M8 Question

[alastair_anderson]

I can't imagine how it is physically possible to mount a visoflex on the M8

becasue it's dimensions are wrong. And yet I gather that people are doing just

that. Can someone explain.

 

I realise that the actual mirror box will fit, but how do you get the finder on

without damaging the top of the camer?

[SCL]

Although I don't have the M8, I've read elsewhere you have to use either a Visoflex III, which is taller than previous models or the chimney finder.

[aplumpton]

I have both Viso III and Viso II (the latter is for sale at a reasonable price). The III

mounts perfectly because it does not need to rotate on the lens mount to attach it,

which means that you do not need to disassemble the 90 degree prism. In any case,

although I have not tried it, the Viso-II prism VF is probably too low for the M8 body

(unlike the Viso-III prism, it has a discontinuity in its base, which likely brings it down

too low over the top of the camera), but the Viso III is perfect from the point of view

of clearance. Either work perfectly with the upright chimney VF attachment.

 

A great accessory for an M8, if you have the Viso lenses and/or bellows.

[andy_piper2]

Some Visoflex prisms have a step-down in them that precludes their use with the M8 or

the other "tall" Leicas - M7, M6ttl.

 

The prisms are physically interchangeable between Viso II and Viso III mirror boxes, and I

have seen III's that won't fit the M8 and II's that WILL - it is totally dependent on the prism

configuration, and over the years, many have gotten swapped around.

 

The Viso I has an M mount on the back, a screw-mount for the lenses, and requires a

double cable release to sync the mirror and shutter. This type has an offset 45-degree

prism that has no body clearance problems, but is a royal PITA to use (IMHO) and accepts

only older SM lenses.

 

I guess there are chimney viewfinders for all the Visos that eliminate the problem of body

clearance - but see things backwards like any waist-level finder, and thus are mostly only

useful for macro or landscape work and horizontal compositions.

[alastair_anderson]

Much obliged for all your responses. I do have 4 Leitz viso lenses (65, 200, 280 and 400, and an enormous 500 Komura)as well as the bellows unit. My visoflex is a II but it has a viso III finder.

Anyway I'm now looking out for a chimney finder.

 

By the way I haven't yet purchased an M8. I'm almost there, but still have some doubts. I had pretty much decided to get a D3 before I saw the size of it. I need to have a look at RAW files. My M8 jpegs aren't good enough.

[aplumpton]

M8 jpegs at smallest degree of compression are quite good, at least 10 x 15 prints

are fine at ISO levels up to 320. RAW is best, of course. I like the Visoflex-III with it,

but then I shoot a bit more slowly than many. The D3 and M8 are very different

cameras. Whereas the D3 is probably more polyvalent, the M8 is an unabashed Leica

RF, with all that that confers.

[alastair_anderson]

Arthur, There must be some problem with the M8 that I was testing then because I'm not happy with the jpegs that I downloaded to my laptop. There's noticeable bleeding of red/pinks and they don't stand enlargement the way the film slides do. I'm talking "windows picture and fax viewer" here. The Reala pictures that have been scanned by Jessops are definitely superior.

[alastair_anderson]

No that I come to think of it, the ISO may have been set to 360.

[alastair_anderson]

Sorry, I meant "Now that I come to think of it, the ISO may have been set to 360."

[noah]

<< and they don't stand enlargement the way the film slides do. I'm talking "windows

picture and fax viewer" here. >>

 

Have you tried printing the files? Of course this will only be relevant if you actually intend

to make prints of your work, I suppose. But if you're doing work only to be viewed on the

screen any camera should do.

 

You need to try out some real software. I use macs so I don't know what "windows picture

and fax viewer" is, but I don't like the sound of it. Trying to decide between $5000k+

cameras by looking at jpgs on a simple viewing software doesn't sound smart to me. Make

some prints or at least get the images in PS so you can get a good look at them and play

with curves, look at the histograms, etc.

 

Have you considered the d300? Looks like a great little camera, and probably better suited

to macro and tele work than the M8.

[aplumpton]

Alastair. Noah may be right. My images look OK on the screen (which itself is very

limited of course, sat 72 dpi) and when I transfer them (via very light PS Elements

retouching of contrast) to the local photo shop on CD, they produce really nice prints

on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. I have sold quite a few, so they must be OK.

 

 

Make sure you are using the minimum jpeg compression (highest quality jpeg). Also,

if you are shooting in raw, but simply using the jpeg accompanying image, note that

it is the least high quality one. Try 160 ISO instead of 320, but I don't think that is

your problem.

