Why does the Leica M8 cost so much?

[Everythingisnt]

I was reading the M8 review on dpreview and came across this interesting figure: the M8 body costs $4800 and the lens costs around $1600!! http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page21.asp

Now as I understand it the Leica boats superior iq, rugged build quality, and pro optics, but is there more to justify the cost? (especially when considering that it is matched and surpassed in specs. by much cheaper dslr's like the 40d or d300..)

I am beginning to wonder if the high price has anything to do with the fact that this camera is considered a 'luxury item' (which we must pay a premium for (ex: mercedes))

[netdog]

The lenses are fantastic, and for those who prefer a rangefinder (like myself), nothing else will do. It is a different way of quite literally capturing images.

The glass is so expensive because great lenses are expensive. The camera body costs a bomb because there is no economy of scale.

I couldn't justify one without a full frame sensor and hence it is the M9 that may get my attention. That said, I would love a smaller camera body that held the M-series lenses. 35mm film required a certain bulk that digital may, in part, be able to do away with while still being ergonomically sound.

A DSLR is a tank to me, and useless in most situations as I simply don't want to lug it around.

[Everythingisnt]

I think I was a bit mistified about lens cost because a comparable 50mm nikkor is ~$100, whereas the summicron 50mm for the leica is ~1600...

[dextertangocci]

Isn't that the camera that guy has on Eurotrip:D

[jessica.]

Isn't that the camera that guy has on Eurotrip:D

4th best movie ever! But what Scotty doesn't know won't hurt him. ;)

[leighonigar]

small production => Massive cost to them => to us.

Luxury +dds.

[krye]

I think I was a bit mistified about lens cost because a comparable 50mm nikkor is ~$100, whereas the summicron 50mm for the leica is ~1600...

That's because it is actually hollow. It is filled with Unicorn tears and pixie dust.

[Soma 115]

That's because it is actually hollow. It is filled with Unicorn tears and pixie dust.

hahaha i laughed so hard at that! :p

also...eurotrip is a great movie

[jpfisher]

It's a Leica, they can afford to charge through the nose... it's part of their history. ;)

You're paying for the optics, the R&D for a small-run product, the brand, and the fact it's only competition is a discontinued Epson camera. It's also an issue of paying exponentially more for top-quality stuff... a Leica lens might cost four times the cost of the competition (say the 35mm Summilux f/1.4 - 3895 retail -- versus the comparable Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 -- around 900), but is it four times better? Nope.

I've had mine for about two weeks now. Absolutely love it, and yeah, I could have bought a used car instead... or a D3 -- but a used car doesn't take pictures, and a D3 is freaking huge in comparison... plus I'm pretty happy with my Pentax primes and don't see myself jumping over to another SLR system anytime soon.

You can take a look at what I've shot with it if you'd like -- http://www.downeffect.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=tags.VirtualAlbum&g2_tagName=M8

[CrackedButter]

It's a Leica, they can afford to charge through the nose... it's part of their history. ;)

You're paying for the optics, the R&D for a small-run product, the brand, and the fact it's only competition is a discontinued Epson camera. It's also an issue of paying exponentially more for top-quality stuff... a Leica lens might cost four times the cost of the competition (say the 35mm Summilux f/1.4 - 3895 retail -- versus the comparable Voigtlander 35mm f/1.2 -- around 900), but is it four times better? Nope.

I've had mine for about two weeks now. Absolutely love it, and yeah, I could have bought a used car instead... or a D3 -- but a used car doesn't take pictures, and a D3 is freaking huge in comparison... plus I'm pretty happy with my Pentax primes and don't see myself jumping over to another SLR system anytime soon.

You can take a look at what I've shot with it if you'd like -- http://www.downeffect.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=tags.VirtualAlbum&g2_tagName=M8

Having admitted you've bought a Leica M8, I was expecting a certain type of photography from you that is associated with such a camera when I followed the link provided, can you explain why you bought it if those pictures represent what you've done with the camera so far?

[jpfisher]

I wanted something that was more compact than SLR, but didn't sacrifice image quality. Something I could carry with me during my daily commute that wouldn't weigh me down.

My other camera systems (Pentax 35mm & digital, Hasselblad 500) didn't fit that bill; the M8 is not meant to supplant them, simply to give me another option for shooting. If you take a look at my portfolio (http://www.downeffect.com/jim/portfolio) you may get a better idea of what I tend to shoot -- the shots on page 2 are probably the type that most "fit" the idea of the M8, but I don't think shots should be dictated by the tools.... If I was out shooting with an SLR I would never say "Oh, I really can't take this photo -- it's in the style of a rangefinder photo" or vice versa.

I certainly wouldn't use the M8 as a go-to option for anything I would use a tripod for (ie, nighttime HDR), but it's now my main option for more casual/light (as in weight) use. I very rarely shoot anything telephoto -- I have some old telephoto primes for the Pentax (300mm f/4, 200mm f/4), but the longest autofocus lens I have for that system is 135mm on the long end (50-135mm zoom)... when I shoot with the 'blad, I love the 50mm lens (28mm FOV equivalent), and also use the 80mm (normal -- 50mm equivalent) a lot. The 31mm (46.5mm FOV equivalent) is my most-used lens on the K10D by far.

So I got the Leica and the 35mm Summilux (50mm equivalent), which I feel fits my "eye" very well. I also picked up a Voigtlander 21mm (28mm equivalent) as a wide-angle option.

And yes, I'm still getting accustomed to the rangefinder. I don't know if I need to explain to anyone why I took those photos with that particular camera -- a lot of it is just getting used to the system, the stuff at the Peter Allen House & wedding were done because I didn't want to carry a lot of gear... I was doing videography for the wedding and didn't want to add too much weight, as I was already lugging an HVX-200 with me.

[Padaung]

That's because it is actually hollow. It is filled with Unicorn tears and pixie dust.

Tee hee, great quote! You make it sound like Harry Potters fancy wand :D

I have a Leica CL and absolutely love it, it just has a feel about it that cannot be explained and taking photos with it is a joy - it is the only time I still shoot film now. My DSLR also feels like a tank after using the Leica.

It is the same as buying an expensive watch when a £20 digital Casio watch tells the time just as accurately. You can't reasonably justify the cost but if you have one then use it and enjoy it.

PS The lenses are bloody sharp too. Worth 4x the cost of a Nikon lens? Probably not, but after paying for the camera putting anything else on the front is like putting the cheapest, unbranded re-tread tyres available onto a Ferrari!

[John T]

I am beginning to wonder if the high price has anything to do with the fact that this camera is considered a 'luxury item' (which we must pay a premium for (ex: mercedes))

No they're not "luxury" items - they're "Quality" items!

[mcarnes]

The film Leicas were cool up to the M6. If you want digital, you would be better off with a Canon or Nikon.

M8 Iraq Review (http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.html)

[CrackedButter]

I wanted something that was more compact than SLR, but didn't sacrifice image quality. Something I could carry with me during my daily commute that wouldn't weigh me down.

My other camera systems (Pentax 35mm & digital, Hasselblad 500) didn't fit that bill; the M8 is not meant to supplant them, simply to give me another option for shooting. If you take a look at my portfolio (http://www.downeffect.com/jim/portfolio) you may get a better idea of what I tend to shoot -- the shots on page 2 are probably the type that most "fit" the idea of the M8, but I don't think shots should be dictated by the tools.... If I was out shooting with an SLR I would never say "Oh, I really can't take this photo -- it's in the style of a rangefinder photo" or vice versa.

I certainly wouldn't use the M8 as a go-to option for anything I would use a tripod for (ie, nighttime HDR), but it's now my main option for more casual/light (as in weight) use. I very rarely shoot anything telephoto -- I have some old telephoto primes for the Pentax (300mm f/4, 200mm f/4), but the longest autofocus lens I have for that system is 135mm on the long end (50-135mm zoom)... when I shoot with the 'blad, I love the 50mm lens (28mm FOV equivalent), and also use the 80mm (normal -- 50mm equivalent) a lot. The 31mm (46.5mm FOV equivalent) is my most-used lens on the K10D by far.

