Kamber's M8 Extensive Field Test

[robert_clark]

I tend to agree with Francois - Leica need to team up with a competent partner with sensor know-how and experience in high-quality, robust electronics, to produce cheaper, more robust, effective bodies. They can then sell plenty of them, and concentrate on making most profit from their excellent lenses.

[Jim_Tardio]

You can't sugarcoat it or rationalize it. The M8 simply isn't ready for prime time. As I stated several times, the low end, entry models from Canon & Nikon are far more reliable and offer more in the way of features.

<p>

And please don't take this as a slight against Leica. That's not what I mean. They clearly had to get <i>something</i> digital on the market to stay alive. Hopefully, the M8 will be a stepping stone to a fantastic, realiable digital rangefinder.

[Ian Taylor]

<i>"Leica has a rich history". </i>

<p>

True, and they have squandered it in just a few years by forgetting what got them there. Unbelievable.

[film rules]

If everyone had just listened to me years ago when I said "Digital Schmigital!"

 

Spend your money on a nice enlarger and lens, Heiland Splitgrade and a slot processor and get over this digital fad.

[vic_.]

Dan Fromm: <i>"Hmm. Lou's post makes me see one of the faithful, trying to circle his

little wagon. Where are the rest of them?"</i>

<p>They're too busy taking pictures with their M8s, not knowing their cameras aren't

supposed to work.

[Brad_]

Any chance that photoessay and story will make into Leica Fotografie International?

[Alex_Es]

That's right Vic. And since their M8s work they see no reason to engage in a pointless

verbal exchange.

[vivek iyer]

There are 3 or 4 mini reviews here (at least, I think that is what they are in

terms of the number of words typed).

 

I don't know yours is the longest though, Alex. :)

 

BTW, who bought the first unused M8? I lost track of that eBay listing...

[Alex_Es]

Right, Vivek. Should have said: "...what has become a pointless verbal exchange."

 

Nice that at least you noticed my rather hasty response Kamber's essay. I still wonder

how you accidentally can change the ISO from 320 to 2500 with your flak jacket.

[ruben_osuna_guerrero]

Kamber's article on the M8 is very interesting.

 

There are other opinions from photojournalists though:

 

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0709/camera-corner-leica-m8.html

 

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4133/extreme-field-test-leica-m8-in-iraq.html

 

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0709/camera-corner-the-leica-m8-on-assignment.html

 

and fashion photographers:

 

http://www.lexar.com/dp/tips_lessons/irakly_leica_m8.html

 

R.

[larrybc]

Lou Sapienza wrote:

<br />

<br />[snip]

<br />> The M8 is still a marvel to me in that they've been able to

<br />> cram all that they did into such a compact body.

<br />

<br />Have you seen a Nikon D40? Or any of the other small, entry level DSLRs? They're extremely compact. Remove the prism and add a rangefinder and any of them could easily match the size of the M8. Not a sleight against Leica. Just saying that you don't a lot of room to replace film guts with digital guts.

<br />

<br />> Good engineering means designing what the engineers are

<br />> convinced will work based upon years of science, materials,

<br />> craft and art. Most importantly, good engineering means

<br />> learning from what was thought to be the best solution and

<br />> wasn't - and moving on. Ask any engineer.

<br />

<br />I'm not sure what your point is, here. Are you saying that you can't judge the M8 by the problems the author identified in his M8? Having paid $5500 for the body he has, he probably doesn't get much solace from knowing that the good engineers will make improvements on the next iteration of the M8.

<br />

<br />> There surely is a need for the high quality stealthy digital

<br />> rangefinder that is the Leica M8.

<br />

<br />The author already made that point. His complaint was that the obvious candidate, the M8, was failing in that role.

<br />

<br />> The Leica should always be designed for the hard use and versatility

<br />> of the professional.

<br />

<br />On the subject of hard use, the author was of that opinion too, based on his years of working experience with past M bodies. His complaint is that the M8 fails to live up to that aspect of its lineage. Also, I don't think versatility is really a goal that Leica should strive for. It lost that battle when the Nikon F hit the shelves. But Leica should ensure that it's M8 can at least fully serve the rangefinder niche for photojournalists.

<br />

<br />> Michael, didnﾒt you ever learn "not to bite the hand that

<br />> feeds you?" I just love it when people you attempt to help

<br />> (Leica loaning Michael the M8) make a public display of such

<br />> (dis) affection.

<br />

<br />Well, that certainly has nothing to do with his evaluation of the three M8s he had. No matter what you think of the ethics of his article, it certainly doesn't detract from his findings. Also, it seems to me that he has, in fact, been in contact with Leica before his article was posted. Leica loaning him an M8 shouldn't reduce the expectations that the M8 body he subsequently purchased should work properly, and that service should be timely and satisfactory.

<br />

<br />> Michael, if you have a problem with the M8, it should be a

<br />> quiet constructive intelligent collaboration between you and

<br />> Leica and possibly the public. Anger such as yours should be

<br />> reserved for and is perhaps the root cause of the

<br />> battlefields you choose to cover. Diplomacy between parties

<br />> is so much better than an angry war between reasonable

<br />> people. The best developments - and relationships come from

<br />> such astute quiet and constructive discussions.

<br />

<br />You have no idea what his communication with Leica was like so to suggest that it wasn't constructive nor intelligent is simply ridiculous. Also, his well written article certainly doesn't appear to come from anger. Disappointment is more like it.

<br />

<br />[snip]

<br />> expectations and just weren't up to speed on the M8.

<br />> Expectations are the root cause of marriages/relationships

<br />> going bad. Letting go of expectation and working with

<br />> reality is, well, reality based. Yes the M8 may not need

<br />> your needs at the moment but complete testing and evaluation

<br />> might have made that clear earlier.

<br />

<br />He gave the M8 a very, very complete test by way of using it for work. Whether he discovered it was unsuitable for his work earlier or later doesn't change the outcome and the main point of his article: the M8 is unsuitable for his PJ work.

<br />

<br />> The M8 is every bit its roots in focusing, handling and

<br />> sharpness but the similarities end there. (But yet there is

<br />> the complaint about EV compensation but that's not in the

<br />> DNA of the M6 or MP.)

<br />

<br />Nor is digital in the DNA of the M6 or MP. Are you actually suggesting that someone plunking down $5500 for an M8 should only expect the rangefinder and build quality to be within expectations, and to forgive the shortcomings of features that were not present in the M6?

<br />

<br />> I still use the M6 I purchased around 1980 (one of the Greenland

<br />> cameras with water and condensation) as well as my 3-year-old MP daily.

<br />

<br />What does that have to do with anything? The author already mentioned his high regard for the older Leicas. It's the M8 that he feels is sub-par. Reading his article, it sounds to me like you can't gauge the reliability/durability of the M8 by referencing the older Leicas.

<br />

<br />

<br />Robert Clark wrote:

<br />

<br />> I tend to agree with Francois - Leica need to team up with a

<br />> competent partner with sensor know-how and experience in

<br />> high-quality, robust electronics, to produce cheaper, more

<br />> robust, effective bodies. They can then sell plenty of them,

<br />> and concentrate on making most profit from their excellent

<br />> lenses.

<br />

<br />That could mean no digital rangefinder at all. Consider the fact that the Leica screw and M mounts are in the public domain. Yet no one is currently producing a digital rangefinder to take advange of those lenses. My guess is that none of the camera manufacturers see that market as being large enough to support the R&D, production costs, opportunities lost, advertising, inventory costs, and shelf space cost to warrant the production of such a camera. I suppose things might be different if Epson were still making the RD-1 but the fact that they stopped perhaps indicated to other manufacturers that the time is not yet right for such a camera. CCD or CMOS sensor costs will have to drop further and perhaps technology to deal with the close proximity of some RF lens' rear elements to the sensor will have to appear before we see a more affordable digital RF.

<br />

<br />larsbc

[vivek iyer]

Larry Anon: Your first paragraph appears to be the exact opposite of the last one in your <b>massive</b> post.

<p>

I suppose one can lose track of him/herself when so much is typed in one post.

[michael s.]

Can't add anything heavy to the M8 discussion, but it's interesting, to me at least, that on some stories in the "New York Times" Kamber has both the byline and the photo credits:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/29/world/middleeast/29kurds.html

 

Versatile guy.

[larrybc]

Vivek wrote:<br />

> Larry Anon: Your first paragraph appears to be the exact opposite <br />

> of the last one in your massive post.

<br /><br />

I suppose it was massive, wasn't it? ;-)

<br /><br />

<p>But to answer your question, no, it wasn't the exact opposite. In the first, I was simply pointing out that the M8 isn't a marvel of miniaturization. In the last, I was pointing out that a digital RF won't sell in the same numbers of something like the D40 so it isn't as feasible to produce.

</p>

 

<p>I think the D40 body is selling for around $400 right now. But Nikon has sold millions of 'em. I doubt that they would sell millions of a similarly-equipped RF. So even if the profit per camera were the same, it still makes much more sense to sell the D40.</p>

 

<p>The Sigma DP-1 might've spurred a sea change in the small digital camera waters but, imo, they made too many bad design choices to make it a good seller.

</p>

 

<p>larsbc

</p>

[vivek iyer]

I think François P. WEILL has the biggest post thusfar.

 

(not a scientific measure, just eyeballing- I will use a tape measure later to investigate this in detail and post the results..)

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Larry wrote:

 

>> That could mean no digital rangefinder at all. Consider the fact that the Leica screw and M mounts are in the public domain. Yet no one is currently producing a digital rangefinder to take advange of those lenses. My guess is that none of the camera manufacturers see that market as being large enough to support the R&D, production costs, opportunities lost, advertising, inventory costs, and shelf space cost to warrant the production of such a camera. <<

 

My guess is you are partly wrong with this assumption. It is a bit strange as film camera sales (et least small format ones) is steadily declining to a point they are the exception rather than the rule, Zeiss found the money and the will to produce a film based rangefinder camera (IMHO better made than the M7 and for almost half the price) and an all range of associated lenses (more or less equivalent in IQ to the current Leica lenses but with a different "signature") in M mount if they didn't anticipate to sell enough of those systems worldwide. So, what about the same body in digital version ? Do you really believe they have no intention to go digital whenever it will be technically feasible for a reasonable price and in full format ?

 

>> I suppose things might be different if Epson were still making the RD-1 but the fact that they stopped perhaps indicated to other manufacturers that the time is not yet right for such a camera. <<

 

Sorry mate, but the Epson was even more overpriced for what it offered than a Leica M8... This is why its demise was unavoidable. And it was certainly not a pro level camera, let alone a full format one.

 

Full format is a perequisite condition of a professional rangefinder in M mount more than it is with any DSLR. Too many M mount lense are already in existence and Leica ones expensive enough even second hand for their owners to accept both not to use them fully and accept to spend more money on a new lens to cover their wide angle needs when buying the Digital rangefinder. Beside, there is no interest with the alleged advantage of increasing the apparent magnification on the tele side on an APS-C rangefinder.

 

>> CCD or CMOS sensor costs will have to drop further <<

 

Do you mean price or cost ? Because I know nobody outside the manufacturer's team who can say "I know how much a sensor of this size actually costs" but I know a lot of corporate representatives who are ready to swear, even on the head of their dear mother, it costs a lot... and in so doing justify the present price of a digital camera... Take your pick :)

 

>> and perhaps technology to deal with the close proximity of some RF lens' rear elements to the sensor <<

 

Some months ago, on this very forum, some "armchair technicians" swore it was impossible... They have remained silent when the recently fired manager of Leica AG announced it was an evolution which was already planned... IMHO the very reason he was fired as these news should indeed push down the sale of the M8 to a trickle...

 

>> will have to appear before we see a more affordable digital RF. <<

 

IMHO, the difficulty is simply a question of commercial margin. I consider the good price for a really professionnal digital rangefinder is in between the ones of the so called "Expert" DSLR's and the ones of professional DSLR's, probably nearer to the formers as because of the concept itself it will require les "bells and whistles" (no AF, and probably fewer cross options for example) while retaining full format and the best low light high ISO capabilities. And because for most pros it will be a complement to a DSLR gear. But to issue such a camera today in this price range will require to sacrifice a sizeable part of the *per unit* margin. I bet this won't be true anymore within 3 or 4 years.

 

As for the market of such a camera, just read the different DSLR forums on photo.net and see the number of posts complaining about the weight, obtrusiveness and volume of pro DSLR's ... the real solution if maximum image quality and high ISO performance were to be preserved is not to keep APS-C format sensors in DSLR's but to have a rangefinder camera in full format.

