M8?

Hello,

 

I have one single question: Is Leica M8 to Digital Cameras what Leica M7 is to Film Cameras?

I have wondered whether or not, I should go for it... Well, I've not tried it, but I might say the only

experiences Leica has had to digital are some good quality point and shoot. I bought the Digilux Zoom

about 5 years ago, one of the first leica digital cameras, and a Lumix for my fiance, which is good, but

nothing more than a canon or nikon point and shoot...

 

I now work w/ a dslr (entry level D70S) but I want to get a better camera... I am considering the D200 from

Nikon, and the 5D from Canon... why not the M8? I have always dreamt of getting a M...

 

Let's be honnest... Quality wise, Is the M8 better than a 5D or a D200?

 

Thanks!

My take is that the lenses are better, and at the current state of high end digital, the lenses

are more important than the sensor. At normal print sizes (to 16x20 for example), the

difference between a good 1.3 crop 10mp camera and a good full-frame 12mp camera is

going to be more dependent on the lenses than on the sensor. I have the M8 and it is an

impressive image maker. And you are not quite about Leica being totally inexperienced in

digital. They also had the DMR, the 10 megapixel back for the R series cameras. I also have

that, and it is certainly no point and shoot -- it is a fantastic camera. <P>My favorite M8

shot so far: <P><img src="http://www.stuartrichardson.com/noelle-relish2.jpg">

It very much depends on your shooting style and what you like to shoot. If you do any nature photography then you want a DSLR - you'll need long lenses which the M8 will not give you. If you are more into street photography, people in general, etc. the M8 might be a good choice if you are willing to put up with some of the issues that are still not worked out. It is a personal choice - have you used rangefinders before? If not, I highly recommend that you get a cheap film rangefinder before you spend 5K on the M8.

Beautiful, Stuart. I feel like I'm sitting next to you on the other side of the booth, and this is the kind of image I would find myself attempting if I had an M8.

 

Hugo, I'd say that Juergen is right on with his summary.

Yes! Go for it.<P></p><p></p>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5557970-lg.jpg"></center>

<i>I have one single question: Is Leica M8 to Digital Cameras what Leica M7 is to Film

Cameras?</i><p>

No.

Rangefinders aren't everyone's cup of tea. Either you'll love it or hate it. A $5000. Leica M8

is an expensive way to find out.

 

If you are into low available light photography you will be hard pressed to beat a Canon 5D

with some fast L glass. The penalty is size. When ISOs go above 650 in the M8, the Leica

lens advantage is overcome by the Canons superior file quality. Plus a wide angle is a wide

angle on the Canon which is a full frame sensor.

 

That said, I personally despise the Canon 5D for it's feel in the hand and some stupid

complexity not worth mentioning here. I'd much rather shoot with the M8 ... just not in

really low light.

Well,

 

Just do not plan on having the M8 work very long. Check this out.

 

4/4 un-usable M8's before even extreme conditions. I think some failed in the airport.

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/aa-07-worked.shtml

Umm, the M8 bodies were 2 of 4 failure, not 4 of 4. One Tri-Elmar wide had hood thread issues. Still not a great record.

 

The M8 is different, not better or worse than D200 or 5D. A $5000 investment to find out if you like rangefinder cameras is bold, to say the least. Borrow or rent any M-series Leica before and investment of that magnitude.

Stuart, I am reall impressed by this picture (colors, sharpness, etc).

This kind of shot makes me realize how Leica and its lenses are 10 miles ahead other camera

brands!

Thanks all for the advice, I would think I will try a rental then... not sure where to find one but

this would be a good way to find out if I'm made for Rangefinders.

Hugo

 

I think that picture is more about Mr Richardson's skill as a photographer than any superiority of equipment.

 

Steve

Ay. It shows what the M8 is capable of though.

Stephen Persky obviously didn't read the article. 2 of the M8's failed. The other two were fine. Michael had a problem with a lens hood on his which is a long way from failure of the camera. I really wonder about some of the people who post here.

The images shown above are very nice, but not because of the Leica equipment used; they are the result of a good eye, good lighting and a pleasing subject. Leica cameras/lenses are not "years" ahead of other equipment...this little bit of conceit has sold more Leica equipment over the years than any other justification. But if you have always dreamt of having a Leica M.....

 

Rangefinders (and Leica Ms) are very good for just one or two things...quiet, unobtrusive handheld people photography being their greatest strength. They generally are miserable choices for pretty much everything else.

 

And as for Quality...from the Luminous Landscape link above: "There were 5 Nikon users on the trip, with various bodies ? mostly D200's. There were no reports of any Nikon problems or failures." The Canon stuff seemed to suffer nearly as many failures as the Leica M8...amazing. I wonder how a simple M6 (or M2/3/4) would have fared on this trip?