So I got the Leica and the 35mm Summilux (50mm equivalent), which I feel fits my "eye" very well. I also picked up a Voigtlander 21mm (28mm equivalent) as a wide-angle option.

And yes, I'm still getting accustomed to the rangefinder. I don't know if I need to explain to anyone why I took those photos with that particular camera -- a lot of it is just getting used to the system, the stuff at the Peter Allen House & wedding were done because I didn't want to carry a lot of gear... I was doing videography for the wedding and didn't want to add too much weight, as I was already lugging an HVX-200 with me.

I agree and disagree with what you said about tools dictating the shoots. I agree because I'm in a university with certain students who are through and through practicing photojournalists and they respect the way photography works more than I do. I'm criticised often for shooting portraits in landscape format for example and I'm told I shouldn't do it.

I'm also told I should shoot MF or LF if the subject is stationary but that's something else.

With the Leica however, there was an expectation there which I had for your photography with certain types of shots before I clicked the link, generally with such an expensive machine you're going to want to make money with it, not play with it. But you've stated you have had it for a short time and that explains a lot now. Still I can't help my curiosity especially with the money involved.

With regard to your portfolio, I like the way you're going with the black and white, my only comment is that you're not close enough with the people shots, they are not interesting where you're positioning yourself now. I also notice the repetition of lines in the first 7 images (page 2), the last one seems like the odd one out due to the lack of lines. So anyway, you need some tilt in your images (serious photographers joke there :)), don't confine yourself to the symmetry and lines you've presented in your portfolio so much either.

I know you probably weren't looking for a critic but I've done it now. What have you done with your portfolio so far?

Btw, some of the colours on page 3 and 4 are amazing. Some that stick out are 42 and Mantis just because of the depth of field employed.

[ChrisA]

Now as I understand it the Leica boats superior iq, rugged build quality, and pro optics, but is there more to justify the cost? (especially when considering that it is matched and surpassed in specs. by much cheaper dslr's like the 40d or d300..)

I don't think the 40D and D300 have better specs. The M8 has a larger sensor. It is closer to a full frame camera then to a Canon/Nikon crop body.

The same thing happens with bicycles. Mass market bikes are cheap but the very high end bikes cost over $5K. Why. Well because they are hand built one at a time. Same here. Leica does not build many M8 camera and each one is hand assembled by a skilled worker in Europe. the D300 and 40D are built to much lower standards in a big factory. So like bicycles the last 10% in build quality costs and extra 90%

I have a fake Rolex I bought on Korea for $15. It keps good time, likely as good as a real rolex. If you look at just the specs there is no difference between the real and the fake. Both are the same weight and size and keep time to withing seconds per month (or whatever) But there are things that the specs just don't capture that make the real thing a much nicer product. Same with Leica cameras. If you get a chance to see an M series camera you can see the level of craftsmanship in an instant. When you pick up a Nikon D300 it loks nice but "craftsmanship" is not the word you think of to describe it

[Abstract]

The M8 costs a lot for two reasons: (1) It says Leica on it, and (2) The M8 is a rangefinder, and therefore, offers the user something different.

Some digital Leicas are expensive only because it says Leica on it.

[Everythingisnt]

I don't think the 40D and D300 have better specs. The M8 has a larger sensor. It is closer to a full frame camera then to a Canon/Nikon crop body.

The same thing happens with bicycles. Mass market bikes are cheap but the very high end bikes cost over $5K. Why. Well because they are hand built one at a time. Same here. Leica does not build many M8 camera and each one is hand assembled by a skilled worker in Europe. the D300 and 40D are built to much lower standards in a big factory. So like bicycles the last 10% in build quality costs and extra 90%

I have a fake Rolex I bought on Korea for $15. It keps good time, likely as good as a real rolex. If you look at just the specs there is no difference between the real and the fake. Both are the same weight and size and keep time to withing seconds per month (or whatever) But there are things that the specs just don't capture that make the real thing a much nicer product. Same with Leica cameras. If you get a chance to see an M series camera you can see the level of craftsmanship in an instant. When you pick up a Nikon D300 it loks nice but "craftsmanship" is not the word you think of to describe it

Okay, well then consider the 5d. It definitely blows the M8 away in IQ as seen in the DPreview comparison..

And while you're certainly right about the fact that the Leica has more 'quality' and attention in its build, the actual difference in build performance we are going to see in each model is minimal.. I mean, even if a D3 is built in a big shop in Japan, it still needs to be robust and strong.


However i think you really hit the nail on the head with your Rolex watch analogy.

[QuarterSwede]

While the Leica M8 is certainly a nice camera, some of the best pictures I've seen have been taken with point and shoots or just plain film cameras. The camera rarely has anything to do with a great shot.

[jpfisher]

I agree and disagree with what you said about tools dictating the shoots. I agree because I'm in a university with certain students who are through and through practicing photojournalists and they respect the way photography works more than I do. I'm criticised often for shooting portraits in landscape format for example and I'm told I shouldn't do it.

Well, my view is you should do what works for the shot. I'm not one to color by numbers -- if it works, it works.

I'm also told I should shoot MF or LF if the subject is stationary but that's something else.

I've yet to experiment with LF, but I do enjoy the MF process. Shooting with an older camera is actually one of the things that made me consider the M8; handheld light meter, setting everything manually - it makes me much more selective when shooting-- when I'm working on film I want to make damned sure that my exposure has at least the potential to be something I want to hold on to.

With the Leica however, there was an expectation there which I had for your photography with certain types of shots before I clicked the link, generally with such an expensive machine you're going to want to make money with it, not play with it. But you've stated you have had it for a short time and that explains a lot now. Still I can't help my curiosity especially with the money involved.

I'm not a professional photographer, nor do I have a desire to become one. I shoot for myself -- a creative outlet which is very important to my mental well-being.

It *is* a lot of cash -- I did get it at a discount compared to MSRP -- professionally, I work as a web content writer for a photo retailer... it has its benefits.

With regard to your portfolio, I like the way you're going with the black and white, my only comment is that you're not close enough with the people shots, they are not interesting where you're positioning yourself now. I also notice the repetition of lines in the first 7 images (page 2), the last one seems like the odd one out due to the lack of lines. So anyway, you need some tilt in your images (serious photographers joke there :)), don't confine yourself to the symmetry and lines you've presented in your portfolio so much either.

I think it's clear from my work that people are not my strongpoint. When I do shoot them, I try to convey some sense of isolation -- evident in Swilling Toads (the subjects are at the far left of the frame, engaged with each other, but almost pushed out of the composition by the otherwise empty diner counter), and the same with Laundromat -- a lone figure, watching his clothes go round and round, on the far side of the frame.

Of course, I say the above *now* -- when I was getting those shots, it wasn't conscious in my mind. Personally I was more interested in the setting each time, the people there simply acted as ways to frame the image.

The last black and white shot you mention is of my favorite street vendor in Manhattan. I hope to replace that in the future with a better shot. He's got a great face, and is almost always in full camo gear. Usually at the corner of 34th and 8th if you find yourself in NYC during the day.

I know you probably weren't looking for a critic but I've done it now. What have you done with your portfolio so far?

I'm always open to critique, I appreciate someone who takes the time to actually *look* at my work. Which I guess is what I've done with the portfolio so far... put it out there for comment. As I said before, I've no aspirations to go pro. I do plan on doing an revision to the portfolio in the very near future -- there are some shots that I'm going to prune and replace with stronger ones.

Btw, some of the colours on page 3 and 4 are amazing. Some that stick out are 42 and Mantis just because of the depth of field employed.

The Mantis & 42 were both taken with the same lens, interesting that you would pick them out... actually the only shots in the whole thing captured with it -- the Pentax FA 77mm. I generally work much shorter than that, but it's nice to go a bit long on the focal length occasionally (again, shooting with longer focal lengths -- one of my weaknesses).

