Kamber's M8 Extensive Field Test

I think this field test covers some very important areas that need improvement.

 

The first is reliability. The camera was tested under extreme conditions. Problem typically show up. Weak areas in the design are more obvious. There has to be a different thought process going from a mechanical to an electronic camera design.

 

The second area is image quality. Most APS sensor cameras can take fine quality images under the best conditions. Look at the qualities of the Leica RF film cameras. Excellent focusing under low light. Excellent color correction of the lenses. Quite operation. They are cameras that are excellent outside on the street or inside a quiet theater. I thinks this gives a clue as to the design of the M9.

 

Low noise at high ISO. Maintain high color fidelity at high ISO. Maintain high resolution and high dynamic range at high ISO. You have a camera that is at home under different light conditions.

 

Then you have form, fit, and function. I am sure Leica has received plenty of feedback to make any necessary changes. This can help someone doing street photography in their own town or a PJ shooting in Iraq.

 

I would like to see Leica solve these problems before they attempt to go full-frame or a 24MP sensor. 10-12MP in a hand-held camera is plenty. Low noise, good color, and high dynamic range are really the benefits of modern camera design.

<i>Michael, didnﾒt you ever learn "not to bite the hand that feeds you?" I just love it when people you attempt to help (Leica loaning Michael the M8) make a public display of such (dis) affection.</i>

<p>

Pathetic. Because Leica gives him a loaner camera (entirely in its own interest, hoping no doubt to keep at least a tiny remnant of its former professional user base aboard) he is obligated to act like a paid professional shill.

Marc Bergman wrote: "<I>Not to jump into the middle of a private spat, but how is an email reality?</I>"

<P>

David Bowens wrote: "<I> Anything branded leica costs 4-5x as much as equivalent non-leica equipment. </I>"

<P>

A broad statement such as Bowens' based on his experience with an unrelated product reveals a brand prejudice as clearly as those who believe that Leica (or Canon, or Toyota, name your favorite brand) can do no wrong. I pointed out a couple of examples where Leica-branded products either have no comparable competitors or do not cost 4-5x as much as the other-brand competitors.

.[. Z: <i>"What underlay Kamber's review has NOTHING to do with price, everything to

do with unreliability, unependability, image quality, overall sluggishness, exposure and

color balance problems, etc... -- in other words results, not price."</I>

<p>Z, while you're correct in referring to Kamler's arguments, it's the others who seem

to pile on at every opportunity who are the one's who are irked by the price. If the M8

was the same price as the RD1 or even $1000, these people would not be so

vociferous in the condemnation as they would have bought one by now.

<p>Some of Kamler's criticisms are more to do with his likes, than an objective view of

the camera. For example, he cited the location of the self-timer. I think it is in a

perfect location. The self-timer offers a 2 second option or a 12 second option. The 2

second option is for people who want to hold the camera steady for a shot, without

risking shaking the body, so they press the shutter button and 2 seconds later the

shutter fires. This is not for the "decisive moment" types, but it is a good thing to have.

To engineer the self-timer in another location would also ruin the aesthetics of the

camera, not to mention causing higher costs of production. That some people think its

absurd is their own view, but others like this option.

<p>Another thing that Kamler wrote about was the sudden change in the ISO from 160

or 320 to 2500 or something. Well, that takes four or so conscious steps, and is really

not a random thing that can happen again and again, even if he sets different profiles.

So it seems to be more of a user problem than a camera problem, I think they call it

PEBKAC in nerd lingo.

<p>My point about the above two criticisms is that most of the people on this thread

have never even held a M8, so accept these negative views as gospel without having

looked at the facts themselves, therby perpetuating fallacies about the camera which

they repeat ad nauseum. It's really silly and pointless after a while. Either get the

camera, or move on and get a social life.

<i> dangerous situations where this unobtrusiveness may mean the difference

between getting the picture or not</i>

<br><br>

Yes. For example, trying to convince a pimply security guard at a music concert

to let you in with a "professional looking" camera.