[aplumpton]

Alastair. Noah may be right. My images look OK on the screen (which itself is very

limited of course, at only 72 dpi) and when I transfer them (via very light PS Elements

retouching of contrast) to the local photo shop on CD, they produce really nice prints

on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. I have sold quite a few, so they must be OK.

 

 

Make sure you are using the minimum jpeg compression (highest quality jpeg). Also,

if you are shooting in raw, but simply using the jpeg accompanying image, note that

it is the least high quality one. Try 160 ISO instead of 320, but I don't think that is

your problem.

[alastair_anderson]

Noah, I'll try printing. Enough people seem to be satisfied with their M8 images, so I'm pretty sure that I must be doing something wrong.

 

I have considered the D300. (It's not little compared to the Leica!) There was a thread on this forum an hour or so ago where someone asked which was better, the M8 or the D3. It's been mysteriously deleted - perhaps because the M8 was coming off second best. Anyhow I posted that the D300 would actually cost me more because I have the Leica lenses but I would have to invest seriously in Nikon glass if I went that route.

 

Arthur, I'll definitely follow your advice when next I get an M8 in my hands: highest quality jpegs and lower ISO.

I'll buy one eventually if I manage to hang on to my money. I was just outbid on a first series M3, fortunately!<div></div>

[alastair_anderson]

Look at the top of the umbrella in the picture attached above. Is this attributable to the ir problem? Or is it perhaps a fault of the summaron?

[noah]

Alastair,

 

True, not many pro cameras are small compared to the M8, but the d300 is about as small

of an slr as I'd want, and it's diminutive compared to the d3.

 

I'm no shill for Nikon, I lost faith in the company with the D1's, which were very poor

performers in my opinion. So much so that my newspaper dumped all of our nikon gear

and switched to canon. But the new generation of Nikons seem like a huge step forward,

and the lenses are still my favorite, other than my Leica M glass.

 

Not sure what kind of work you do, but since the M8 is $5400 in the US and the D300 is

$1700, you can buy A LOT of glass for the difference of $3700. The great thing about

Nikon is that you can choose from the old manual lenses too, many of which are superb.

And zeiss has some new F-mount lenses, including some macros. A lot of people mention

large zooms when they compare slrs to Leica Ms. But you don't need to go in that

direction. When I did shoot nikon for my photojournalism work, I used fast prime lenses

that are quite small and discreet.

 

I posted in that other thread as well, not sure what happened to it.

 

I'm not trying to dissuade you from buying an M8. If you already shoot with leica and you

want to switch to digital and use the same lenses and techniques, it's really the only game

in town, and enough people are doing good work with them that I suspect your test shot is

flawed. I don't mean that in a derogatory sense, just that maybe something was wrong

with the camera, the settings or the lens. I'm sure the M8 is capable of more.

 

As I suggested on the deleted post, maybe you can borrow or rent the cameras for more

than a day to go try them out and see which you prefer. If that's not possible, at least

shoot a more controlled test at the store, shoot in raw, and make test prints to check the

quality. I've seen some great prints and online results from the M8, but after seeing your

test I can see why you have doubts. Good luck!

 

www.noahaddis.com

[doug herr]

Alastair, you might be interested to see what one person on the l-camera-forum is doing

with his M8, Visoflex and 400mm Novoflex:

 

<P>

<A HREF="http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/nature-wildlife/47471-

hooded-vulture.html" target="_blank">Hooded Vulture</A>

<P>

<A HREF="http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/nature-wildlife/47475-kids-

play.html" target="_blank">Kids Play</A>

<P>

<A HREF="http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/nature-wildlife/47562-lady-

green.html" target="_blank">Lady in Green</A>

<P>

<A HREF="http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/nature-wildlife/47565-

secretary-bird.html" target="_blank">Secretary Bird</A>

[alastair_anderson]

Thanks Douglas. I'll be in South Africa later this month. But I won't be lugging the 400 telyt with me! Wonderful pictures, and certainly a good argument for the M8.

 

My picture outside the British museum was taken with a 28 summaron, and perhaps it simply wasn't up to it. Also I didn't have an ir filter in place.

 

I do enjoy using old lenses. I have a lot of pictures taken with an early 3.5 elmar. I certainly hope I'll be able to find a way to mount ir filters on my a36 lenses.