There were 5 Nikon users on the trip, with various bodies ? mostly D200's. There were no reports of any Nikon problems or failures.

 

Let's be honnest... Quality wise, Is the M8 better than a 5D or a D200?

 

Certainly not better reliability wise than the Nikons judging from the above report. Reliabily has got to be one of the most important factors for the majority of photographers.

 

Quality of image better than similar more competive priced cams? If you want to believe,believe. However you might get a few arguments from other brand users about your superiority believes.

Beliefs.

If your objective is to shoot with Leica glass (which imo is the best of all glass) you could compromise and get a Canon 5D(really low noise) with a Leica to EOS adapter and some Leica r glass that is inexpensively available on ebay and shoot manually.

Then , If you purchase some fine Canon Glass (also very good),you still have the option of shooting auto everything.

Leica glass makes that 5D look classy especially that Leica 100mm Apo macro 2.8 :-).

 

Best Regards

 

Peter

Stuart, your photograph made with the M8 body is simply wonderful! Would you please tell us which lens did you choose to take this picture ?

What I found really funny in that article was the one guy who shot film with a Mamiya 7-II and had only 3 rolls of film for the entire trip because the rest of it was in his luggage that got lost at the airport. What kind of a person who embarks on that kind of photographic expedition is unaware that the x-ray scanners used for checked bags will fog all film? He'd have had only 3 good rolls one way or the other.

I shot with M2s, and when I went digital I went with the Canon 5D. I don't much like the size and the complexity is higher than I like but the Canon L glass is really good and the image quality is spectactular. Maybe Leica lenses are better (especially wide open) but the Canon L glass is fine. I also like that the 5D is full frame. I also like the Canon software that came with the 5D. I would probably bought an M8 too if it wasn't so expensive.

 

If you go with a 5D you won't be sorry from an image quality perspective. I do miss rangefinders (though I still take my M2s out once in a while).

Can one really tell the difference between any camera/lens combination on the basis of a

photo that is sized for the web ? ( perhaps the really low end P&S's)?

Thank you all for the compliments. For the most part I agree with the old mantra that it is

not the camera but the photographer etc, but it has its limits. While the photographer is

responsible for choosing the light, composition, moment of exposure etc, the camera and

lens are responsible for recording that faithfully. What I was trying to indicate was that the

M8 does a great job at making a very good RAW file and doing it in an excellent ergonomic

package. I think the 5D is also a great camera, but it is a very different user experience. If

you prefer to use a rangefinder, you are probably going to prefer using the M8. From

there, I think it is more about the glass than about the camera. Certain Canon L glass is

really excellent (35/1.4L, 85/1.2L, 135/2 etc), and almost all the modern lenses you can

put on the M8 are as good or better. Whether that matters to you or not is another issue.

Personally, I really like using rangefinders...better than using SLR's, so the M8 has a huge

advantage for me right there. Anyway, given proper technique, the M8 and 5D are both

capable of producing really big prints that look fantastic. Which one you should choose is

better dictated by how you want to shoot than image quality. <P>Anyway, Jude, the lens

was the 35/1.4 ASPH with an IR filter. ISO 320. <P>Vinay -- I agree with you, I cannot

imagine that somone would check all their film if they were going to Antartica. You would

think that they had had a few trips under their belt by then....but with a Mamiya 7II and 3

rolls in Antartica, I bet you could still take some pretty amazing pictures. You just need to

pick and choose carefully!

I use an M6 for film and a 5D for digital and haven't found the 5D wanting in any respect. I doubt 99% of people would notice any difference between the quality of say, some L primes (135mm f2, 35mm f1.4, or the 85mm f1.2) and a Leica lens. The size of the 5D plus a lens is the only (very minor, for me) gripe I have, but 3200 iso and f1.2 lets you take a fairly noiseless picture in near darkness which makes up for it. I believe the new Canon is going to do a decent 6400 iso too (though I may be wrong). For me, whatever gives me the best low light, natural light shooting is the tool I want to use.

 

In short, it's horses for courses. I've invested in a lot of Leica kit and a lot of Canon kit each for their different uses and use each at different times. I can't justify the cost of an M8 for digital because the Canon does the job fine and my focal lengths don't change - and what I tend to use digital for I find autofocus useful too. It's all a matter of what's important to you I guess.

"Can one really tell the difference between any camera/lens combination on the basis of a photo that is sized for the web ?"

 

Leica users can, they have a more discerning eye than the ambliopic sloths who use other brands ;-)