>>> "Z, while you're correct in referring to Kamler's arguments, it's the others who

seem to pile on at every opportunity who are the one's who are irked by the price. "

 

It's the comedy of it all that gets the piles going. Who cares about price - other than I

suspect most people expect a $5K body to be robust.

the usual dog-and-pony show. I'll be buying an m8 this summer and I'll be making good

photographs with it very shortly after. None of this hooey makes a jot of difference.

Um, Tom, if you make y'r intended purchase and it breaks, will you tell us?

Brad :

 

>> It's the comedy of it all that gets the piles going. Who cares about price - other than I suspect most people expect a $5K body to be robust. <<

 

The last part of your sentence tells it all...

 

We are takling about FACTS

 

It is easy to try to deny the right of people to compare a DSLR to a rangefinder camera on the ground they are different concepts... But it is deliberately ignoring what both concepts have in common.

 

It is also easy to forbid people to speak about prices but the ratio between quality, reliability and (relevant) functionalities for one side and price is a good indication of the value for money of any technical object. It is totally implicit in the orignal article. Moreover when the SAME people ever argue about "poor little Leica AG facing Japanese giants and unable to issue anything comparable at the same price" to justifiy Leica AG behavior.

 

Technical facts :

 

Let's compare a Nikon D3 to an M8 on features relevant to both concepts:

 

Sensor

 

D3 : 12,4 mpx full format entirely protected against IR color unbalance effect so no IR filters needed.

 

M8 : 10mpx APS-C (+ because the prolongation factor is only x1,3 like a Canon EOS 1D MkIII) unprotected from IR so IR filters needed on each lens used.

 

Onboard image processing system reliability:

 

D3 : No massive complaint about random unexplainable disabilities.

 

M8 : Frequent random unexplainable disabilities, totally unexplainable by the user which necessitate the equivalent of a re-boot on a computer to cure (remembers me of gladly defunct Windows 95 et 98 operating systems).

 

Image quality:

 

D3 : No general complaints about IQ, considered one of the best if not the best today and highest performance of anything today available in high ISO low light setting and useable images to an ISO level not any other digital camera is able to reach (26200 ISO images in black and white can actually be used!).

 

M8 : When the image processing system works, may produce images of superior quality to any 10mpex sensor on the market, but auto white balance doesn't seem to operate properly on all cameras and is - apparently - a frequent source of defects, banding can appear at random, very poor high ISO settings performance (high noise effects in shadows over 640 ISO which happens to be the limit of apparition of noise on the 22mpex full format Canon EOS 1Ds MkIII). Absence of IR filter on the sensor may increase apparent definiition for a 10mpex sensor, but forces the owner to use IR filter on EACH lens to get rid of color rendition problems of some objects.

 

Protection against dust and water of the camera

 

D3 : full tropicalisation (sealing) against dust and water drip

 

M8 : nil !

 

Compatibility with existing lens range:

 

D3 : all Nikon F mount lenses produced since 1959 but some reflex tele-lens, provided they are modified to Ai standard, can be used and all these lenses are used at their original field of view. All will allow TTL metering. Lenses without CPU contacts can be manually "declared" in the body to allow for advanced functions.

 

M8 : Full compatibility of all M mount lenses (except, perhaps some lenses with "goggles"). But lenses should be "indexed" at a high cost per lens to offer the more precise compatibility. All lenses should be provided with an IR filter. As the sensor is of the APS-C variety, the original field of view is not fully exploited and a specific new expensive multiple focal length wide angle lens must be bought to recover original wide angle capabilties of the M film series.

 

Metering :

 

D3 : offers a lot of metering options between them matrix metering with the present best matrix metering light evaluation system and true spot metering.

 

M8 : classical to all M series metering system since the M6 TTL : very heavily centered (though not really spot) system.

 

I won't enter in other options offered by the D3 as some are irrelevant to a rangefinder camera.

 

As a humorous note, I have insisted very frequently on IR filters. I find very representative of the lack of good faith and objectivity of Leica zealots (I'm still a Leicaphile regarding the lenses but never have been a blind zealot) the fact the same people who seem not to admit any critics against what the red dot brand do have for years pretended fitting filters (of any nature) on a Leica lens is degrading the exceptional performance of the no less exceptional lens from Leica and nowadays find natural to have to add an IR filter permanently to the veryu same lenses ! ...

