Leica M8: reality check, a modest proposal - and some pictures

[leo_m_leo_m]

Andy,

 

How did you manage to compose the 135mm shot? 100% guess-estimated? 135 Leitz "spigel-sucher"?

 

Regards,

Leo

[pico]

<i>No, he's one of those who is satisfied to shoot only "shots where there are no artifacts." And lucky for him he's able to hit 95%, others aren't nearly so fortunate. Those are the people, the ones who expect a $5000 camera to be able to render any subject without artifacts or artifical colour casts without buying another $1000 worth of filters, who are not buying the M8.</i><p>

In other words, The M8 (Mate) is a professional's camera. If a person does not care about the convenient form factor of the Mate, and cannot appreciate the lenses nor the virtues of a well made rangefinder then he should move his wallet closer to his aspirations and be honest about his lack of discrimination to get a spendy P&S.<p>

[dankapsner]

Thanks for posting the photos! And for the positive contribution on this subject.

[vinay_patel]

So what you're saying is, the defining characteristic of a professional photographer is that he is willing to submit to spending thousands of dollars to put glass filters in front of the most expensive lenses in the world in order to correct a shortcoming in a $5000 camera that does not exist in anything remotely competitive at any cost? And that questioning the logic or sanity of that is the defining characteristic of a hack amateur whose photography is worthy of nothing better than a point and shoot? A most unique viewpoint to say the least.

[pico]

Vinay - Look at so many other pro cameras and how dreadfully inconvenient they are to the amateur, but perfectly appropriate and useful in the professsional's hands.

<p>

<i>glass filters in front of the most expensive lenses in the world in order to correct a shortcoming in a $5000 camera that does not exist in anything remotely competitive at any cost?</i><p>

If Leica had come out with a sensor that had no extended IR sensitivity, therefore diminishing the qualities of their lenses, and later came out with exactly what the Mate has now with <b>"New extended IR sensitivity, thinner sensor filter for greater sharpnesss and true-to-Leica lens qualities, pluse a free IR hot-filter for the lens"</b> people would rush to purchase it.<p>

[david k.]

"That's the advantage of being Santa: you get all the coolest toys . . . ; )"

 

LOL........the idea does have merit though!!

[kajf]

Andy

 

As one seriusly concidering the M8, but a little worried with all "issues"

 

If you could considet to send to Europe I would appreciate very much to be on the list !

 

Nice pics!

 

Regards From Denmark -- Kaj

[kajf]

Forgot to ask - have you used a Noct' on the M8?

[nels]

We'll finally be able to say, the reality check is in the mail, to someone, somewhere.....

[scott squire nonfiction]

Of COURSE it's frustrating that the camera doesn't work as it should right out of the chute.

But by now, for anyone who's interested in the M8, arguments like Vinay's won't be news.

 

This kind of pedantic whining is the exact inverse of fondling, actually.

 

If you don't like the M8; if it's just too vexing for you to get your head around, for heaven's

sake don't buy it. There are others who will find a way to make a go of getting good

pictures out of it. Isn't it up to them what they spend their money on?

 

 

Andy,

Great initiative. I read a lot early on about the M8's shortcomings, and then happened into

Glazer's in Seattle as a customer was showing some 13x19 prints he'd shot on his M8 and

printed the day before.

 

They were glorious color and b&w prints, shot outdoors and so not suffering from the

challenges of the camera. He admitted it wasn't much of an indoor machine (yet), but the

quality of the images was very promising indeed.

 

I would love the opportunity to look at a batch of files and prints up close. Please count

me in, and THANKS Andy!

[jim_a]

I would like to participate too.

[david k.]

I should add that I saw outdoor images shot with a M8 by the Canadian Leica Rep. last weekend at a M8 demo day.

 

He had 2 colour prints at 11x17, one Jpeg and one RAW for comparison, and a 20x30 from the RAW image. The prints were very impressive.

 

Would I consider an M8?, probably not at this time, however the results I saw were excellent.

[andy_piper2]

1) Well, I'm thinking in terms of showing absolute M8 results, rather than comparative. If I

compare to film, which film? Scanned how? And what else must be compared? Canon 5D?