 

However this new camera, apart being technically faultless and able to withstand much abuse to interest the pros, should use the best and relevant technologies brought about by modern SLR's and DSL's (e.g. : matrix metering in AE mode, high speed, high synch speed shutter though well damped for the noise ... Etc.) and some specific new technologies to the rangefinder concept like an high-point variable magnification viewfinder (x0.6, x0.8, x1 for example) and a well conceived high point multiple focal length accessory finder for very wide angles. A double slot for two CF cards will also be appreciated. And something like a HUD projector to display the different frames in the viewfinder with the option to manually suppress the unusued frame if required for an uncluttered vision and covering any focal length from 28mm to 135mm (at x 0.6 position).

 

Of course this rangefinder won't sell like an entry level Nikon D 40, but it could be the preferred second body or specialized additional system for many PJ's and a lot of advanced amateurs. I really think there is a wide enough market for a 21st century digital rangefinder provided its price remain at an acceptable level.

 

FPW

[robert_clark]

Yes, a professionally built, robust, reliable FF Rangefinder will find a place in thousands of professional photographers' bags as a second body, and as a first body for plenty of ambitious amatures who want top quality without the weight, bulk and squinty viewfinders of DSLR's.

[Spearhead]

<i>Yes, a professionally built, robust, reliable FF Rangefinder will find a place in thousands of professional photographers' bags as a second body</i><p>Can you provide some data that justifies this statement?

[vic_.]

Alex Shishin: <i>"... And since their M8s work they see no reason to engage in a

pointless verbal exchange. ..."</i>

<p>Shishin-san, spot on!

<p>It's amazing how short people's memories are.

<p>(1) Nikon was regularly skewered for, what, five years, for being behind the curve

with it's lineup of "sub-standard" cameras when compared to Canon.

<p>(2) People went into endless circle jerks when the M6TTL came out, complaining

about the 2mm extra height, i.e., focusing on the immaterial.

<p>(3) Now with the Nikon D3, these same people have bought that camera and don't

complain about the size. Que pasa?

<p>I must thank you for all your positive comments on the M8, for your experiences in

part persuaded me to join the "wagon circlers!"

<p>Harigato gozaimasu!

[35mmdelux]

and I thought the Bible was longer.

 

Here is the deal in a few words: the M8 is the Leica Ur camera of the digi genre. It will get better or Mr Lee will get fired. Opps, he did get fired. Oh well.

[larrybc]

François P. WEILL wrote:

<br />

> My guess is you are partly wrong with this assumption. It is<br />

> a bit strange as film camera sales (et least small format<br />

> ones) is steadily declining to a point they are the<br />

> exception rather than the rule, Zeiss found the money and<br />

> the will to produce a film based rangefinder camera (IMHO<br />

> better made than the M7 and for almost half the price) and<br />

> an all range of associated lenses (more or less equivalent<br />

> in IQ to the current Leica lenses but with a different<br />

> "signature") in M mount if they didn't anticipate to sell<br />

> enough of those systems worldwide. So, what about the same<br />

> body in digital version ?

 

<p>Zeiss isn't a very good example because it's a film camera. Clearly, there is a profitable-enough market in producing small numbers of niche film camera. The Cosina Voigtlander rangefinders are proof of that. But the R&D and manufacturing/supplies cost of building a niche digital camera is another thing altogether.</p>

<br />

> Do you really believe they have no intention to go digital<br />

> whenever it will be technically feasible for a reasonable price <br />

> and in full format ?

 

<p>Of course not, and that's why I made mention of the fact that the time might not be right, and that sensor costs need to come down. </p>

<br />

> > I suppose things might be different if Epson were still<br />

> > making the RD-1 but the fact that they stopped perhaps<br />

> > indicated to other manufacturers that the time is not yet<br />

> > right for such a camera.<br />

> <br />

> Sorry mate, but the Epson was even more overpriced for what<br />

> it offered than a Leica M8... This is why its demise was<br />

> unavoidable. And it was certainly not a pro level camera,<br />

> let alone a full format one.

 

<p>But it was still cheaper than the Leica and for a time, the only game in town. For that matter, it's not too many years ago that all digicams were overpriced for what they were. </p>

<br />

> Full format is a perequisite condition of a professional<br />

> rangefinder in M mount more than it is with any DSLR.

 

<p>I don't know if I fully agree with you on that, but on the other hand, I wasn't limiting my discussion to a pro spec digital RF, either.</p>

<br />

> Too<br />

> many M mount lense are already in existence and Leica ones<br />

> expensive enough even second hand for their owners to accept<br />

> both not to use them fully and accept to spend more money on<br />

> a new lens to cover their wide angle needs when buying the<br />

> Digital rangefinder. Beside, there is no interest with the<br />

> alleged advantage of increasing the apparent magnification<br />

> on the tele side on an APS-C rangefinder.

