than others but Leica AG do not make their own, unlike C&N

Click to expand...

From the images that are available as "web sized" it isn't possible to make a judgement on the effect of leaving off the AA filter.
Complaints in the Leica Talk forum about IR contamination speak for themselves.

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

I find it very disturbing how so many companies have decided that
the old laws of sampling don't apply, and cater to the tastes of
the optically naive public who can't distinguish between true
resolution of detail, and the artifacts of aliasing.

Click to expand...

laws, what laws ? more nonsense. he doesnt understand that with the
short register of M lenses you must have an offset microlens
covered sensor, and that negates using a AA filter or an IRcut on
the sensor because of its reflective and divergent qualities. It
would actually make the images worse, with soft edges and fall-off
(sound familiar?) that cant be controlled, in short he doesnt have
a clue what hes talking about but hey that doesnt stop him posting

Click to expand...

Omitting a (working) IR cut filter can only bad for image quality.
If you like glowing foliage and purple tuxedos, then fine .
It's your US $5,000 to spend.

Leica made their name with an extremely well made line of rangefinder 35mm film cameras.

For this prestige manufacturer to release their flagship product with such a glaring fault that had to be pointed out by their own customers is a bit sad.

Alpha and beta testing should have caught the problem with the weak IR cut filter in the M8 before it was shipped out as a commercial product.

Giving away two free screw-in IR cut filters as a fix-'em-up realy does speak volumes about how the company as a whole feels about the problem.

dj_nme said:

Rriley said:

dj_nme said:

The unfortunate fact that Leica basically stuffed up their first
version of a digital RF cam, didn't seem do basic testing (or
disregarded their results) to make sure the IR cut filter actually
did it's job and pushed it out the door with a basic flaw that
shouldn't be present in a US $5000 camera.

Click to expand...

is ignorant that it was intended to use the IR cut externally, that
it wont meter flash correctly without it, and the images are softer
without it.

Click to expand...

It is a rather sad kludge.
The only time I should have to use a filter is when I use a red,
orange or green filters when shooting with B&W film to get the
contrast effect with the sky or foliage.

Click to expand...

and with M8 you risk the occasional soft image, IR and natural light have different focus fields, if you opt to accept IR light, you can get an apparent shift.

dj_nme said:

Every other manufacturer of 35mm design based digital cameras has
managed to put a working IR cut filter infront of the imaging
sensor of their cameras.

Click to expand...

this is a primary point, it just couldnt be done. The short register of M lenses requires offset microlenses, and that doesnt work with other glass infront of it or behind it, cancelling the use of an AA and IR filter. Indeed even the offset microlenses are just .5mm thick. In short, with technology as it stands this is the only way M lenses can be used without image defects on such a large sensor.

dj_nme said:

Epson managed it with their RD1, so why not Leica?

Click to expand...

The Epson died of natural causes, and never had the IQ of the M8

that should tell you something, and it has a much smaller sensor. Like 1DMkIII M8 has around 1.3x crop which is as large as offset microlenses allow you to go.

And the Epson had issues with IR too, as do a number of dSLRs, some even have too weak an AA filter. Its not as uncommon as all that. Look around at commercial level images for advertising, when you know what to look for, the IR contamination is apparent. That others are not talented enough to spot that shrug, like i care

dj_nme said:

dj_nme said:

dj_nme said:

That's not the only big problem - Leica omitted an AA filter, in a
system where the lenses are very sharp, and very much in need of a
AA filter. Leica RAW files have tremendous aliasing, including
color moire. The RAW converters hide the problem in its most
obvious form, but convert it into another.

Click to expand...

he seems to imply the RAW converters are special and 'hide'
problems, which is fatuous nonsense as the RAWs are DNG, common or
garden variety RAW. Yes some proprietary converters work better
than others but Leica AG do not make their own, unlike C&N

Click to expand...

From the images that are available as "web sized" it isn't possible
to make a judgement on the effect of leaving off the AA filter.
Complaints in the Leica Talk forum about IR contamination speak for
themselves.

Click to expand...

there are from time to time full size frames for download at LUF, and there have been a number of .DNG too

mostly by people who dont know or are incapable of knowing why it is as it is. Once again, it is the only way it can be done with the short register M lenses. Its a pro tool, not a digicam, and it requires more of you than the average dslr.

dj_nme said:

dj_nme said:

dj_nme said:

I find it very disturbing how so many companies have decided that
the old laws of sampling don't apply, and cater to the tastes of
the optically naive public who can't distinguish between true
resolution of detail, and the artifacts of aliasing.

