Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: M8 Review - Looks great, BUT...  (Read 48816 times)
Nill Toulme
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 741



WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 10, 2006, 12:30:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Official "Leica Statement on M8 Issues" at DPR.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Logged
adias
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #41 on: November 10, 2006, 02:16:59 PM »
ReplyReply

And beyond IR spillage, Glass cover edge refraction effects (CA-like)... everybody is forgetting (for the moment) the aliasing artifacts (easily seen) due to the lack of the AA filter. Stay tuned.

I had great hopes for this camera.  
Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #42 on: November 10, 2006, 03:38:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jack, great answer.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84508\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks Gary, thanks Opgr -- always good know one's inputs are appreciated
Logged

med007
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 110


WWW
« Reply #43 on: November 11, 2006, 11:50:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Like many old-timers, I have loved Leicas for decades. Michael's review had me itching for an M8. However... also like most old-timers, image stabilization is a real necessity. And, for everyone else, image stabilization would permit slower shutter speeds, enabling lower ISO, which would reduce or eliminate much of the noise of which Michael spoke.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82908\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've seen perfectly sharp M8 pictures shot handheld pictures at 1/8 second. Something about Leica!

Asher
Logged

[span style='color:blue']Journeys to the Masterpiece[/span]
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #44 on: November 11, 2006, 07:43:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I hope they don't build airplanes and medical equipment this way.
No, that software is usually far more shoddy.

I can't mention specific software names for airplanes, but in some laser eye surgery equipment, you'll find ancient, un-patched versions of Windows 95 that crash often or give pop-ups that the operators automatically click away because they're so used to seeing the warning that they know doesn't mean anything (but what if there's another warning?). Other medical equipment may even be networked, and will likely run old, unpatched versions of their operating systems, because the medical software requires exactly that version and patchlevel of the OS to run properly and/or not to invalidate the service agreement.

And ... well, you really don't want to know.

But anyway, the problems we see with modern photographic equipment, are peanuts.
Logged

Jan
skysnake
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #45 on: November 11, 2006, 08:28:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I hope they don't build airplanes and medical equipment this way.


They don't build airplanes this way. Trust me.
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #46 on: November 12, 2006, 06:07:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
They don't build airplanes this way. Trust me.
Two simple and recent examples (and if you are in the know, and we can trust you, I'm sure that you can cite dozens more):

Airbus A300 or A310, software problems in the synchronization of the five "independent" controlling computers led to a total system crash in certain conditions if only one of the computers crashed.

The December 2000 Osprey accident, a software glitch when resetting the system caused significant pitch and thrust changes in both rotors.

But this is far off-topic. My point is that you'll find shoddy programming anywhere, even in airplanes and medical equipment.
Logged

Jan
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad