larry_kincaid1 Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Well, I received the M8 from Photo Village last week. And everything works properly. Not sure what all the fuss was about. First impression: it seemed like I was using my M6 until the shutter fired and recocked for me. It feels exactly like the M6 in your hands. So, my first impression is that it is not really a digital camera. It's a M7 with a digital back or sensor. So, in a sense it should not be compared to a digital camera, especially a digital SLR, any more than a M6 should be compared to a Nikon film SLR. What's the point. I have a digital Panasonic Leica TZ1, so I have some idea what a digital camera is like, as well as a Nikon N80 and Pentax spotmatic so I know what a SLR film camera is like. The M8 is a rangefinder M7 with a digital sensor. It's just what the Leica M folks have been asking for. So, the only real question is: does the Kodak sensor do justice to the Leica lenses? From what I've seen on the web and here, as well as my own printed M8 photographs, the answer is yes. It's close enough to justify the cost, if one wants all the extra features of a digital camera. Apart from the obvious "no waiting to process and see the film results," the most interesting feature for me is the immediate feedback from the LCD monitor. I've discovered that it serves quite well as a Polaroid back for a medium format portrait camera (I assume), in that you can check the lighting, adjust manually until you get it right, determine the exact framing, and the forget about it and shoot away with perfect exposure and framing. No bracketing; no waiting to see it you got it right; no work in PS to fix the exposure. This will speed up and enhance the quality of decent shots quite a bit. Meanwhile, it handles just like my M6. Here's a shot from my first "roll" of digital film (what else to call it; I didn't fill up the SD card). This shot was taken indoors at night with normal lamp lighting. 35mm Summilux open to f1.4 with hardly any cropping or adjustment in PS later. The picture on the LCD screen was substantially brighter than what it looked like with your eyes. Not quite believable. How can you get more light on the LCD than in your own eyes? But the digital file and the printed photo also were brighter than it looked "in person." Not sure what one would do with a flash when this kind of photo is possible. Meanwhile the 35 Lux Asph showed some nice bokeh in the background, and very nice illumination on the leaves of the flowers or whatever they are. Enjoy.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheelie52 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Thankyou Larry .... you've restored my desire to own an M8! :-)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommy_baker Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 nice. was this photo shot as dng or jpeg. any post colour saturation or enhancements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
len_smith Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 >>Thankyou Larry .... you've restored my desire to own an M8! :-)) On the basis of an unsharp image 511 pixels wide? Wow, that's some faith you have there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_neuthaler Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Larry, thanks for the clearest & most helpful brief evaluation of the M8 yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_elwing Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Which ones are the atheists, those who believe in the M8, or the others who shall be buried in unhallowed ground?? It's nice to have something to believe in, even if the evidence is a bit inconclusive and I want one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinay_patel Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 "Well, I received the M8 from Photo Village last week. And everything works properly. Not sure what all the fuss was about." If yours dies suddenly you'll know. If not, well, compassion for the misfortunes of others isn't a universal trait. "It feels exactly like the M6 in your hands. So, my first impression is that it is not really a digital camera." So by your logic a 1D-MK2 isn't really a digital camera either since it feels like a 1VHS. "So, in a sense it should not be compared to a digital camera, especially a digital SLR, any more than a M6 should be compared to a Nikon film SLR. What's the point." The point? Maybe that ergonomics aren't the only important criteria? The resolution, the noise, the crop factor, battery life, weather sealing, and yes, even IR sensitivity are all issues that matter to a lot of photographers. "I have a digital Panasonic Leica TZ1, so I have some idea what a digital camera is like," Ah! "The M8 is a rangefinder M7 with a digital sensor. It's just what the Leica M folks have been asking for." ...And a 1.33 crop factor, louder vertical metal shutter with louder motorized cocking, comparatively noticeable noise at high ISOs (all afoul of the mythologised status of the M as a champion of discreet low-light photography) and the inherent need for a filter in front of the lens. I don't recall any 'Leica M folks' asking for any of that. "Apart from the obvious "no waiting to process and see the film results," the most interesting feature for me is the immediate feedback from the LCD monitor. I've discovered that it serves quite well as a Polaroid back for a medium format portrait camera (I assume), in that you can check the lighting, adjust manually until you get it right, determine the exact framing, and the forget about it and shoot away with perfect exposure and framing." How is that in any way unique to the M8? "This will speed up and enhance the quality of decent shots quite a bit." How does LCD review do that for candid decisive-moment photography, the Leica M's acknowledged forte? "The picture on the LCD screen was substantially brighter than what it looked like with your eyes. Not quite believable. How can you get more light on the LCD than in your own eyes?" Um, it's called artificial backlighting. Doesn't your Panaleica TZ-whatever have adjustable screen brightness? "But the digital file and the printed photo also were brighter than it looked "in person." I'll leave the explanation for that to the photoshop experts ;-) One last question: why are 95% of the Leica M8 test(imonial) shots of still lifes, architecture, landscapes etc? Has the Leica M suddenly morphed into a view camera? Maybe Leica doesn't need Sinar after all ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheelie52 Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Polson , feb 06, 2007; 07:49 a.m. >>Thankyou Larry .... you've restored my desire to own an M8! :-)) On the basis of an unsharp image 511 pixels wide? Wow, that's some faith you have there. I wasn't really considering that pic ... I have seen ample images to indicate to me that the M8 is capable of producing very good results. I was refering more to his generally positive attitude and enthusiasm for his new digital M.........???????? :-/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry_kincaid1 Posted February 6, 2007 Author Share Posted February 6, 2007 Looks like there's still a lot of fuss left to go. This photo was shot in high level jpg, which is quite good. I've tried both but haven't compared the difference yet in PS or