Almost everything on page 3&4 are digital.. the exceptions are Oncoming Train (Kodak negative film... something 160 speed, I think a Vivid Color type, I didn't note it down) and Ruins/Commmodore Criterion (Provia 400)

Again, thank you so much for taking the time and effort to offer a critique. I realize it's a bit OT compared to the original intent of the thread, but I hope it's offered some insight. As I get more used to shooting with the M8, I'd be very happy to field any questions... part of my lives for "talking shop" when it comes to photography. :)

Jim

[CrackedButter]

I think it's clear from my work that people are not my strongpoint. When I do shoot them, I try to convey some sense of isolation -- evident in Swilling Toads (the subjects are at the far left of the frame, engaged with each other, but almost pushed out of the composition by the otherwise empty diner counter), and the same with Laundromat -- a lone figure, watching his clothes go round and round, on the far side of the frame.

Of course, I say the above *now* -- when I was getting those shots, it wasn't conscious in my mind. Personally I was more interested in the setting each time, the people there simply acted as ways to frame the image.

The last black and white shot you mention is of my favorite street vendor in Manhattan. I hope to replace that in the future with a better shot. He's got a great face, and is almost always in full camo gear. Usually at the corner of 34th and 8th if you find yourself in NYC during the day.

I didn't think it was clear that working with people wasn't your strongpoint actually I thought you just weren't letting yourself focus on the people because you're concentrating on other things such as the surroundings. You've got a handle on the background and they clearly don't interfere with the foreground, I'm just suggesting you shake things up a bit. :)

[l'homme]

Just Panasonic bodies with stylish retro designs + great sharp lenses, all for high premium charges.

Go for Nikon or Canon.

[leighonigar]

Just Panasonic bodies with stylish retro designs + great sharp lenses, all for high premium charges.

Go for Nikon or Canon.


Not true of the M8. The compacts. Yes.

When nikon went and made film rangefinders, reproductions of their old designs around the year 2000 they were pretty expensive, and yet they were supposed to have made a loss on each one. This is Nikon. I can imagine it costs Leica a lot to make an M.

[juanm]

A real-life review (of course, if your real life involves living in Baghdad :D )

Link (http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.html)

After reading it, I wouldn't buy this camera for more than $500.

[leighonigar]

Essentially, he's taken a camera, built for wealthy middle-aged men, pootling around the hills (not an insult, just the truth) into a war-zone. Funnily enough, it's the wrong tool.

[OllyW]

Essentially, he's taken a camera, built for wealthy middle-aged men, pootling around the hills (not an insult, just the truth) into a war-zone. Funnily enough, it's the wrong tool.

As he states in the review (and explains why), Leica cameras have been used by war photojournalists for years.

Unfortunately, the new models no longer seem to be up to the job.

[CrackedButter]

Essentially, he's taken a camera, built for wealthy middle-aged men, pootling around the hills (not an insult, just the truth) into a war-zone. Funnily enough, it's the wrong tool.

Hey? I've only ever seen Leica's gear being used on metropolitan cities or in war zones, in fact Leica's have been in more conflicts than the US. The build quality is known to be solid and reliable. I've never come across a photographer who has used a Leica in the hills, you're lying.

[wheezy]

Essentially, he's taken a camera, built for wealthy middle-aged men, pootling around the hills (not an insult, just the truth) into a war-zone. Funnily enough, it's the wrong tool.

How is it the wrong tool for photojournaling? It IS for photojournaling, and after reading all the pages it sounds like the M8 doesn't deliver at all. And if you did read the article, you'll notice he gave it more than enough times to work for him, which it hardly ever did.

I would expect for the price of that you'd get a camera that just delivers a knock out compared to your other cameras, like shooting a portrait with a kit lens and then an L lens... it doesn't seem to do that though.

After reading his review (granted he demands WAY more than I would), and reading what he said about their terrible service (if you spend that much you better be treated like royalty)... I would never buy an M8.

