To M8 or not

Why is this such a popular sport? This is a great camera, as good or better than any

competition, other than medium format digital. The DP review doesn't convince me, or

the several reviews that are of particularly high praise.

 

Only solution is to try one and see. I for one care little when the M9 ever surfaces. it

probably won't be 35mm sensor size (lens limitations) and extra pixels are not likely

needed for 16 x 24 prints.

 

If you have an M8, and have used it for 6 months or more and want to bash it, you have

every right. But if you don't have one, and believe all the extreme fors and againsts, you

may be robbing yourself of something good. If you have 10 or 15 thousand dollars worth

of M lenses (and experience), the difference between a 5000$ and a 3000$ body is only

about 10% of the total value.

I think there are a lot of people that don't need a digital camera.

Like me. Just because it exists doesn't mean everyone needs one.

For just "trying" if you like digital the M8 is seems a bit expensive...

Just my 2c

"This is a great camera, as good or better than any competition, other than medium format digital."

 

Well since technically it's only competition is/was the 6MP Epson, nobody can refudiate your cleverly worded statement. You can't be referring to the Canon 5D or 1DS-II because guys like myself who have actually compared images using the proper specific workflow optimized for each one know that the M8 is at best as good as the 5D but only at <800 ISO, and requires interpolation software to print where the 1DS-II can do it natively.

Not...so much so that I've put my D200 in the classifieds and bought a Mamiya 7II to go with my Leica M7. For what I do and what I'm interested in photographically, I'm in photo heaven. Unless I'm a working pro or someone who has a lot of cash to burn, I couldn't see spending $4795 on a camera body. I bought the M7 used and got a great deal on the Mamiya...all for much less than the cost of the M8 body.

It's not a possibility for me any more than a Lamborghini Diablo is. Doubtless it's a nice car, but it's just out of the price range.

 

Plus, even though I'm not saying that digital cameras are a commodity item, it's hard to spend 4-5 times the price for basically equivalent specifications. Yes I know it's a Leica and that means a lot, but the price multiplier is just too high for me.

I don't see the comparison to a 1DS II, the Canon is twice the price, size, and weight. Then there are those huge Canaon L lenses.

Arthur, If you appreciate the camera, well and good.

<p>

Post some pictures to tempt people into buying one (or a few). Do add 100% - 200% crops to illustrate your point.

<p>

<b>Why not use this very thread for it?</b>

<p>

<b> Jump right in! :) </b>

<p>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/83257830@N00/593269517/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1148/593269517_1082eea620_o.jpg" width="800" height="532" alt="" /></a>

<p>

<i>Fuzzy image from an Epson R-D1s/Canon 50/0.95</i>

"I don't see the comparison to a 1DS II, the Canon is twice the price, size, and weight."

 

The comparison is in resolution and the 1DS-II has 1.6x the # of pixels on a larger chip. It's the same difference between the 1DS-II and a 26mp medium-format back (well, there's a 22mp one)and nobody's foolish enough to claim there equal. Oh and the 1DS-II is currently selling @ B&H for $6999.95 vs $4950 for the M8. 1.4x the price for 1.6x the pixels and a full frame, not to mention all the other features the 1DS-II has that the M8 doesn't, plus the one it doesn't: needing IR filters on every lens. And the price of the M8 is supposed to shoot up another $900 in October, while it's likely the 1DS-II will be discounted and replaced by an even more potent camera at the same or perhaps even a lower price. So yeah, me neither, I don't see any comparison.

I don't understand this constant comparison to Canon everytime this pot stirring subject comes up. To compare two very dissimilar cameras based on image quality is a waste of time since image quality is the same. You either like the attributes of a rangefinder or an SLR and choose accordingly. Where you spend your money is no one's business but yours.

Thank you Ron.

>>> I don't understand this constant comparison to Canon everytime this pot stirring

subject comes up.

 

I don't either. Every time a flaw or problem with the M8 is brought to light, it's always,

"Yeah but the canon/nikon xx cam has that issue as well." Or even more amusing, is the

characterization of canon/nikon users somehow justifying the behavior of leica users. A

lot of insecurity here...

