Anyone heard of this camera?

Vertu is Nokia - same insides - different exterior. By the logic listed here, you should buy a 8800 Arte as they are the "same"

www.vertu.com

There is more to manufacture than just circuit boards and optics - its how these are put together that makes the difference.

I don't know for sure, but having visited panasonic production lines, I doubt the Leica version comes off the same one as the LX3
 
Philx1979 said:
would this picture make you wanna spend £27,000 on a camera???? haha i wouldn`t.
Click to expand...

This is a different argument. If I would step into a Ferrari F1 car, would I automatically drive to become F1 World Champion?

- Well I probably would as its ferrari, but you get my point ;)
 
onikami said:
Who said anything about slagging Leica off? Yet another poster who fails to read the thread in full. :p

Near the start after a few posts from members, I said I wanted to buy the camera myself because people here were saying it is practically a rolls royce camera. World class lens, quality etc. I cant afford it because its too expensive. We then get a guy come with his "rich mans play thing" comment which made no sense at all.
Click to expand...

I don't want to sound like a pedant, but:

onikami said:
I only recently developed an interest in photography and was only aware of the usual brands: Canon, Pentak, Panasonic, Sony etc.
.
.
.
Now that I've come across them, it is somewhat annoying that it seems the price indicates is more or less a rich mans play thing. Reading comments here and looking at the pic of the M8, I want one now.
Click to expand...

You did say it first. Or am I quoting the wrong person? :)

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=1391070&postcount=14
 
cressers said:
This is a different argument. If I would step into a Ferrari F1 car, would I automatically drive to become F1 World Champion?

- Well I probably would as its ferrari, but you get my point ;)
Click to expand...

Dont really get your point, prob me being stupid, but that picture does nothing for me, not the kind of picture i would put on the front of a website if i was selling a camera for that amount of money, could of picked a better picture dont you think? lol
 
Philx1979 said:
Dont really get your point, prob me being stupid, but that picture does nothing for me, not the kind of picture i would put on the front of a website if i was selling a camera for that amount of money, could of picked a better picture dont you think? lol
Click to expand...

OK, agree with that :)
 
The Leica was actually the very first 35mm camera. You have to realise the scorn that was heaped on this tiny negative format at the time, in a world full of large format cameras. The quality of available 35mm film in the early days didn't help it's reputation.

Legendary street/ candid photographers like Henri Cartier- Bresson were quick to realise the potential of this small camera and working unnoticed compared to the large commonly used cameras. Work by Bresson and other great photographers enhanced the popularity of the format enormously, but there was still a lot of scorn for 35mm in the late 50's (when I became interested) from photograhers who almost universally used medium format cameras, the Rolleiflex, being almost a badge of office for working pros. As available 35mm film improved, so more pros gradually adopted the smaller format.

Leicas were always made to the highest standards of German engineering and the M Series has always been considered pretty much the pinnacle of rangefinder perfection.

I'm not in the least surprised that a newcomer to photography, wouldn't have heard of Leica these days since the digital explosion.
 
cressers said:
This is a different argument. If I would step into a Ferrari F1 car, would I automatically drive to become F1 World Champion?

- Well I probably would as its ferrari, but you get my point ;)
Click to expand...

It didn't work for Massa last year. And I think he was trying quite hard ;)

onikami, Leica WAS a quality brand. Not now. It lost that status many years ago due to a complete failure to embrace the future, and a head-in-the-sand belief that quality engineering would win through over everything. That attitude doesn't sit well with digital, and the M8 is a very good example of how to get it absolutely wrong with a blind and dogmatic view.

The brand is in tatters and its future hangs in the balance. Only a few die-hards use them, and people with more money than sense. Like this bloke on the link below, who is clearly struggling to get the hang of it. The best Leica today is made by Panasonic, and has never been near Germany.