Click to expand...

laws, what laws ? more nonsense. he doesnt understand that with the
short register of M lenses you must have an offset microlens
covered sensor, and that negates using a AA filter or an IRcut on
the sensor because of its reflective and divergent qualities. It
would actually make the images worse, with soft edges and fall-off
(sound familiar?) that cant be controlled, in short he doesnt have
a clue what hes talking about but hey that doesnt stop him posting

Click to expand...

Omitting a (working) IR cut filter can only bad for image quality.
If you like glowing foliage and purple tuxedos, then fine .
It's your US $5,000 to spend.

Click to expand...

thats why you put the IR cut on the front of the lens, at which it works fine and has exceptional IQ, as you would expect

dj_nme said:

Leica made their name with an extremely well made line of
rangefinder 35mm film cameras.
For this prestige manufacturer to release their flagship product
with such a glaring fault that had to be pointed out by their own
customers is a bit sad.

Click to expand...

its not a fault, its the only way it can be

dj_nme said:

Alpha and beta testing should have caught the problem with the weak
IR cut filter in the M8 before it was shipped out as a commercial
product.

Click to expand...

read MR's article at Luminous Landscape, Leica knew about it

dj_nme said:

Giving away two free screw-in IR cut filters as a fix-'em-up realy
does speak volumes about how the company as a whole feels about the
problem.

Click to expand...

clearly a bit difficult for you, maybe you belong in digicam land

in reference to the OP, you can see the inane beliefs that cant accept the technical reality that just go on and on like a broken record.

Why isnt it like other cameras? .......well because it isnt

--
Riley

not all that counts, can be counted

Flavio E said:

I also thought that, but then i realized that their lenses would be
equal [in quality] to the Canon L line or the best Nikon lenses,
but not superior. Erwin Puts, leica specialist with a very good
website with objective lens tests, thinks the same.

Click to expand...

Canon L is a great lens IF you get a "Good Copy".

All Leica lenses are good lenses. In fact all are great lenses.

With all due respect, mass manufactured lenses with sloppy quality control (ie: large manufacturing tolerances) cannot compare to quality crafted lenses from Leica.

Prices reflect that perfection though.

That is simple: they buying a Panasonic with Leica name, we need more people like this ) is good for business, ha ha ha.

Ryszard

Ryszard Sytnik said:

That is simple: they buying a Panasonic with Leica name, we need
more people like this ) is good for business, ha ha ha.

Ryszard

Click to expand...

How simple Ryszard?
Question:
How is a Leica M8 a re-badged Panasonic?
Please answer, I'd like to buy the cheaper version

--
http://www.photo-utopia.blogspot.com/

Ryszard Sytnik said:

That is simple: they buying a Panasonic with Leica name, we need
more people like this ) is good for business, ha ha ha.

Ryszard

Click to expand...

heres a perfect example for the OP

it seems any complete idiot without a clue can write anything without any validation, and the bet his his relatives think its true.

Leica cameras make high quality images, that makes them targets for trolls who would rather they didnt.

--
Riley

not all that counts, can be counted

Rriley said:

dj_nme said:

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

The unfortunate fact that Leica basically stuffed up their first
version of a digital RF cam, didn't seem do basic testing (or
disregarded their results) to make sure the IR cut filter actually
did it's job and pushed it out the door with a basic flaw that
shouldn't be present in a US $5000 camera.

Click to expand...

is ignorant that it was intended to use the IR cut externally, that
it wont meter flash correctly without it, and the images are softer
without it.

Click to expand...

It is a rather sad kludge.
The only time I should have to use a filter is when I use a red,
orange or green filters when shooting with B&W film to get the
contrast effect with the sky or foliage.

Click to expand...

and with M8 you risk the occasional soft image, IR and natural
light have different focus fields, if you opt to accept IR light,
you can get an apparent shift.

Click to expand...

That means that for normal photography it is absolutely required that an IR cut filter be placed on every lens that is going to be used.

That isn't realy a good solution, a working IR cut filter should be afixed infront of the sensor just like every other digital camera has.

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

Every other manufacturer of 35mm design based digital cameras has
managed to put a working IR cut filter infront of the imaging
sensor of their cameras.

