Why a Leica M8?

[summitar]

After reading all the reviews I can find, and the comments from the M8 users in

this forum, I am trying to figure out why someone would want to spend US $5000

on a camera that obviously has ongoing problems, and whose reviews

(dpreview.com) have tended to be lukewarm. Conspicuous consumption? I own 7

Leicas, all bought used, and for a total price, including lenses, that is less

than a price of a new M8. In 5 or 10 years, I am pretty sure my cameras will

still be functional, even if I am not. I am not sure that one can say the same

for the M8, given the history of electronic devices. My 30 year old Betamax

which cost over $1000 (wonder what that is in today's $$$) has not been

functional for over 15 years and only inertia is keeping it from becoming

landfill. I don't think it is repairable at any reasonable price, and why would

I want to, given the superiority of dvd's, which will in turn become obsolete.

I am sure that for most M8 users, the M8 is not their first camera, and I would

wager that most users already own some very desirable cameras, both film and

digital. I am just wondering if an M8 is the best way to spend $5000, in a

photographic sense (for those of us who are not ultrawealthy or can write it off

as a business expense). $5000 can buy several trips to very photogenic

locations, for instance. Of course, you can wonder why I will be spending over

$3000 next week for surgery on my 12 year old Old English Sheepdog. Ans: she

has been part of my family since she was 8 weeks old and I dearly love her. I

confess that I would not turn down an M8 from some generous donor, and would

give serious consideration to buying one, despite its string of problem reports,

if the price was in the neighborhood of say $1500 or less. I did buy a new Nikon

D70 (my most expensive camera)three years ago, but it had received deservedly

rave reviews, and in my experience has lived up to them. I have an open mind

(sometimes) and I am really interested in the motivation of M8 buyers. I am

hoping that one or more responses will prompt me to think, "Of course. Why

didn't I think of that?"

[umut_arslan]

Because, they don`t know what to do better with 5000$.

[Troll]

Haven't you looked around at all the Cadillac SUVs and Porsches and Land Rovers? There are an incredible number of people with so much income that $10,000 for a Leica M8 and lenses doesn't make a dent in their budget.<P>Spending $3000 on an old dog seems just as dumb to me. In fact, a lot dumber!

[blakley]

Sure, I'd buy a Ferrari for $1500 too. But unfortunately no one is selling them for that price.

 

Umut is of course a world expert on the exactly correct order of preference for things one should spend $5000 on, so I won't even try to argue with him.

 

But let's see... why would one want to buy an M8?

 

Maybe because it's the only digital camera on the (new and supported) market that takes M lenses?

 

Maybe because it has a simpler control interface than any other interchangeable-lens digital camera?

 

Maybe because serious film M shooters are spending upwards of $2000/year on film and processing (not counting printing) and the camera will pay for itself in those costs alone after about three years - including extra battery, memory card, and filter costs?

 

Or maybe just because the M8 produces great results for people who stop whining about it and start taking pictures with it?

[vivek iyer]

Kerry, why not pick up an used Epson R-D1 for the price range of $1,500?

 

It is a swell camera (though M8 is a much better camera).

[vivek iyer]

The Epson, IME, is a much better camera than the D70 ever will be.

[summitar]

Bob, your reply concerning film costs make some sense to me, but that is a lot more than I spend, and of course, even with digital you will still have printing costs, if you choose to print. And given the extreme, to me, cost of M lenses, that would make sense to me if I had a sizable inventory of M lenses. Good reply! I had not factored in the cost of M lenses, since I have few, and no ultra costly ones.

 

Bill M, I have been reading your posts for several years, and you are a fount of valuable knowledge in many areas. That said, you often come across as a bitter mean spirited old man, not just in this thread. I hope that my interpretation is wrong. Your reply is this thread is cruel. I will gladly spend $3000 in the hope to extend Daisy's life because she has given me much more than that in her 12 years. I have known sheepies to live to 16 years, and except for a tumor, all other vital signs, heart, lungs, blood work, are excellent. She had a hip replacement five years ago for $4000 which did wonders for her quality of life. I had a knee replacement 8 months ago for over $30K, not out of my pocket, but Daisy still gets about better than I do. Her expenses will have little adverse effect on my family, but will do wonders for our souls.<div></div>

[summitar]

Vivek,

 

I was not familiar with the Epson. I did a mini-search just now, and came up with the following comment, admittedly, a sample of one. I seriously doubt that it is better than the D70, at least for my purposes.