 

Sotcking the images and card used:

 

D3: two CF card slots in a compartment tightly closed by a door. No closing device which can be lost or become a liability when changing the card in the field.

 

M8 : a single SD card loaded and unlaoded through the old, already much criticized during film days separate removable baseplate you have to hold in your mouth in the field !

 

Ergonomy

 

D3 : perhaps the best ergonomy of any pro DSLR on the market, both for horizontal and vertical holding of the camera. Once the learning curve is assimilated by the user, very few critics have been emitted on any command functionality and not a single regarding protection of the settings (nearly every button is either provifrd withj a specific lock or needs to be pressed with another one situated lesewhere to modify programmed settings).

 

M8 : though the M series handling ergonomy is old it was ever considered a good one and I share this opinion, but specific commands for digital functions are exposed to unsuited and involuntary modifications of the settings particularly inder the pressure and the lack of comfort of true PJ work. Changes which may even not be clearly recorded in the viewfinder so may lead to spoiling an entire series of pictures.

 

Control screens:

 

D3 : large 3in screen with very high defintion (not equalled but on the stablemate D300) delivered with protective device at no additional cost. Direct viw of the lens image on the screen possible in two modes.

 

M8 : Not so large and comparatively poorly defined screen (though it doesn't seem to be inferior to the ones used in the same generation of digital bodies). But no protection provided and Leica now offers, but at a high cost, the exchange of the screen glass by a high resilient version. No provision for direct view despite it is easier to implement on a non reflex camera.

 

Conclusion :

 

Clearly the M8 loses on all points in the comparative of features relevant for both concepts and even more important, it is by far not as reliable. In fact it might be considered inacceptably unreliable for professional work.

 

Economics :

 

I will use French retail prices, all taxes included for this comparative :

 

Black M8 Euro 4800

 

D3 : best price Euro 3490

 

So you have to pay Euro1310 less for a PJ work ready camera superior on all points relevant of a comparative between it and the M8 body in fact 27.29% less...

 

If we take another comparative between the D300 APS-C sensor Nikon DSLR on the ground of comparing two APS-C "sensored" cameras of pro level

here are the same computations, knowing the performance of the D300 are just a tad less than the ones of the D3 on points reelvant to the technical comparative.

 

D300 best retail price : Euro 1535.90

 

Price difference : 3264.10 so in percentage minus 68 % !!!!

 

You can get more than two D300 for the price of one M8 and you have more reliable cameras with more performance on points relevant to the comparative between the two concepts.

 

These are pure FACTS...

 

Even if you may accept to pay some premium for the rangefinder concept (admitting it might be more costly to assemble for example) and even a kind of "Leica sustain fund contribution" in the fight between the good "David Leica" agains the bad "Japanese Goliath" it doesn't justify David's sling shot to be so unreliable and more costly at the same time.

 

FPW

 

 

 

 

Lines

François P. WEILL ,

 

How the devil are you? Long time no speak...hope you are well.

 

Simple equation. Too much effort going into pleasing the fondler's,too little effort going into pleasing the photographers.

 

Really that simple...<div></div>

Allen :

 

>> Too much effort going into pleasing the fondler's,too little effort going into pleasing the photographers. <<

 

Words of wisdom my friend

 

FPW

Too true, Allen.

 

A digital Contax G would be nice, tyvm.

Wow! What a burst of energy this discussion ! I have an M8 and it failed on 3 things(shutter,rangefinder display and flash recognition.).Went back to Leica NJ.They kept it for 4 months(I told them to take their time sensing 'new product development learning curve problems') and they swapped circuit boards for newer revised ones.I have had it for about 1 1/2 months and so far excellent. I had a Canon xt that was stolen but shot enough pics to notice that Canon had winner tech.I imagine if the 5D is anything like it not to talk about better then it must be a winner too.Other than that my digi SLR experience is a Fuji S2 pro and a Kodak 14n pro.Great photo machines.