Click to expand...

this is a primary point, it just couldnt be done. The short
register of M lenses requires offset microlenses, and that doesnt
work with other glass infront of it or behind it, cancelling the
use of an AA and IR filter. Indeed even the offset microlenses are
just .5mm thick. In short, with technology as it stands this is the
only way M lenses can be used without image defects on such a large
sensor.

Click to expand...

There is actually an IR cut filter built into the M8, it just doesn't work properly.

Complaints of IR contamination in normal photographs come up quite regularly in the Leica Talk forum.

Leica went to the trouble of putting an IR cut filter in, but not checking to see if it actually did it's job before shoving it out the door.
Quality control should be much better on such an expensive, prestige item.

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

Epson managed it with their RD1, so why not Leica?

Click to expand...

The Epson died of natural causes, and never had the IQ of the M8
that should tell you something, and it has a much smaller sensor.
Like 1DMkIII M8 has around 1.3x crop which is as large as offset
microlenses allow you to go.

Click to expand...

The Epson RD1 only had a limited (10,000 from memory) production run, so the supply of them would have run out anyway.

It also lacked the red dot logo on the front, so "real" Leica users wouldn't have been interested in the first place.

Just like the "flamewar" the Konica Hexar M-mount camera caused when it was released.

Rriley said:

And the Epson had issues with IR too, as do a number of dSLRs, some
even have too weak an AA filter. Its not as uncommon as all that.
Look around at commercial level images for advertising, when you
know what to look for, the IR contamination is apparent. That
others are not talented enough to spot that shrug, like i care

Click to expand...

The Epson RD1 wasn't lambasted for having a poor IR cut filter, being the "off brand" M-mount DRF camera it wasn't held up to the lofty high standards that Leica has been renowned for.

Rriley said:

mostly by people who dont know or are incapable of knowing why it
is as it is. Once again, it is the only way it can be done with the
short register M lenses. Its a pro tool, not a digicam, and it
requires more of you than the average dslr.

Click to expand...

"More" as in "more glass between the lens and scene", I presume?

A professional tool should work properly in it's designed task without requiring extra add-ons, the IR cut filter should have been made stronger so that the M8 can be used to take normal photos with the lenses that fit the Leica M-mount without the kludge of an add-on filter.

Rriley said:

clearly a bit difficult for you, maybe you belong in digicam land

Click to expand...

What is your point with this snide comment?

I personally shoot digital with with a Pentax ist-DS, which isn't a "toy digicam" and has a working IR cut filter built into it.
My film cameras include a Leica IIc, a Graphlex 6x9 SLR and a Minolta XG-1.

Rriley said:

in reference to the OP, you can see the inane beliefs that cant
accept the technical reality that just go on and on like a broken
record.

Click to expand...

Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Pentax, Samsung (and a whole host of other digital camera manufacturers) have managed to make a variety of digital cameras that all have working IR cut filters afixed infront of their sensors (or built into the sensor package).
Are you now saying that because the others do it that Leica shouldn't?
That would be very silly.

Rriley said:

Why isnt it like other cameras? .......well because it isnt

Click to expand...

Leica cameras aren't like other cameras.

The mechanical fit & finish of the Leica M8 is top-notch and second to none, as I would expect from this prestige manufacturer.

It only has a design flaw that isn't related to the mechanical design of the camera.

The fact that the Leica M8 does not have a working IR cut filter while even the cheapest digicam has, isn't something that bothers you?
In this instance it should be like other digital cameras.

see heres another, while the real question is : Why are m8 owners are so defensive? He just cant let go. Ive explained at length why it is the way it is, but he just cant accept it and repeats the variations of the same stuff over and over. It becomes tiresome nonsense that in the end gets nowhere, because he will probably never understand why things are the way they are, and will likely be ignorant of the IQ anyway with or without an IRcutoff filter.

dj_nme said:

Rriley said:

and with M8 you risk the occasional soft image, IR and natural
light have different focus fields, if you opt to accept IR light,
you can get an apparent shift.

Click to expand...

That means that for normal photography it is absolutely required
that an IR cut filter be placed on every lens that is going to be
used.
That isn't realy a good solution, a working IR cut filter should be
afixed infront of the sensor just like every other digital camera
has.

Click to expand...

dj_nme said:

dj_nme said:

this is a primary point, it just couldnt be done. The short
register of M lenses requires offset microlenses, and that doesnt
work with other glass infront of it or behind it, cancelling the
use of an AA and IR filter. Indeed even the offset microlenses are
just .5mm thick. In short, with technology as it stands this is the
only way M lenses can be used without image defects on such a large
sensor.