 

Herd mentality at work - justify your own state of affairs based upon what's happening

with another group. Weird...

"I don't understand this constant comparison to Canon everytime this pot stirring subject comes up." Well, we used to listen to the same kind of arguments and complain about them the same way when the M6 and M7 were compared to Nikon and Canon SLRs. I think the same words could be used and no one would notice the difference. The M7 costs too much relative to Nikon SLR, the latter has millions of more features, etc., etc., etc., and the negative and print quality of Leica photographs just had something different and better than any other camera could deliver, etc. again. The only thing that's changed is the sensor for the film, and Leica didn't even make the sensor, Kodak did. Kodak made the film too, by the way. You buy and use a Leica M8 because it has all the features you liked about the M3-M7, and because it produces an acceptable digital image. That's it. It's just a digital M camera. You have to want the M camera and its features before you want the digital output, otherwise go for an SLR or P&S, which both make fine images. The surprise factor for me has nothing to do with Leica; it's the instant feedback after every shot to check lighting, exposure, and composition. This allows you to make on the spot corrections before moving on the the next shot. This is a hard feature to "give back" even though I'd still like to shoot film with my M6. Repeat, this has nothing to do with Leica other than the fact that the deal they made with Kodak for the sensor was a success. Come on, do we have to ask if Nikon and Canon digital SLR users put filters on their lenses too? Let me try to shorten this for all time: "It's an acceptable digital M." We have been demanding this for some time. If that's the kind of camera you want today, then the cost is irrelevant.

Quote on:

________________________

David W. Griffinphoto.net patron, Aug 08, 2007; 04:20 p.m.

 

It's not a possibility for me any more than a Lamborghini Diablo is. Doubtless it's a nice car, but it's just out of the price range.

________________________

Quote off.

 

Have I got a Lamborghini Diablo for you!

www.teaguemotorsports.com

 

 

My M8 has to go in for repairs, too.

I crashed the Lambo a few weeks ago. Last week I took off the M8's plastic bottom cover. :-)<div></div>

repost of smaller picture:<div></div>

I think it is wonderful to have manufacturers push the technology envelope. Often, the improvements trickle down into products I can afford. Remember when a 4-banger pocket calculator cost several hundred dollars?

 

Gary Sandhu, I don't know whether to envy you or commiserate with you. The closest I have ever come to such an experience is that when I was in the service, some of the mega-expensive toys we worked with would occasionally go bump in the night. Not due to me, thank the gods.

Gary, How many M8s can you buy for that Lamb? :)

 

Now, that is feisty.

"I don't understand this constant comparison to Canon everytime this pot stirring subject comes up. To compare two very dissimilar cameras based on image quality is a waste of time since image quality is the same."

 

The IQ of the 1DS-II is very obviously ahead of anything Leica has offered thus far. Everyone with an unbiased mind sees it, including numerous pros who own an M8 as well. It comes up because a few Leica fanboys keep bringing it up trying to convince others that the laws of physics don't apply to Leica.

 

"You either like the attributes of a rangefinder or an SLR and choose accordingly. Where you spend your money is no one's business but yours."

 

True of an amature or a freelancer with a day job. Less true of a working pro but who has his own business and could if he wanted to decide to short shrift his family's lifestyle to finance his brand addiction. For a pro who has to bring in the money shots with no excuses and justify his expenses to a bean counter, nobody cares whether you "like the attributes of a rangefinder or an SLR", there only interested in the shots and the bottomline.

Personally, I like both digital and film cameras; digital for the convenience when I'm in a hurry, film for the more reflective moments. I'd love a digital rangefinder camera to use my Leica M lenses on (all of them, and not with a crop factor) which was as compact as my M4 and didn't cost an unreasonable amount for an amateur who is retired. The M8 doesn't cut it for me. I'm personally delighted to read of others' successes with it. For the time being, when I need digital I'll stick with my Nikon, and when I need film cameras I'll use my Leicas (M&R) and others I've picked up over the years.