Canon 1Ds? Nikon D80? Phase One back? But I might include one Velvia comparison if I get

around to reconnecting my scanner.

 

I've done 1300 exposures in 1 week - by my math at $15.00 per roll for E6 film and

processing that's over $500. Subtract a bit since my shooting rate may die down a bit (and

then again it may not - the M8 is such a kick to shoot with) and the "$4800 question"

becomes moot after 10 weeks - or about the time my 2 free Leica IR filters finally show up

in February.

 

2) Towel colors are real

 

3) Wolf, funny you should mention that. The Sony R1 is exactly the camera I bought a year

ago to use until the "digital M" made it to market. Great lens on the whole. But there are

places that f/2 and f/1.4 lenses can go where an f/4.8 telephoto won't cut it. The R1 could

not have handled the night-time parade shot - little girl in purple swirls - or the others I

took that night.

 

4) "...that's not the M8 in your hands, is it?" Yep!

 

5) "Santa Claus uses an M8?" - Yep, and he's watching to see who's naughty or nice!

 

6) Vinay - Well, the (rough) 95% figure is using an unrepaired, unfiltered, first-run M8.

Once the electronic glitch (streaks, blobs) is repaired, under warranty, at no additional

cost, by Leica, it goes away.

 

The IR/magenta filtering issue is inherent to the short back focus of the Leica M lenses.

Heavier filtering behind the lens will degrade corner resolution. Heavier filtering in FRONT

of the lens MAY degrade corner resolution - but a least it's user-optional.

 

I'm not sure where you get the "thousands of dollars" for filters - Leica is giving me 2, and

the other one I'll need will be about another $100.

 

I'm also not sure where you get the info that the M8 is being returned in huge numbers.

My Leica rep had to pull many strings inside the Leica organization to get my camera for

me (it got trapped by the production hiatus even though I'd ordered nearly a year ago).

What I see are the posts from people still desperately looking for a second ( or even a first)

body. If there really are a substantial number of returns, I'll be looking for a discounted

"factory refurb" backup myself - maybe even the black I originally ordered (although the

chrome is pretty darn nice).

 

7) 135 framing - I just use the RF patch for aiming. The image area is about 2.5x the

dimensions of the patch. In the shot here the patch covered the little girl's torso and her

dad's waist. It took me about 20 minutes of shooting and chimping the first day I got the

camera to learn the framing area.

 

As I said - you folks kick around the idea and figure out a mailing list over the next 10

days. When I get back I'll post some fresh images and we can decide which 12 or so to

include.

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

Hi, John Richard Massey!

 

A close friend of mine, has a M7, with all "fancy" lenses, up to 135mm, and, he has also a SONY R1, and is very pleased with it. He said, why should I jump on the train, when I am sitting already in in it! He could afford a M8 body, out of pocket easily, but he said to me WHY should I.

 

Cheers

[dan flanders]

Like the "investment advisor" who said to his client, "If the stocks don't go up, don't buy them !" . . . If you don't like the M8, don't buy it! . . . and quitcher bellyackin' already!

[._._z]

<small><i><blockquote>

 

I've done 1300 exposures in 1 week - by my math at $15.00 per roll for E6 film and processing that's over $500. Subtract a bit since my shooting rate may die down a bit (and then again it may not - the M8 is such a kick to shoot with) and the "$4800 question" becomes moot after 10 weeks

 

</blockquote> </i> </small><p>

 

Funny how the Leica film zealots who used to attack arguments like this are mysteriously silent when it comes to someone using this argument for a Leica that's digital. Where are the rants about how you're shooting too much, etc? <p>

 

<small><i><blockquote>

 

Well, I'm thinking in terms of showing absolute M8 results, rather than comparative.

 

</blockquote> </i> </small><p>

 

Two points. First, the M8 has significant, verified issues regardless of whether you see them in specific images of yours. Second, if comparisons show that a 10MP cameras costing one-eighth of your provides similar quality, that is a useful comparison to make, I think.