[leighonigar]

Thanks, but I did read the review. Admittedly a week or so ago.

I'm not denying that Leicas may have been PJ material at one point, but now? I don't think so. Seriously, their market has got to be non-pros and slow users. Not this guy.

The service may have been pants. But I don't think that's the issue. It's the camera. Just for the record, I know of leica Ms that are used in the hills, and I see them occasionally around oxford. Always by wealthy amateur men when they're new. When they're old there are old men, sometimes pros using them. This is just my experience. Chances of Leica thinking about war zones when they built this? Essentially nil. I honestly believe it must be almost none of their demographic.

There was a lengthy discussion of this article on Photo.net (Edit, it was DP review: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1038&thread=28237267&page=1 but I must admit to not having read most of it). People, users of the Leica, defended it quite hard. I would suggest reading it, if you're interested.

[CrackedButter]

Thanks, but I did read the review. Admittedly a week or so ago.

I'm not denying that Leicas may have been PJ material at one point, but now? I don't think so. Seriously, their market has got to be non-pros and slow users. Not this guy.

The service may have been pants. But I don't think that's the issue. It's the camera. Just for the record, I know of leica Ms that are used in the hills, and I see them occasionally around oxford. Always by wealthy amateur men when they're new. When they're old there are old men, sometimes pros using them. This is just my experience. Chances of Leica thinking about war zones when they built this? Essentially nil. I honestly believe it must be almost none of their demographic.

There was a lengthy discussion of this article on Photo.net (Edit, it was DP review: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1038&thread=28237267&page=1 but I must admit to not having read most of it). People, users of the Leica, defended it quite hard. I would suggest reading it, if you're interested.

First you state the truth (in your last post) and now 'their market has got to be non-pros' and you 'honestly believe' when talking about demo-graphs (proof of demo-graph noticeably absent btw). Everything I've read in your post is anecdotal when you talk of Leica market penetration and use. If I'm wrong I think you better inform Joel Meyerowitz, Elliot Erwitt, and Sebastiao Saldago of this, its going to be news to them as well.

I would like to add this as well: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/19/germany.arts
I think its all interesting to read, but the bit about the famous images being produced from a leica in the very first paragraph disproves a lot of what you said about them being used in a conflict situation.

[leighonigar]

Dear God. My comments were off the cuff. Not based on extensive research, evidence or knowledge of Leica's market. Just on my observations and best guesses. I don't think any of you have much evidence of the opposite. A few professionals using leica now, or even the huge use of Leica in the past, when they were more state of the art does not mean they are extensively or predominantly used today in such a setting.

[CrackedButter]

Dear God. My comments were off the cuff. Not based on extensive research, evidence or knowledge of Leica's market. Just on my observations and best guesses.

You don't say.

[leighonigar]

You don't say.

Nice, useful, constructive.

Several points here. When I said 'not an insult, the truth' I was really saying that about old, wealthy men and their propensity to purchase fancy things, not anything about the Leica in particular. Though it did read that way.

Two, my only observation is that Leica don't seem to be designing cameras for pro PJ any more, I mean, come on, a removable baseplate?! I don't think this is contentious, but you disagree, so it is. I have never stated that in the days of the M3 they were very serious tools, and as the modern ones share many of the 3's attributes it is tempting to think that they were designed for the same people, or suitable for the same people. I simply beg to differ, I don't think that the M8 was designed for particularly rough pro use, nor apparently are Leica up for supporting professionals. This seems to have been demonstrated consistently.

Back in the days of the M3 the M was pretty advanced. Nowadays, barring the electronics, much of the M design is throwback to the past. it's part of Leica's charm, but it doesn't enhance their usability in the digital age.

[CrackedButter]

Nice, useful, constructive.