Tom Murray wrote: "<I>The IQ of the 1DS-II is very obviously ahead of anything Leica has offered thus far. Everyone with an unbiased mind sees it</I>

<P>

That's a bit of a stretch, Tom. On fredmiranda.com there was a very long thread started by a long-time Canon user who compared his 1DsII with the DMR and switched entirely to Leica because of the image quality the DMR delivers.

Are you talking about Guy Manusco, the one who wrote page after page after page about it? Now he's dumped the DMR and moved on to the M8 with the same gung-ho attitude. I think if there's a stretch, it's putting him with the unbiased group. Mind you, the DMR is a very capable machine, in fact I'd call it outstanding considering it only has 10-mp and a cropped sensor. MP aren't everything. Firmware has a lot to do with it. Also Canon goes the heavy-AA route and Leica doesn't, neither do the medium format backs, so post processing workflow also makes a huge differents. If you just look at the RAW's, the Canon's look softer. Processed right, they don't. Where the 1DS-II pulls way out ahead is if you start to crop, or if you print larger than native resolution will allow @ optimum printer DPI. Then the larger files from the Canon have more data, like in turn it can't compete with the files from our 39-mp Hassy. Leica's are like a 100-lb woman with a black belt in Kung Fu, she can whomp the average 200-lb guy--but if he also has a black belt in Kung Fu, then size matters again.

Anyways, for someone in the market right now, the DMR is out of the discussion unless you can happen to find one used. I suggest we table the p!$$!ng contest until the R10 comes out and see how it compares to the 1DS-III or IV.

Yes Tom, Guy Mancuso. His clients also saw the difference and were willing to pay for it and didn't give a hoot about the name on the camera. Guy has switched to the M8 because the vast majority of his work is in the focal length range where the M8 excels.

<P>

Fine art printer David Adamson <A HREF="http://www.adamsoneditions.com/">http://www.adamsoneditions.com/</A> has found that M8 files print as well as 4x5 scanned film and better than any other small-format digital camera at sizes as large as 30"x40". I suggest you re-examine your biases and try using either the M8 or DMR before making any more foolish statements.

Let me try one more time. Once I switched from a Nikon SLR "everthing" film camera to the Leica M6, I had no desire to use a SLR camera again of any kind no matter what the technological or price advantages and differences. [The exception would be a need for a long telephoto lens for wildlife, which has not happened yet, and I have no interest right now in macro photography.] For me and for some time now, it is no longer a choice between these to types of cameras. So, when the digital M8 became available, there was never any comparison to Canon or Nikon digital SLR's. Only between the M6/M7 and the M8 regardless of price. If--and only if--the M8 met the minimal requirements for a digital M. Is this clear now? The comparison to any kind of SLR camera is irrelevant, so why do some keep insist on making it?

 

One more clarification. This does not mean I or anyone else here hates these digital SLR's. I recommended to my son that he buy a Nikon D40X and the zoom lens it comes with, for all the obvious reasons, as his first camera, to a great extent because of the total cost and value for the money. So, no one has to persuade me of this point either. I've already done the persuasion myself. When the next or next after improvement of the D200 or D80 comes out, I'm still planning to buy one and start using my Nikon 180mm f2.0 telephoto lens again. Part time. M8 full time.

Larry - you sound totally logical to me. I have kept a 20D and XTI only for my kids sports and macro. After this school year, I woh't need a sports camera, so the 20D will be sold. The Xti will be kept only until I decide who has the better offering in the next gen, Nikon or Canon, D300 or 40D. I have a few of each brand lenses, and I even have af confirm mounts for the EOS bodies for Nikon mount prime lenses. I use what ever seems to work better. My end goal is better image quality with the lightest gear I can muster, simple and logical...for most daily stuff I "get by" carrying the smaller still and sharper M8 and gear.

Based on responses to forum questions about "what else do you use?", I would guess that many, if not most, Leica M users would say pretty much the same thing. I still have my 1969 Pentax Spotmatic SLR with a recently (and irrationally) purchased 50mm F1.4 screw mount lens. Works as if brand new. No plans to ever sell it no matter how little I use it.