 

 

"Nice idea, but really lacks the essentials. The viewfinder is very limited with frame lines for a 28mm=(becomes a 42mm) 35mm=(53mm) and

50mm=(75mm) very limiting as you have no wide angle viewfinder

unless you add an optical viewfinder on top. Poor construction and

inaccurate frame lines on the viewfinder. Some nice features with the

B&W settings and your choice of color filters to simulate the effects

these color filters provide. But difficult to move around in menu. Takes far too long to change any settings menu, is very poor design."

[vivek iyer]

I don't know where you found that 'review', Kerry but as I said, in my experience, that is incorrect.

 

Take a look at some of my images taken with the Epson RD-1s which allows the use of lenses like the Canon 50/0.95 (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00M7cv, the third shot i posted there) or a Noctilux 50/1 (i don't have one and I ain't buying one), or true ultrawides (sample here: http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5498515-lg.jpg).

 

Yes, your requirements may vary. That 'review' is misleading at best.

[Nowhereman]

It seems to me that a lot of people would be interested in a camera that size, that is, not

the size of a huge DSLR, that produces files of a quality similar to those of medium-format

scanned film -- that is what Sean Reid says in his reveiws -- and that uses Leica-M lenses

to boot. Now, it happens that I like the "35mm aesthetic" rather than the nedium format

look and, therefore, am not at this time interested in an M8. Not to difficult to see why

many people are interested in the the M8, although there is little point in getting this

camera for making 4x6 inc prints, or pictures like that of your sheepdog, whose operation

is perfectably understandable; and I hope it goes well.

 

As for the M8, there is no point in getting it if you don't need it for your photography,

either professional or amateur.

 

--Mitch/Potomac, MD

[summitar]

Lovely photos, Vivek, but I think the D70 with quality Nikon lenses could have done as well, especially with you operating the camera. I think Bob's reply, concerning an inventory of M lenses, was my "Aha!" moment.

[len_smith]

Kerry Kennedy asked:

>

> Why a Leica M8?

 

 

Simple. If you want, need or simply must have a new digital rangefinder camera body for use with M mount lenses, for whatever reason, the Leica M8 is the only game in town.

 

And if you are prepared to put a lot of effort into shooting in RAW and post-processing in image editing software, and taking care to avoid the camera's weaknesses, especially the infra-red issue, you will be rewarded with results that are more detailed than you would imagine a "mere" 10.3 MP camera would be capable of.

 

It costs $5000 because of the limited production volumes (meaning that the high development costs are spread over a small number of bodies) and because it is still a hand-assembled camera body, however advanced its technology may seem.

 

I didn't buy one, because its strengths compared with my Leica M film bodies did not make it worth $5000 *to me*. But it seems to be worth $5000 to a lot of people, and is therefore selling very well.

 

Tony

[aplumpton]

Why a Diana? Why a Hasselblad? Why a Canon or a Nikon top drawer digi

at 5000 to 8000$? Why a large format camera and lenses at 10k$ plus? It's a

question of what suits your approach and final image needs. Agreed that post

exposure image management and printing have a steep learning curve for

those of us weaned on (and still using) black and white silver base printing

technology.

 

The M8

 

1) has received several excellent reviews for quality imaging (for example,

see Photo Techniques magazine's on-line article this year);

2) maintains use of Leica M lenses (as well as excellent VC and Zeiss

lenses);

3) (like other digital cameras) allows the feedback for great photographic

composition control;

4) keeps Leica in business, which many of us regard as important.

[summitar]

Thanks for you kind thoughts, Mitch. The Daisy photo was taken by a friend and emailed to me and got to me as a 80 Kb photo. I am not really looking for a digital rangefinder. I think the M8 may turn out to be an outstanding camera, and I wish Leica well. It kind of bothered me that Leica would release a camera at that price with known defects. They must have known about the IR filter problem. Since I posted my original message, I have considered some other aspects to maintain a proper perspective. After retiring from 22 years in the military, I spent the next 24 years as an avionics/software/design/test engineer at Boeing, almost evenly split between the B-1B bomber and the A/F-22 stealth fighter. At over $200 million a copy for the A/F-22, the M8 seems bargain basement. Not to mention a trillion or so for the paradise we have created in Iraq (where my army son is on his second tour).