Like your previous post, you didn't need to explain how your argued in your previous post as you came across quite obviouslwo, my only observation is that Leica don't seem to be designing cameras for pro PJ any more, I mean, come on, a removable baseplate?! I don't think this is contentious, but you disagree, so it is.[/QUOTE]

Yes the baseplate is a throwback to the older M series bodies but you're a Mac user who should have an understanding of aesthetics and clean design which is something Leica wants to continue with. It does suck when everybody else is use to the simple side compartment with their Canons and Nikons but it does look like one of those touches Leica users will probably appreciate just like Mac users and the one button mouse.

Also I'd like to point out that I don't even like Leica, I just respect the brand. I'd never buy one myself. I prefer Contax myself only because they are okay with adding auto-focusing to their line of cameras.

[leighonigar]

Apple makes design decisions to facilitate function. The Leica base-plate is just a throwback. It adds no functionality and takes away for no reason. Even if apple make decisions which do limit functionality in some way (e.g. the dropping of the floppy drive) they have a vision, and a real reason for doing so. Some of Leica's decisions are nostalgia alone.

The Contax G were nice. But they're no longer made.

[cube]

Apple makes design decisions to facilitate function.

Apple's hardware is Form over Function.

[leighonigar]

Apple's hardware is Form over Function.

We disagree here. Jobs, Ive et al simply specify different functions to those which we have chosen. They build the best computers to do what they want them to. Do they want to change graphics cards, no?

Anyway, on the Leica thing, I can't see how a working pro would want the aesthetics of a removable bp.

[cube]

- Cube
- Mac mini
- Mac Pro optical bays
- iMac fascism instead of midrange Mac

All Form over Function

[Everythingisnt]

- Cube
- Mac mini
- Mac Pro optical bays
- iMac fascism instead of midrange Mac

All Form over Function

Not necessarily.. More like 'intuitiveness' and ease of use over function.

[cube]

What is more intuitive or easier to use about such things instead of providing the right stuff?

[Everythingisnt]

iMac for example: no cords, easy setup, all in one (less hassle). It's not entirely aimed at people who desire form over function but mostly at people who desire ease of use and simplicity.. (This is slightly OT though..)

[cube]

I said what was wrong was "iMac fascism", not providing an iMac option.

[leighonigar]

I said what was wrong was "iMac fascism", not providing an iMac option.

As I said, Jobs, Ive et al make computers as they think they should be, to be used as they think people should use them. The typical PC is ugly, big and adds nothing by being so, for most people. The majority upgrade nothing and curse the bigness of the piece. The iMac is so much better.

[cube]

I don't care about what they think. If I'm still using a Mac it's because of the lack of commercial consumer applications for Solaris and Linux.

The Cube was my first (and only) Mac, so I was dazzled by its coolness, but then I learned from its impracticalities. Apple offers nothing for me, so I'm stuck with it. As things go, I might get a "cheap" used air-cooled dual core G5 when I can't stand the sluggishness any more (even if it has the stupid optical bay).

[leighonigar]

I don't care about what they think. If I'm still using a Mac it's because of the lack of commercial consumer applications for Solaris and Linux.


All they can do is what they think though. They can hardly do what you think.

[cube]

All they can do is what they think though. They can hardly do what you think.

Of course they can. If they were building COMPUTERS, not fashion.

[wheezy]

leighonigar - Good points man, from what that article said and what you deduced shooting from the cuff... Leica might have just left the serious use market and is targeting frolicking in the hills in your over-priced under-performing SUV.

[jrichie]

I have an m8, bought last Christmas.

I am not a wealthy middle aged man, professional photographer, or anything like that.

I own DSLR's and compacts, but which is the one I enjoy taking out the most??? The M8 by far. It is a joy to use due to its simplicity. There are not buttons and functions everywhere, but is just basic.

The pictures are fantastic and I honestly cannot see the reason for me to upgrade for quite a few years.

Ok - I can fully understand the Iraq comments, and also Leica has had a lot of problems with this camera.

Yes, you can buy better Nikons and Canons [I have both] - however the size, ergonomics, discreetness, aesthatics, lenses all add up for me to be the camera I use most of the time.

People say PC's are better than macs - they are in most cases, so why do you buy a mac? I buy macs for the user experience - that is why I love the m8!

Cheers