Jump to content

M8 in the flesh at last!


andyaitken

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Canon EOS 1V is $1650 at B&H. 1DS-II is $6870. So adding "digital technology" to their flagship film camera Canon adds $5220 to the price. At $5000 the M8 is only $1500 more than their flagship film camera M7. Still not convinced? Ok, subtract the same $1500 from the price ($2600, let's pretend the rebate is still on)of a 5D, and what you have left is an $1100 Elan.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the flip side, you can buy a Nikon d80 with 11 mgpx sensor for $950.

 

I'm not rooting for Leica to fail, mind you. I grew up with dreams of m4s and m5s and will own a Leica M2 till the day i die....BUT Ijust dont see the niche for Leica in digital when Canon and Nikon have better offerings at 1/5th the price.

 

Lets face it: Leica= all mechanical hand assembled 35mm rangefinders. Nobody does it better. But the digital age has passed them by, and the only reason I see for buying an M8 is for fondler's appeal and nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The crop factor of 1.3x is a plus over most Japanese SLRs which is typically 1.5x except of course for cameras like the Canon 5D. This allows for a relatively compact body while still maintaining many rf handling advantages with some of the sharpest lenses made in photography, now for film AND digital. If your looking for a quiet, sharp and compact camera, this is it. Of course a digital SLR has more capability but I think the M8 will be more sensuous and fun to use.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dead: Do you want a rangefinder or not? If I don't want an SLR - the Nikon D80 (or any

SLR) could cost $1.00 and it would still not make my 'buy' list.

 

Why is this so hard for people to get through their heads? RFs and SLRs are separate types

of camera. If one wants an SLR, an RF won't cut it, regardless of performance or price. And

if one wants an RF, an SLR won't cut it, regardless of performance or price.

 

A basic pickup truck will haul more and cost much less than a sports car - but if I don't

want to drive a pickup, why should I care?

 

If one MUST compare specs across camera lines, the closest SLR to an M8 in: crop factor

(1.3-ish), pixel count, pro build quality, and split-image manual focusing (optional screen)

- is a Canon 1DMkII. For an extra $1000 I get to shed 2 pounds of weight, half the bulk,

and 3/4s of the shutter noise. Cheap!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks worth the $4795 to me. Solid build, and it looks and sounds amazing. Much better

than I imagined. If the DMR quality is anything to go by, the M will have some AMAZING

digital files. Being able to use the M lenses, being compact, quiet and being an RF is why I

WOULD pay $5k for the camera. I bought a Canon 1ds when they 1st came out for $7k - I

HATED It and sold it weeks later at a $1500 loss. Too big, too heavy, too loud and I

realized it was not a pleasure to use.

 

So those who prefer SLR, go with a Nikon D200 at $1899. But for those who prefer RF, the

M8 is going to be a sweet camera at only $1300-$1500 more than the M7 (which I own

and love)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Lets face it: Leica= all mechanical hand assembled 35mm rangefinders."

 

If you face that way, you'll be looking in a rear view mirror come Sep. 15th. :-/

 

"But the digital age has passed them by, and the only reason I see for buying an M8 is for

fondler's appeal and nothing else."

 

If the sensor is as good as the DMR's, the control interface is up to snuff, and it really

does come in under $5,000, Leica is going to have a hit on its hands. Name another

digital camera with a 1.3 crop sensor, great dynamic range, a 1/250th flash sync, all in a

compact body. The kicker: Leica makes arguably the best wide-angle prime lenses on

the planet, and no one's going to say that about either Canon or Nikon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"On the flip side, you can buy a Nikon d80 with 11 mgpx sensor for $950."

 

And you can buy an n80 for $350. That's a 170% premium over a comparable film camera. 170% of an M7 is $5950. The M8 is still not priced unreasonably. Maybe you'd like to compare the M8 to the Canon A640 at $375? After all, it's also 10mp, and we all know that's the most important comparison criterion :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This needs to be pointed out again: No DSLR manufacturer has yet seen fit to make any fast,

primes lenses for their small sensor cameras. Evidently the whole damned picture-snapping

planet is happy carrying 'fast' f2.8 zooms the size of a subway sandwich, but I'm not one of

them; Nikon's 12-24 is an f4.0, and Canon's 10-22 isn't much faster. Both kinda negate the

advantage of digital's high iso advantages.

 

I had Canon's 24/1.4L on my 20D, and in addition to being a '38mm' lens, it was too big and

heavy to carry around casually. Nikon, AFAIK, doesn't offer any fast (f2.0 or faster) primes at

all that equate to 35mm on a 1.5 crop. Sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...