Click to expand...

There is actually an IR cut filter built into the M8, it just
doesn't work properly.
Complaints of IR contamination in normal photographs come up quite
regularly in the Leica Talk forum.
Leica went to the trouble of putting an IR cut filter in, but not
checking to see if it actually did it's job before shoving it out
the door.
Quality control should be much better on such an expensive,
prestige item.

dj_nme said:

dj_nme said:

Epson managed it with their RD1, so why not Leica?

Click to expand...

The Epson died of natural causes, and never had the IQ of the M8
that should tell you something, and it has a much smaller sensor.
Like 1DMkIII M8 has around 1.3x crop which is as large as offset
microlenses allow you to go.

Click to expand...

The Epson RD1 only had a limited (10,000 from memory) production
run, so the supply of them would have run out anyway.
It also lacked the red dot logo on the front, so "real" Leica users
wouldn't have been interested in the first place.
Just like the "flamewar" the Konica Hexar M-mount camera caused
when it was released.

dj_nme said:

And the Epson had issues with IR too, as do a number of dSLRs, some
even have too weak an AA filter. Its not as uncommon as all that.
Look around at commercial level images for advertising, when you
know what to look for, the IR contamination is apparent. That
others are not talented enough to spot that shrug, like i care

Click to expand...

The Epson RD1 wasn't lambasted for having a poor IR cut filter,
being the "off brand" M-mount DRF camera it wasn't held up to the
lofty high standards that Leica has been renowned for.

dj_nme said:

mostly by people who dont know or are incapable of knowing why it
is as it is. Once again, it is the only way it can be done with the
short register M lenses. Its a pro tool, not a digicam, and it
requires more of you than the average dslr.

Click to expand...

"More" as in "more glass between the lens and scene", I presume?
A professional tool should work properly in it's designed task
without requiring extra add-ons, the IR cut filter should have been
made stronger so that the M8 can be used to take normal photos with
the lenses that fit the Leica M-mount without the kludge of an
add-on filter.

dj_nme said:

clearly a bit difficult for you, maybe you belong in digicam land

Click to expand...

What is your point with this snide comment?
I personally shoot digital with with a Pentax ist-DS, which isn't a
"toy digicam" and has a working IR cut filter built into it.
My film cameras include a Leica IIc, a Graphlex 6x9 SLR and a
Minolta XG-1.

dj_nme said:

in reference to the OP, you can see the inane beliefs that cant
accept the technical reality that just go on and on like a broken
record.

Click to expand...

Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Pentax, Samsung (and a whole host of other
digital camera manufacturers) have managed to make a variety of
digital cameras that all have working IR cut filters afixed infront
of their sensors (or built into the sensor package).
Are you now saying that because the others do it that Leica shouldn't?
That would be very silly.

dj_nme said:

Why isnt it like other cameras? .......well because it isnt

Click to expand...

Leica cameras aren't like other cameras.
The mechanical fit & finish of the Leica M8 is top-notch and second
to none, as I would expect from this prestige manufacturer.
It only has a design flaw that isn't related to the mechanical
design of the camera.
The fact that the Leica M8 does not have a working IR cut filter
while even the cheapest digicam has, isn't something that bothers
you?

Click to expand...

not at all

dj_nme said:

In this instance it should be like other digital cameras.

Click to expand...

see, Why isnt it like other cameras? .......well because it isnt

--
Riley

not all that counts, can be counted

Rriley said:

see heres another, while the real question is : Why are m8 owners
are so defensive? He just cant let go. Ive explained at length why
it is the way it is, but he just cant accept it and repeats the
variations of the same stuff over and over. It becomes tiresome
nonsense that in the end gets nowhere, because he will probably
never understand why things are the way they are, and will likely
be ignorant of the IQ anyway with or without an IRcutoff filter.

Click to expand...

Not a jot of actual reply here, just some ad hominem attack.
Shoot the messenger.

Leica strangely believed that that their first attempt at a digital M camera could be shoved out the door with a glaring fault (an almost non-functional IR cut filter) that wasn't present in the Epson RD-1 and isn't present in any of the current crop of DSLR cameras from any maker.

The top-notch mecahanical design, fit & finish just doesn't make up for the aparrently fatal flaw that you (Rriley) seem too ready to dismiss as insignificant.