The M8 is super! I have not had the problems M.Kamber had and have no doubt about them being bona fide beef.Leica's behavior may feel

a tad tacky on not telling him about the difficulties but it may be due to them also not figuring out that in his business the camera would be out of place.Also to avoid 'unnecesary panic stampeding'.At these prices they are easily formed.

After reading the piece I started shooting same scenes in rapid succesion and always the color processing was consistent.If Leica could offer a change of 'skin' with the problems M.Kamber pointed out corrected(it shouldn't be too difficult) it could honor their pledge to keep up the development of the product.I for one think it is worth it but I bought Leica glass way back before the dollar fell against the euro and prices were,if high,not unreasonably so.Prime glass is expensive no matter what the label.

Jorge wrote :

 

>> Wow! What a burst of energy this discussion ! I have an M8 and it failed on 3 things(shutter,rangefinder display and flash recognition.).Went back to Leica NJ.They kept it for 4 months(I told them to take their time sensing 'new product development learning curve problems') <<

 

Jorge, do you really consider acceptable a Euro 4800 camera bought new should fail within a very short delay after you receive it on no less than 3 major points and (I don't think what you told them with an unbeliveable kindness about delays changed anything to their routine practice) was under reapair for no less than 4 months !

 

A very, very, kind amateur may be satisfied, but any working professional should have sued them !!! ...

 

One of a kind defective product is ever possible how good is the original design... But repeated major failures concerning a siezeable part of a series tells an all different story of built in failure of the design or the quality control or both. Moreover on a very pricey piece of technology.

 

What would you do if it were a car and you had an accident costing the lives of one of your relative because of this kind of major failure to propely operate?

 

For me it is a bit naive (excuse me for the term) to accept a major brand, pricing a device so high in absolute, can deliver the customers a product which visibly hasn't even been properly tested.

 

Equally totally unacceptable is the fact they don't even proceed to an immediate standard exchange of a defective product under warranty whe such things occur.

 

No serious professional can accept that... No serious professional who - like Mr. Kamber - may risk is life to bring back an image can accept his brand new camera (and not only one by the way !) fails in such unaccaptable way!...

 

Evan me, who mostly use my cameras for amateur work, cannot reasonably accept this... When you throw 4800 Euros on a camera, you can legitimely expect it performs faultlessly or, in case you get a "lemon" it should be immediately exchanged...

 

Point in case, as demonstrated by Mr. Kamber story, even when they exchange the camera on the spot, they are unable to give you a properly working sample... Which proves the series is mostly defective as the cameras came out of the lines.

 

By the way, where is the famed systematic manual control of each camera leaving Sölms, so long boasted to be one of the main advantage of a Leica ?

 

Probably gone, as is elementary consumer respect and conformity to professional ethics once on par with the one of true P.J.'s at Wetzlar ...

 

By the way, don't be fooled by the change between Euro and $, just convert the 4800 cost of an M8 in France (including VTA like in all U.E. countries) and take into consideration the fact price increase is present here too... and I'll doubt Leica M8's to be less pricey here than the other side of the pond.

 

And if you include the fact average income in the upper-middle class is still lower here... Try to figure out who will still want an M8 here...

 

FPW

Let's see....

 

M8 too expensive - okay - don't buy one.

 

M8 "not reliable" - okay -don't buy one.

 

Being able to reset the ISO accidently with a flack jacket? Not possible unless the flack jacket has hands and fingers.....AND knows the menu system.

 

I'm really tired of all of the second guessing by people who (apparently) know more about what Leica SHOULD do (based purely on personal opinion) - than what Leica knows.

 

FWIW - it's their company they get to do what they want. If the fail - okay...if they succeed - okay, too. If you don't like it - I'd suggest petitioning for a chair on the board of directors where you can make your prescient insights meaningful.

 

It's called the free market - products that sell and companies that produce the products succeed - those that don't sell products fail.

 

FACT - film Leicas cost more than FILM cameras from Japan. Nikon F6 - far cheaper than the M7, or MP....