I'm not surprised you have not heard of them. Why should you? They are hardly headline camera makers. And now that you do know a little, what difference has that made to your photography, the camera you use, or the way you take pictures? Nothing. That is how relevant Leica is today, and that saddens me greatly.

Eric Clapton in trouble with his Leica M8 :D
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-472172/Eric-Clapton-No-Lens-Scapon.html
 
This thread is pretty awful towards the original poster in places.. you all had to learn about Leica at some point. His only mistake was posting a topic instead of googling the brand.
 
iammartin said:
This thread is pretty awful towards the original poster in places.. you all had to learn about Leica at some point. His only mistake was posting a topic instead of googling the brand.
Click to expand...

I agree, some of the posters in here have been quite condescending.
 
CT said:
The Leica was actually the very first 35mm camera. You have to realise the scorn that was heaped on this tiny negative format at the time, in a world full of large format cameras. The quality of available 35mm film in the early days didn't help it's reputation.

Legendary street/ candid photographers like Henri Cartier- Bresson were quick to realise the potential of this small camera and working unnoticed compared to the large commonly used cameras. Work by Bresson and other great photographers enhanced the popularity of the format enormously, but there was still a lot of scorn for 35mm in the late 50's (when I became interested) from photograhers who almost universally used medium format cameras, the Rolleiflex, being almost a badge of office for working pros. As available 35mm film improved, so more pros gradually adopted the smaller format.

Leicas were always made to the highest standards of German engineering and the M Series has always been considered pretty much the pinnacle of rangefinder perfection.

I'm not in the least surprised that a newcomer to photography, wouldn't have heard of Leica these days since the digital explosion.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting post, thank you :)
 
onikami said:
I cant see how they can a be better than a top range digital SLR. :shrug:
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to have a flipping mirror (hehe) to mean good quality.

You are paying for the pleasure of using a camera of unrivaled quality, which is a joy to use
 
iammartin said:
This thread is pretty awful towards the original poster in places.. you all had to learn about Leica at some point. His only mistake was posting a topic instead of googling the brand.
Click to expand...

KayJay said:
I agree, some of the posters in here have been quite condescending.
Click to expand...

There have been a few patronising posters who have been added to my ignore list, but the thread has also been rather interesting to read.
 
Leica is the dogs danglies (for those who can afford them!!)
 
andrewc said:
My first exposure to Leica was its mention in the 1985 BBC TV adaptation of Tom Sharpe's Blott on the Landscape :)
Click to expand...

Blimey. It's been some time since I heard that program mentioned! I used to love it. I believe it was my very first exposure to breasts that weren't my mothers.
 
AliB said:
So 35mm film is actually nicely in the middle being faster than LF/MF and slower than digital anything.
Click to expand...

I would say that 35mm was faster than 'digital anything' as you don't waste time looking at the back at the picture you have just taken whilst missing the next shot.


Steve.
 
I think everyone shooting digitally should spend some time shooting with a hefty dollop of gaffa tape over the screen.:D

Shooting film again has taught me not to chimp, I'll check the first shot for blinkies and after that one I won't look again. I do it deliberately so I concentrate on my shooting. :thumbs:
 
It amazes me the number of people who miss the moment whilst "chimping". As you say Ali, check the histrogram and then ignore the screen.

I've never had a Leica camera (although I lust after a D-LUX 4) but my Leica binoculars are simply stunning. Come with a 30 year warranty too!
 
I have to agree with one of the above points. A couple of very condescending posts on this thread.

I've gotten into photography over the last year and a half and have become more and more addicted as I've gone on. Thanks to this forum and some members, I recorded all of the Genius of Photography series and the BBC Photography night. This was the first time I'd really seen Leica mentioned (I think that Joel the street photographer uses one, might be wrong ***) and learnt a great deal about the history of photography itself, fantastic viewing and learning (Bresson etc..)

I'm 35, and I can absolutely guarantee that if I asked my friends of the same age to name camera brands, Leica would be a very rare mention indeed, if at all. Although I now know through following this thread that they hold a very special place in photography history and hopefully long may they continue.
 
