weatherbox wrote:
I typically prefer not to have a camera on my strap, as that would leave me in a conundrum should i suddenly find myself in a situation where I wanted to attach my strap to something, so not getting an M8 really works out well for me. .
I think I read in one review that the M8 comes with a very nice strap. I wonder if you can just buy the strap seperately? With a sony point and shoot hanging from it, it would make a real statement about not buying the M8.
Maybe I can trade my completely unused Canon Digital Lion Tamer strap (the one that says "Steal me" in big bold letters) for a Leica M strap. Hang my Rebel 2000 on it and no one would be the wiser.
Everyone—how do you really know that you are here—and where, precisely is here, on a piece of watery rock flying through space at (roughly) 17,000 kph? And who is the one who is doing the thinking that he/she is not going to get an M8? Well?
Nice counter to the various bibles, in any case. Made me laugh, and that's the main thing! Very much liked the 'against all odds' shot. cheers, KL
I'm not being funny, but is anyone else here slightly underwhelmed by the various M8 shots which have cropped (ouch) up on the web so far? I didn't expect the colours to look far more accurate than the DMR, but the shadow noise at anything above 160 iso seems to be removing the advantage of the superior dynamic range. Why does everyone keep saying noise doesn't matter? The noise seems to be removing the limpid quality that makes Canon FF images look so real, and instead giving slightly sludgy shadows which are the reason I switched to Canon from Nikon.
This is not meant to be a rallying call for a fanboy flame-war - I think Leicas and Nikons are fantastic tools; I just wonder if anyone else out there is seeing what I think I am seeing.
Meanwhile, here's a few unaltered 400 ISO JPEGs I took on Saturday : )
hmmmmm. Do you think you can make those images a little larger. I had a difficult time seeing the fine detail.
Can't tell what that non-smiley means!
The three individual shots were at f2.8 wide open so you can't expect the earth. I know greater sharpness can be got, but at what cost, financially and pictorially? I never bother to sharpen, but I suppose these could take a little bit of sharpening before making a really big print.
What matters more to me is that I think these files illustrate natural colour and tonal range, including deep contrast in the shadows, and the highlights have a credible glisteny look. From what I've seen, these aspects of reproduction are best provided by these particular camera and lens manufacturers.
The Leica telltale smooth bokeh transitions are lacking, but this is more how I see the world. Don't say "poor you".