 

<p>I agree on the last point. One of the attractions that RFs had for me was their small, fast, high quality normal-to-wide primes. An APS format sensor might suit a lot of users as long as the wide end was adequately populated, probably by the likes of Cosina-Voigtlander. But I'm not focusing on Leica users. I'm thinking more of DSLR users who would like to augment their kit with a small, light, quiet, digital camera.</p>

 

<p>As for a pro level RF, which I must admit is the original concern of this thread, yeah, I can see people wanting to take full avantage of the existing Leica lenses.</p>

<br />

> will have to appear before we see a more affordable digital RF.

 

[snip]<br />

> And because for most pros it will be a complement to a DSLR<br />

> gear. But to issue such a camera today in this price range<br />

> will require to sacrifice a sizeable part of the *per unit*<br />

> margin. I bet this won't be true anymore within 3 or 4<br />

> years.

 

That's what I'm hoping for, too.

<br />

> As for the market of such a camera, just read the different<br />

> DSLR forums on photo.net and see the number of posts<br />

> complaining about the weight, obtrusiveness and volume of<br />

> pro DSLR's ... the real solution if maximum image quality<br />

> and high ISO performance were to be preserved is not to keep<br />

> APS-C format sensors in DSLR's but to have a rangefinder<br />

> camera in full format.

 

<p>Are the manufacturers so blind as to not notice this? I doubt it. People talk about the ideal camera but the definition of ideal varies from person to person, and there are plenty of ways in which to screw it up. It's far safer to "pick the low hanging fruit" and cater to the masses.</p>

 

<p>[discussion of snazzy features snipped]</p>

<p>I'll probably be severely taunted for this but some form of live view would also be a good feature to add. Would be useful for framing with the super wide lenses. You could also through an adapter on it to use telephotos or even, gasp, zoom lenses, for those rare times when you need those focal lengths but don't want to bother bringing along an SLR. And since many RF fans rave about the surreptitious qualities of the camera, a live view with flip/twist LCD allows for very discrete shooting options. Unfortunately, live view is also associated with consumer P&S cameras so I could it being left out on the basis that it would make the camera not look like a pro tool...although Nikon and Canon have incorporated this feature into their pro level bodies.

</p>

<br />

> Of course this rangefinder won't sell like an entry level<br />

> Nikon D 40, but it could be the preferred second body or<br />

> specialized additional system for many PJ's and a lot of<br />

> advanced amateurs. I really think there is a wide enough<br />

> market for a 21st century digital rangefinder provided its<br />

> price remain at an acceptable level.

 

<p>I truly hope you are right. I'm sure a reasonably-priced digital RF will appear but I don't see it happening in the next 2-3 yrs. Myself, I'd be willing to pay up to $1000 for a digital RF built to the same quality of something like the Bessa R2 or R3 series of cameras.</p>

 

<p>larsbc</p>

[bkpix]

Fascinating thread

 

The review was compelling, and convinced me I will never buy an M8 (not that I could afford one anyway).

 

Equally fascinating is the defensiveness of some owners.

 

BK

[don_bryant2]

>I'll probably be severely taunted for this but some form of live view >would also be a good feature to add.

 

That's what the viewfinder is for! Chimping with a RF camera doesn't make sense.

[vic_.]

Minor example of pic quality. Shooting right into the sun's reflection. WIth the naked eye one couldn't see anything.<div></div>

[photo_dark]

wow.... I thought this was a discussion board, not a 'write your own novel' board.

 

ANYWAYS. Unlike many of you devotees... I hate leica. Completely. I work for a surveying company, and although their instruments are decent (GPS, total stations, levels) They are MASSIVELY overpriced, require frequent, costly updates and upgrades. The software is useless, and costs a fortune. Everything seems overly fragile yet overly expensive to replace, and warranties are unbelievable (ie for one year for a $125K instrument, the base warranty was $50,000). Their customer support is pretty rediculous too. One dealer here in calgary is great, but the company as a whole drives me nuts with their incompetence.

 

So, I hate leica. And i've never used a leica camera, and based on my experience with them over the last 4 years, I never will. Sure they are different branches of the company, but the point is that its the same company. They have nice websites to market their products as top of the line, with prices to match... but when it comes time to deliver... all they deliver is garbage.