[cdnguyen]

Andy - great suggestions. I'm still waiting for my M8 to come within a week or two according to RM Leica rep. We'll see how the M8's holding to salt air/sea Caribean rigth ? have a good trip !

[andy_piper2]

.[. Z - I take it you don't want to participate, then?

 

"The M8 has significant, verified issues regardless of whether you see them in specific

images of yours."

 

Ah, so it's all about tech-geek stuff, not about the final photographs?

 

The M8 has 2 verified issues (Let's be specific - it's not 100 issues, or 10, or 5, or 1 - it's

2).

 

One is a bug, a mistake, a hardware, manufacturing or programming error. That Leica will

repair free of charge in cameras already sold, and has fixed in cameras being currently

produced. It's not a Ford Pinto exploding gas tank issue, it's a Honda short-in-the-wiper-

switch issue. Fix it - it's gone.

 

The IR/magenta issue is inherent to the optical requirements of small RF lenses, for the

time being.

 

"If comparisons show that 10MP cameras costing one-eighth of your provides similar

quality, that is a useful comparison to make, I think."

 

Absolutely - go to dpreview.com and they'll make those comparisons to your heart's

content.

 

For me - all other 10MP cameras (including some that cost in the same ballpark as the M8)

have "significant, verified issues" that the manufacturers show no interest in correcting.

Such as: flopping SLR mirrors; fuzzy ground-glass (or plastic) for focusing; large, lumpy,

lenses; and plasti-goo lens construction. Not to mention using camera-damaging,

outdated CF card storage (although that's improving nicely).

[frank]

"Second, if comparisons show that a 10MP cameras costing one-eighth of your provides similar quality, that is a useful comparison to make, I think."

 

 

Users of M- and R-Leicas heard this "argument" for decades - and nevertheless they were happy with their toys. Now this ridiculous dispute starts again. Oh boy, that's boring.

Some people should think about the latin roots of the word "amateur"...

[ray .]

<i>Leica film zealots</i><p>Not just Leica film zealots. There are Nikon, Canon,

Hasselblad, even Minolta and Konica film zealots. And watch out! They're coming to

get you!

[michael s.]

Ray, can you protect me from ..... <i>them</i> ? <p>

 

:-)

[michael s.]

By the way, Andy, the notion that you're actually using an M8 to make photos and ..... and ..... and ... prints (!) should shock the conscience of every participant on this Forum.

 

You'll pay dearly for this heresy.

 

:-)

[blakley]

<i>Forgot to ask - have you used a Noct' on the M8?</i>

<p>

I have (Noct 1.2; all shots at 1.2)

<p><a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/121/313374369_295251d4ec.jpg" width="403" height="500" alt="ad astra" /></a>

<p>

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/110/313374318_52af39f40f.jpg" width="403" height="500" alt="rapunzel" /></a>

<p>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/blakley/308442457/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/116/308442457_b76d243195.jpg" width="500" height="403" alt="glance" /></a>

[jury]

"A close friend of mine, has a M7, with all "fancy" lenses, up to 135mm, and, he has also a SONY R1, and is very pleased with it. He said, why should I jump on the train, when I am sitting already in in it! He could afford a M8 body, out of pocket easily, but he said to me WHY should I."

 

well, i'm sure everyone in this forum is happy for you Wolf. I'm happy for you. I'm sure John is also happy for you. You found the perfect camera. That's great. I'm sure the guys wouldn't mind giving you a group hug everytime you come by. Just shout when you need one.

[andy_piper2]

Now, now, Jury! The R1 pushed my FILM Leicas aside, as I mentioned above (now the M8 is

pushing back). More for its dynamic range (vs. scanned Velvia) than absolute resolution,

but

it does very OK at the right apertures and focal lengths.

 

Once the holiday rush dies down, and this other print distribution thing is underway, I

might

even do a little comparison post here - although who'd want to read about TWO such

oddball, niche cameras as the R1 and the M8, I don't know.

 

The M8 shoots at "120mm" at f/2, the R1 at f/4.8 - but maybe not everyone needs f/2.

The M8 can go as wide as "20mm" with a C/V 15mm, while the R1 stops at "24mm" - but

not everyone needs those extra 10 degrees, either.