printing. No color saturation was necessary, might have done curves and levels. One of my main points was missed by some. I think that the M8 should be compared to the M7 and M6. If it "goes out" I'll have to use my M6, but that would be the case for the M7 too and my TZ1. My batteries went out once on the M6 and I successfully used the sunny 16 rule (from vague memory of it). But I still prefer using the battery. I just cannot see comparing Nikon and Canon DSLRs to this camera. They just seem to be designed for different purposes and users. To me the real comparison for those two SLR's is the emerging quality and ease of use of the Panasonic-Leica fixed lens SLR for $600 with zooms out to 420mm. If these get much better, who would want to carry around the classic SLR's and a set of lenses. When it comes to the Lumix range of cameras, you have to ask why you'd want a heavier version when the small TZ1 zooms to 350mm or so. Quite amazing if you want zoom and image stablization capacity. All these variety of digital cameras will only get beter and cheaper. But I still like what M rangefinders do for me, and still attribute much of it to the lenses. I'm now averaging the cost M8 and one lens with the Panasonic TZ1 at approx. $ 300.000. Average sounds better and two digital cameras sounds better than one. 350mm zoom is fun and nice when you cannot walk over there (top of cathedrals and the other side of the river, etc.). I'm not ready for macro photography yet. I still like my 1969 Pentax spotmatic (Like New) with its new (formerly owned) f1.4 50mm lens, but have not figured out how to take pictures with two cameras or perhaps 4 cameras at once now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nels Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 <i>"One last question: why are 95% of the Leica M8 test(imonial) shots of still lifes, architecture, landscapes etc?"</i><p> Hmmmmm...Perhaps they're just testing the crap factor?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry_kincaid1 Posted February 6, 2007 Author Share Posted February 6, 2007 How 'bout, "It's 25 degrees and windy outside." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul tanswell Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Personally (...and I'm as guilty as the next guy) I'd like to see more of <em>any</em> photos in this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_unsworth1 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Larry, enjoy the camera. A couple of M8 shots from last Sunday, including shock horror and architectral shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_unsworth1 Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 And the second... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_w. Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Film camera with 1/8000 shutter speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_w. Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Sorry, wrong thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cebes_johnson Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Dear Larry Fwiw, I realized the point you were making and it was an interesting and important one. Enjoyed the review/thoughts on the M8. Say what they will, I cannot get turned onto digital. Not for anything. No I am not old, I am computer literate, fine artist for a living, wife a pro fotog with pro canon slr's...Iknow the song..(another topic) Honestly, theyd have to pry the MP from my cold dead hands. No, I am not romanticizing..(why must we always blanket-protect ourselves while making a statement here from the cheap/neg. comments?!) The thing I am finding curious is, well, how the prints come out to yours (and others) eyes...in terms of that "signature". you know what I mean? Although a poor source to make any judgements whatsoever really, one can see at least similarities and common qualities upon viewing many, many images from the same lens, etc over time online. What I find interesting (and question in my mind)is whether the digital sensor truly translates the qualities of the (Leica) lens? People seem to be completely overlooknig this fact in their many criticisms. We are talking 1's and 0's here after all, not silver halide. Many seem to forget that this *magical* electronic translation process that we all forget about is what makes or breaks everything, is of paramount importance. And it does not come down to counting pixels does it? Vis a vis, we are not viewing the direct representation of light on the retina (for example), but the sensor's *translation* of the light. Sensors vary from camera to camera. Nikon has rep. for rendering flesh badly from many, etc. etc.. If a 50mm summicron or noctilux were placed on the Canon MkII or Nikon for example, they woulkd not render at al the same as my MP, would they? I hope my thoughts are reasonably expressed? Nevertheless, I find it interesting how I genuinely am seeing 50mm summicron quality/footprints in the M8 images I view online, summilux 35 images, etc. etc.. Remarkable when you think about it. Excuse my ignorance perhaps.. Looking forward to additional images. kind regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul tanswell Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 Cool pics Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickr Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 To expand on Cebes point, I think, the M8 sensor is an electronic device and like any other electronic device it could be put in any type of camera. It's the M sytstem of lenses that make the M8 special. Does the M8 capture the look of those lenses in print? If it does, it's a success. If it doesn't it's just another digicam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alberto_c Posted February 8, 2007 Share Posted February 8, 2007 <i>The picture on the LCD screen was substantially brighter than what it looked like with your eyes.</i><br />So that you can look at the LCD (and see something) when you will take pictures in sunny bright outdoor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey goldberg Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Larry - I agree. It seems the nay-sayers are having a field day, but there is something about just using the camera and enjoying it. Not only does the combination of quality and size make this special, but there is the additional advantage of the screen feedback, as you mention. You put it together, and there is a qualitative difference between shooting with this set of parameters and other cameras. Some people "get" this, some don't. That's fine - and experience suggests that there is no way to convince those who don't get it what it is all about. I've had the same experience with one of my oldest friends who is an IT guy, and can't figure out why anyone would use an Apple....He like older British cars, open systems architecture,and loves to tinker. We have discussions about designed products, and even closed systems that are well considered, and do their job well. WIth due respect, never the 'twain shall meet. It is important, however, that we all work to keep the rhetoric down, and in the realm of civil discourse, no? Best, Geoff<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey goldberg Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Another winter shot: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now