[neilambrose]

<p>The expense of the M8 is relative to where you live. If you're in the US it might cost

$5000, but that's a reflection of the poor state of the US Economy and the weakness of the

dollar. Its list price in the UK is about 2900 GBP - which is well within budget for serious

camera buyers. It's a lot cheaper than the 1DS-MkII, for example.</p>

 

<p>It has a specialised application which suits some people. For me it's quicker, easier,

and smaller than a DSLR. Frankly its a hell of a lot more fun, too. And it was a lot cheaper

than a high end scanner, which was my alternative if I wanted to get the same quality from

digitising 35mm film that I'd get for free with an M8. It wasn't a tough decision, and with

the amount I shoot it's already paid for itself.</p>

 

<p>So rather than moan at people who've bought one, why not moan at the economic

structure of the country that prevents you from affording one?</p>

[blakley]

I've used a D70 (don't own one, but have a lot of Nikon gear and have borrowed several from friends to try out). If you're shooting in easy lighting conditions and not printing bigger than 8x10, you're probably right that a D70 can do as well as an M8.

<p>

I shoot a lot of pictures at ISO 640-800, f/1.4 or f/1.2, and 1/8 - 1/30 second. The D70 can't touch the M8 for this kind of shooting - among other things because it's very difficult to focus it properly, but also because the lenses really aren't good enough and the mirror slap creates enough vibration to induce a lot of camera shake, at least in my hands.

<p>

I've also printed M8 photos at 30x40 inches, and they looked great. I tried printing a few D70 photos at 11x14 and wasn't completely happy. They weren't bad, but they weren't as good as I wanted, and it was clear that printing bigger was going to require either a quality compromise or some difficult postprocessing.

<p>

A 1DsMkII or 1DSIII would clearly be a different story, as would a D2Xs - but these are shading into the M8 price range, and for me are not as attractive because the lenses are mostly not as good as Leica's and because the control interfaces of these cameras are so complicated I feel like a chimpanzee when I try to use them.

<p>

A bunch of my M8 photos are <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/blakley/sets/72157594371371568/">here</a> if you want to take a look at some of the output.

<p>

I've had the camera since December, and in that time I estimate I've saved about $800 in film and processing - I'm an amateur and never earn a dime from photography so the savings make a difference. This was offset to some extent by the need to buy several $90 UV/IR cut filters for my M-series lenses. I still have printing costs, but of course only for the "keepers" and these I would have printed from film originals anyway so there's no loss or gain on this account.

<p>

In terms of quality I'd say I'm getting results which are better than I got from scanned film (I'm not a scanning expert and I'm sure others could have gotten better results from my negatives than I did) and as good as optical prints from color film. The conventional wisdom which says that optical prints from B&W film are still better than the results one can easily get from digital is true in my case - though my B&W results from the M8 are "good" and getting better, they're not as good as I often got from 35mm film.

<p>

Best wishes for your dog's health.

[neal_martin]

The M8 is a very good camera. I have one. I had nothing "invested" in M lenses; in fact, I never owned an RF until the several fixed-lens Yashicas and Canonets I bought to give RF a try. However, I have many years "invested" in the digital workflow. Even with others developing my film, I'm out of the habit of not having instant access to my images, and even though I've got a primo scanner (Epson V700), scanning negs is extra work, more time, and the scanner software offers nothing I can't do better in PhotoShop.

 

In case some haven't noticed, Epson no longer makes RDs. Only available used. Buy a used camera from someone who doesn't like it, hates digi, or really wants an M8? It's all a matter of how you want to spend your time and take your risks.

 

A wise contractor advised me (after my house burned down and I was building another), "Martin, think about the Delta (he was also an engineer---'delta' for 'difference'---"You have to buy a toilet," he said. "Your only decision is whether you will spend the money to get toilet you really want instead of settling for the toilet you must have."

 

So when I decided that I "must have" a lightweight, high quality alternative to my Canon EOS D system, I spent the $3k delta to get a Leica and the tradition and quality that it embodies. Possibly, I'll need to toss it in 6 years (unlikely, I still use on occasion my Coolpix 990); but if that's the case, I'm looking at $500 per year of wonderful ultrawealthy ownership. (And on my vacations and jobs I'll be able to distinguish myself from all the unwealthy).