Some good info on the history and evolution of the Leica HERE
 
AliB said:
I think everyone shooting digitally should spend some time shooting with a hefty dollop of gaffa tape over the screen.:D

Shooting film again has taught me not to chimp, I'll check the first shot for blinkies and after that one I won't look again. I do it deliberately so I concentrate on my shooting. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I've turned the preview option on my 5d2 off. It's great now, no more distractions. The only thing that I'd like to still be able to see is the histogram.
 
I always turn off auto preview if that is what you mean. If not, the screen will shine up and reduce contrast and visibility in the view finder. You can always press the "play" button if you want to check
 
The saddest thing of all about these cameras, is that they are highly prized by collectors, particularly special and limited editions, like the one used by the Nazis which bore the emblem of the Luftwaffe. Condition is everything to collectors, to the extent that if you remove the shrink celluloid wrapping you've already reduced it's value, so they don't ...ever! Sad, sad, sad! :gag:
 
My dad's never even held a camera, not to my knowledge anyway but mentions Leica as a top make of camera (probably being in the removal business) and as a kid i always thought Olympus were the top make because David Bailey used them.
 
Leica WAS niche - and its niche was rich people. The attempt to go mainstream will kill them as it devalues their brand.

Same as if Louis Vuitton started selling 50quid handbags. Brand is everything and the current management seem to have missed this.

Zeiss have done the same thing - Nokia is about the only company who benefitted from them in recent years.

PS: ok, i want to try one - anyone have a D LUX or C LUX lying around and want some cash - PM me :)
 
Wail said:
But by that same analogy, isn't there a Korean car manufacturer that makes 4x4 based on Mercedes components? Does that make it any better, or even close to the quality of a Mercedes?

Taking it from there, Lexus (which is really just a fancy branded Toyota) now make better quality cars than Mercedes .. that doesn't stop the masses from wanting to own a Mercedes as opposed to a Lexus!

Point is, it's a global market with a lot of shared resources. If Leica are re-branded Panasonic, then we'd have to give in to Porsche being a re-branded VW!

Personally, if I had the ££££ to buy an M8 (even if it is just a re-branded Panasonic) then I'd happily fork-out the money for it. If only to look at it.
Click to expand...

Yes, Ssangyong, use old Merc technology in some of their cars, but that's not the same thing. You're nearer with the Toyota/Lexus analogy, after all the IS200 (the previous generation at least) is just a rebadged Toyota Altzezza, but that doesn't mean the IS200 is worth any more than the Altezza, but Leica market their rebranded Panasonics as if they are something special.

The M8, however, afaik as I know has nowt to do with Panasonic and, despite all it's faults, I'd still like one :D
 
M8 ... "like one" , , , that's an understatement.

If I could rebuild my whole photography kit, I'd probably just buy an M8 and a few lenses. Shame on me, I'm contemplating a D3x now :shake:

If only I had a much bigger cashpot, if only :'(
 
cressers said:
Leica WAS niche - and its niche was rich people. The attempt to go mainstream will kill them as it devalues their brand.
Click to expand...

I don't think its niche was rich people, ok you had to have some money to buy one but its a professional camera.
A few grand isn't unusual for a top brand pro spec camera.
I'd guess £500 50 years ago was worth £5000, how much is a 40D these days ?
You don't need to be rich to buy a 40D, just interested enough.
I think sales of Leica's really hit the buffers with the arrival of digital, but then so did all film camera manufacturers.
I don't think they're quite hitting the mark with the M8, there will always be Leica nuts willing to buy Leica equipment whatever its flaws, its the non Leica nuts who in searching for a digital rangefinder weigh up the competition before a decision, flaws will kill Leica.
 
I never really considered digital rangefinders before :thinking:

I have it in my head that digital = cheap plastic crap dead in 3 years :lol:

I'm kinda interested in the focussing...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top