The fault adversely affects image quality (or IQ as you have written), IR contamination has been complained about enough by the early adopters of the Leica M8 to be noticed by any-one who cared to peruse (even) just the topics in the Leica Talk forum.

If Leica have abandoned their reputation for superlative cameras (IR? What's IR? Should the sensor have an IR cut filter?) that produce outstanding results then it is a truly sad day for photography.

I am extremely happy with my Leica IIc, but I won't be shelling out US $5,000 for an apparently flawed DRF camera.

dj_nme said:

Rriley said:

see heres another, while the real question is : Why are m8 owners
are so defensive? He just cant let go. Ive explained at length why
it is the way it is, but he just cant accept it and repeats the
variations of the same stuff over and over. It becomes tiresome
nonsense that in the end gets nowhere, because he will probably
never understand why things are the way they are, and will likely
be ignorant of the IQ anyway with or without an IRcutoff filter.

Click to expand...

Not a jot of actual reply here, just some ad hominem attack.
Shoot the messenger.

Leica strangely believed that that their first attempt at a digital
M camera could be shoved out the door with a glaring fault (an
almost non-functional IR cut filter) that wasn't present in the
Epson RD-1 and isn't present in any of the current crop of DSLR
cameras from any maker.

The top-notch mecahanical design, fit & finish just doesn't make up
for the aparrently fatal flaw that you (Rriley) seem too ready to
dismiss as insignificant.
The fault adversely affects image quality (or IQ as you have
written), IR contamination has been complained about enough by the
early adopters of the Leica M8 to be noticed by any-one who cared
to peruse (even) just the topics in the Leica Talk forum.

Click to expand...

But has everyone had problems? Or just a few who's comments have been seized upon and paraded around by others? More trolls that people with the affected M8's IMO. Look at the people who have M8's who are pleased with them and have not noticed these issues because only a few are affected.

dj_nme said:

If Leica have abandoned their reputation for superlative cameras
(IR? What's IR? Should the sensor have an IR cut filter?) that
produce outstanding results then it is a truly sad day for
photography.

I am extremely happy with my Leica IIc, but I won't be shelling out
US $5,000 for an apparently flawed DRF camera.

Click to expand...

Even though it hasn't got the slow speeds?

Regards, David

David Hughes said:

dj_nme said:

The top-notch mecahanical design, fit & finish just doesn't make up
for the aparrently fatal flaw that you (Rriley) seem too ready to
dismiss as insignificant.
The fault adversely affects image quality (or IQ as you have
written), IR contamination has been complained about enough by the
early adopters of the Leica M8 to be noticed by any-one who cared
to peruse (even) just the topics in the Leica Talk forum.

Click to expand...

But has everyone had problems? Or just a few who's comments have
been seized upon and paraded around by others? More trolls that
people with the affected M8's IMO. Look at the people who have M8's
who are pleased with them and have not noticed these issues because
only a few are affected.

Click to expand...

There were quite a few messages posted (and a review on Luminous Landscapes) straight after the M8 was released that made it look like Leica was using their customers (or reviewers in LL's case) to beta test a camera that should have been thoroughly "put through the wringer" before being pushed out the door.
It shouldn't have been an issue in the first place.

The reputation of Leica is pretty much hinging on how they handle their migration to digital.

Hopefully if there is an R10D I hope that it will be somewhat more compact and integrated than the DMR+R8/R9 ended up being, although it looks like the Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1 has become Leica's only SLR offering via badge engineering.

David Hughes124436 said:

David Hughes124436 said:

If Leica have abandoned their reputation for superlative cameras
(IR? What's IR? Should the sensor have an IR cut filter?) that
produce outstanding results then it is a truly sad day for
photography.

I am extremely happy with my Leica IIc, but I won't be shelling out
US $5,000 for an apparently flawed DRF camera.

Click to expand...

Even though it hasn't got the slow speeds?

Regards, David

Click to expand...

Fast glass makes up for it mostly, also it's one less mechanical system that can go wrong and require adjustment.

David Hughes said:

But has everyone had problems? Or just a few who's comments have

been seized upon and paraded around by others? More trolls that people > with the affected M8's IMO. Look at the people who have M8's who are > pleased with them and have not noticed these issues because only a few > are affected.

Click to expand...

different issues were variously wide spread
there was a poll for lockups that seemed very prevelant
it turned out to be 13% or something like that

--
Riley

not all that counts, can be counted