 

Nice dog. My basset hound is way more beautiful, though I'll concede that she's not much good at herding (or doing anything else that's useful.) I understand that sheepdogs have grimy, slobbery mouths and they smell. OK, Bassets are slobbery and smell . . .but according to a review I read, they smell less bad. I understand the sentiment of getting a few more years for your sheepdog, but you could also take that $3k and buy a used Basset----if not for practical reasons, for your improved status among your neighbors. Check my ebay listing. :o)

[amorteguy]

Two reasons.

 

1. You seek the name, have the money, and want to be considered by those who see you with it as a "serious" photographer.

 

2. You ARE a serious photographer and want the best tool out there for the type of photography for which Leicas are famous.

 

You think and Epson is comparable? Do you see pro sports photographers shooting a Pentax? A rebel XT? No way! They have a EOS1D in their hands, another $5000 camera. You get the tool for the job and price is no big deal when it's a tax-deductable business expense.

[ron_breeze2]

I liked it, I wanted it, I use it and so far it is the best camera I've ever owned. That being said

Kerry two words- credit card.

Hope your dog gets well soon, I used to have a dog just like it when I was a kid, his name

was Corky and I still miss him after 50 years.

[dave_s]

On the subject of dogs, there was a guy in this forum some months back who posted that he loved his cameras more than his dogs. Nobody seemed to think that was unusual.

[g-man1]

You need to try it yourself and make up your own mind, instead of reading reviews, other's opinions, or hypothesizing based on spec sheets. You can buy new and sell for a few hundred less if you don't like it, or else buy used and not lose much in resale. I've got it, an M3, Hexar RF, Contax T, D200, and EOS 1N, as well as a couple of sony digital compacts and the olympus stylus, and recently had a D50 and contax iiia. I read a lot of BS about these cameras in magazines and the internet before/since owning them. I like the M8, but it's not perfect.

[Troll]

Bill M...you often come across as a bitter mean spirited old man, not just in this thread. I hope that my interpretation is wrong. Your reply is this thread is cruel.

 

Kerry, you are absolutely right; I am a bitter, mean spirited, old man. As a retired country physician who often struggled to take care of large, hard-working farming families whose entire yearly cash income is less than you are going to spend on your dog, I cannot help but think that the priorities of many wealthy Americans are often screwed up.

[summitar]

The responses have been informative. It was not my intention to arouse emotional reactions, believe it or not. It is not inconceivable that I may own an M8 someday, but only if I get a great price on a used, but lovingly cared for, camera. As I said, I have 7 leica's, 4 LTMs and 3 M series. As an ex-mechanical engineer from the era when mechanical engineering was near its peak, I love the workmanship of the near post war era. I have one Contax IIa, and it is a worthy rival for sure. Today, when camera manufacturers are dropping like flies, I want Leica to survive, if only for emotional reasons. I am purely an amateur and have never made a penny from photography -- quite the opposite. Because of physical limitations, I am more a collector than user, not my first choice. As for conspicuous wealth, I live in the Seattle area, half a block from the main Microsoft campus. Also living in King County are Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Steve Ballmer, Jeff Bezos (amazon), the founder of Starbucks (can't remember his name), the four McCaw brothers (cell phone magnates), and countless millionaires. I am not in that lucky group. I must respond to some of the replies with kindly jabs. I have made excellent 12 by 18 inch prints using a fuji S602, a 3 meg camera (extrapolated to 6 megs). The D70 is superb at 12 by 18 inches. Sheepdogs are not smelly and grimy!!! They are the world's most huggable dogs. I like most breeds, and hounds like the basset are among my favorite, despite their looks. Attitudes are great. I visited the UK in 1985 and love the country. My father was born in Scotland. Your remarks on comparative economy are interesting and I am pleased that you are doing so well. Excuse for asking, but have you discovered central heating and hot showers yet. Are you still driving those little cars with three wheels? Just kidding, I am proud of my British heritage and wish them well. My grandfather was a member of Kitchener's expedition to the Sudan in 1898 (1st Lincoln's) and took part in the liberation of Khartoum. To me the world has come full circle as my son is part of the war against Islamic terrorists now serving in Iraq. Or maybe he is just there to serve someone's ego. Thank you all again for participating. The most compelling reason to me was the ability to use M series lenses on a digital platform.<div></div>