 

You didn't notice that...? Why would you expect a digital Leica to be anywhere near the price of a digital camera from a Japanese manufacturer?

 

If you don't like the M8 and don't OWN one - why all of the complaining?

I just don't get it....

You don't get complaints from a pro who was lent and then bought and used an M8?

 

Should he only have dared offered an opinion if it was positive?

I get the complaints from the pro - although, I'm afraid I also think he was more than a little naive about the camera.

 

It has its place, but combat photo-journalism isn't it.

 

I don't get the complaints from the people on this website...who don't own the camera, have probably never used the camera, but have lots of opinions, projections, etc.

 

It's a bit like, "If I Ran the Zoo," but far less entertaining...

Steve, what's naive about expecting a camera to function properly? Especially an expensive one.

And what's naive about expecting good service on a flagship camera, from a brand that

users wax poetic about with respect to professional photojournalism?

 

I know a photog that shoots boxing and his 1DIII needed adjustment. One week had

elapsed from the moment canon emailed him a prepaid FedEx label, to when he got his

cam back. That's service.

 

But I guess people aren't supposed to talk about things like that...

Steve :I

 

>> It has its place, but combat photo-journalism isn't it. <<

 

Point in case what is the place of a largely overpriced unreliable camera

produced by a brand which never hesitate to use as an advertisement the past

glory of its cameras used in just such kind of environement ?

 

I think the only answer is : in the hands of wealthy snobs and users who think

because they have Leica written on the body of their camera they are bound to

equal Cartier-Bresson or other PJ stars of an unfortuntely passed era...

 

Unfortunately for Leica these old glories are now more and more fading from the

collective memory of the new generations of photographers...

 

So their only chance is to prove Leica is still able to produce a valuable tool

for the present and future PJ stars...

 

>> It's called the free market - products that sell and companies that produce

the products succeed - those that don't sell products fail. <<

 

Typical yankee indoctrination... You can have success selling s...t if you can

find enough people to buy it ... Is that real free market : scam allowed? What a

bright image of "free market".

 

Unfortunately for them, it is easier to find people ready to buy cheap s..t than

people ready to buy expensive one... And that's the limit of the scam.

 

>> FACT - film Leicas cost more than FILM cameras from Japan. <<

 

And... ? As far as I know and by personal experience this time, Leica M film

cameras even if they were ever overpriced (but unique from the early 60' up to

the late 90's), performed as advertised.

 

Up to the issue of the much maligned (because of lies) Hexar RF (I own one and

never had any problem with it using Leica lenses) and since the introduction of

the Zeiss Ikon and Zeiss lens on the market which - wherever they are built and

whoever build them - are under the objective tests of MTF curves the equal of

Leica ones and costs far less, you didn't have the choice between Leica products

and anything comparable from another manufacturer (was this free market or

monopoly?).

 

Now, we can compare Leica products for film cameras and the ones from others

manufacturers. Unfortunately for Leica, Zeiss production is less costly and at

least as good for half the price. But the difference between a Leica and a Zeiss

film camera is mostly confined to value for money considerations. Not on the

crucial issue of performing as advertised or not !

 

The M8 being the only game in town in the small format digital rangefinder

field, and very expensive, one should expect it to operate as advertised which

is NOT the case. In many countries throughout the world, using deliberately

inaccurate information about the alleged qualities of a product as selling

arguments is considered a criminal offense. Just have a look on Leica AG

advertisements, and compare with the field reports and even many messages on

this board and think twice about it.

 

Dan is absolutely right when he wrote

 

>> Steve, what's naive about expecting a camera to function properly? Especially

an expensive one.<<

 

And Brad too : >> And what's naive about expecting good service on a flagship

camera, from a brand that users wax poetic about with respect to professional

photojournalism? <<

 

By the way, when you are on the way to buy something of technical nature and at

a very expensive one, do you ever blindly buy because of a brand name or do you

consult all the sources coming from people who actually used this object before

buying ?