[summitar]

Bill M,

 

My last post must have crossed yours in cyberspace. I didn't see it until now. Living in King County, the billionaire's county, I don't consider myself wealthy in money by a long shot. I am wealthy in family and in experiences. My father came to this country at age 12 because there wasn't enough poverty in Scotland to go around. There sure was enough in the coal mines of West Virginia and Eastern Ohio. He moved to work in the electrochemical plants in Niagara Falls, my home town, and the home of the Love Canal. Through academic scholarships and family help, I scraped my way though college and worked summers in the chemical plants, daily sweeping hundreds of pounds of spilled cyanide off the warehouse floors. I entered the Air Force through an ROTC commission and served for 22 years, retiring as a full colonel (0-6) with seven years in grade, and 3 secondary zone promotions (for those of you who know the lingo). I was fortunate beyond words to spend my first air force year as a meteorology student at NYU, and then to return to MIT three years later, thanks again to the military to earn advanced degrees in meterology and aero-astro. There was a large military student contingent at that marvelous school in the early 60s and three of my junior officer classmates were named Buzz Aldrin, Edgar Mitchell, and Charlie Duke. They all walked on the moon during the following decade. I had a millionaire's education but a starvation paycheck since 5 of my first 8 years were spent in New York, Boston, and Washington DC, not low cost of living areas. I bought my first real camera, a Konica auto S2 for about $30 in Vietnam when I was 30. I am probably older than you. After the military, I worked at Boeing for 24 years until age 69 to provide a good education to my children. My last 5 years at Boeing was spent with severe rheumatoid arthritis and I required crutches to walk. I finally bought my first ever Leica, a used IIIc when I was 66, after over 50 years of coveting one. I worked hard, raised my family, and I contribute to charity. I have been blessed in many ways including the best medical plan on earth for my wife and me, thanks to a military retirement. The medical plan, tri-care for life, was written and sold to a significant extent my oldest daughter, now a retired Lt colonel who spent her last 5 years in the service assigned to the pentagon, Office of the SecDef for Health Affairs, as a Medical Service Corps officer. I pray that the US establishes universal health care. My family and I have always treated our pets as full fledged family members. I walked the picket line for 40 days in 2000 when the Engineers union went on a successful strike against Boeing, often at 3 AM in January. Daisy was with me every step of the way, being better equipped to handle the cold than me. I have had some dark moments in the past 10 years, and Daisy provided valuable therapy. I have absolutely no qualms and no guilt about trying to extend her life. I can't solve all the world's problems but maybe I can help her.

 

I respect and honor your service as a country doctor. I am sure you were a good one, probably a lot like my favorite TV doctor, Dr. House. I imagine your bedside manners are quite similar. I am joshing here - those of you familiar with the show where the Brit Hugh Laurie play Dr. House know that House has a bedside manner probably a tad less sunny and comforting than Hitler. But a great portrayal of a brilliant doctor. As I have stated, you have provided valuable and accurate information on a broad range of photographic subjects. I don't know how you found the time to develop such expertise. And I hope you are not really a bitter old man. But you have often demonstrated a sharp tongue, sometimes amusingly so. You remind me in many ways of the now banished Jay of Leica fame. I bought equipment and solicited advice from Jay when he was still available. Our personal dealings were always pleasant. I hope you can lighten up. I wish you a wonderful retirement. And I will do whatever I can to care for Daisy. None of my canine friends have ever been "just a dog". They are pure loyalty and devotion and help make life worth living.

[Rob F.]

Kerry, I have 13 Leicas, and I don't plan on buying an M8 either. One of those 13 Leicas is a Digilux 1, and the other is a Digilux 2. I've spent the last two days printing out shots from the Digilux 2, which I picked up used for $800. I'm very pleased with the pictures. I don't feel motivated to spend $5000 on an M8, either.

 

But I think that for those who want to shoot top quality digital shots with a rangefinder camera, there is little choice. The M8 is the only game in town, if you need a 10MP rangefinder! Personally, I think my next digital will either be the Panasonic DMC-L1, or the D200. I have lots of lenses to use on the D200. The Panasonic, on the other hand, has live view, and the ultrasonic sensor cleaner. It is large and heavy, though. Might as well get the D200. It seems like a good time to remember that many fine photographers use Nikon gear!