 

I'm not naive, I know the net can carry a lot of inaccurate informations, and I

know statisfied people seldom write about their good experiences. I exercise my

own sense of critics and discrimininate. But concerning the M8 there are enough

factual evidences recongnized *even by those who defend it* (IR filters issue is

one of them) to convince me it is UNSUITED for a professional use at ANY cost

and the facts are its price is well over well proven cameras universally

acknowledged as suited for professional use...

 

Now you are entirely free to buy it despite these facts. But don't try to

rationalize an emotional choice which has no rational substantiation. You don't

need to own something to realize it is a lemon when convergent evidences are so

profusely available from more than a unique and isolated source.

 

For me a rangefinder camera is not built to make architectural pictures in a

quiet environement, but its very concept and reason to exist is "close quarter

action photography" (which once made Leica's reputation and legend). If I had to

make architectural pictures, I would buy a large format view camera instead

which, whatever the quality and reliability of the small format rangefinder I

can buy, will give me much better images. And you know what ? Compared to the M8

I will probaly be able to pay less !

 

The Leica M8 just fails miserably in the very field it should have been designed

for. I would have preferred just the opposite. And before it, the film camera M7

just did the same in front of the Zeiss Ikon, but just to a lesser extent and

not to the extent of not performing as advertised.

 

FPW

 

<i>"My point about the above two criticisms is that most of the people on this

thread have never even held a M8, so accept these negative views as gospel

without having looked at the facts themselves, therby perpetuating fallacies

about the camera which they repeat ad nauseum."</i>

 

<p>The review was written by a well-known, widely published and respected

professional photojournalist who has articulated very precisely, without

emotional hang ups, why he doesn't feel the M8 is up to the standards set by the

M3. He's posted unretouched photographs to illustrate his points. Given Mr.

Kamber's reputation and experience, this has to be the most damning review I've

ever read of the M8. I hope Leica gets a chance to read it once or twice before

they finally go under.</p>

 

<p><i>"If you don't like the M8 and don't OWN one - why all of the complaining?

I just don't get it...."</i></p>

 

<p>Because for many of us, we feel there is a place in the market for a small,

high quality, quiet, unobtrusive digital camera that is capable of very high

quality output. On paper, the M8 would appear to fulfill that role, but the

reason why we don't own it is because Leica screwed it up so badly. Amateurs

with the luxury of having more money than brains can afford the M8's

shortcomings. However, in this day and age, with shrinking day rates,

work-for-hire contracts, not to mention having to compete with 50 other

lookie-me-I-got-a-camera-I'm-a-photojournalist-who'll-give-my-work-away-for-free-so-I-can-say-I'm-published

wannabes at every significant news event, we working photographers don't have

the luxury of dropping $5,500 (plus lenses) for a tool that doesn't do its job.

Ultimately, that's the problem - Leica is now merely jewelry for the

well-heeled, not the tool for working stiffs it once was.</p>

EL Fang,

 

May I say Thank you for your message...

 

I had been a PJ years ago, and you just describe what was beginning ot happen when I quit this profession.

 

FPW

"I think the only answer is : in the hands of wealthy snobs and users who think because they have Leica written on the body of their

camera they are bound to equal Cartier-Bresson or other PJ stars of an unfortuntely passed era..."

 

or in the hands of folks who are still working and happen to find their m8 produces excellent prints, handles well and is (gasp!) reliable.

folks who scraped every penny of the price together.

 

i rarely even read these threads anymore as they just go on and on and on. i respect kamber immensely. i respect what he has to say.

what i don't respect is the constant "folks who buy the m8 are lawyers, dentists, doctors and generally have more money than sense"

crap that creeps into the conversation. it's insulting and not even close to the truth.

i don't care to get into canon vs nikon vs leica vs whatever nor do i feel compelled to defend the camera's i buy, i just ask that you

refrain from BLINDLY labelling us "wannabe's" and whatever other drivel it is you use. now i need to get back to proofing...

" They chose an APS-C sensor "

 

They chose an APS-H sensor. Good to see this forum is still alive and well with the same old M8 haters and lovers. Still love mine and it's still goin' strong after a year and three months and over 8,000 frames and counting. How you been Brad and Vivek-miss me?