Its not a matter of just price but performance.

[don_e]

<p>"... and go for a Nikon d700 or Canon 5D2 and get more features..."</p>

<p>An iconic example why digital sucks, that a two year old camera is outclassed by the new in "features" and "image quality" or well, the tests show that at least. One wonders whether the photographer has anything to do but to buy every 18 months and drive his camera to a location and let it shoot away. Soon enough cameras will be drones with Decisive Moment Detection (DMD) and we can all stay in bed awaiting its return with good shots, far better I'm sure than the Digital Drone DMD we bought a long time ago -- was it two years back? -- proving what swell photographers we are, being so smart.</p>

<p>Being a photographer, after all, is having a clue about which camera "takes the best pictures"...just read the Beginners Forum if you want proof.</p>

<p>I'm sure it is cheaper to buy a 1500 or a 3000 or an 8000 dollar camera every two years to keep up with the Rapid Advance of Digital Technology, rather than simply shoot what you like, I must be a Luddite, I know. Anyway, I bought an old IIIf and broke the habit of camera consumption.</p>

<p> </p>

[ray .]

<p>If toy plastic Diana type cameras and pinholes are still in vogue and some even make careers using them, that ought to tell you all you need to know about camera obsolescence.</p>

[harvey_edelstein1]

<p>Maybe the reason Hogla medium format cameras are popular, you get the most bang for the buck. I think Don now gets why the measurements that help us compare cameras image potential without regard to their price help us see that you don't always get what you spend a lot more for. Maybe it pays to buy three $1200 two years apart, trading in the previous camera then spending $3600 every six years. The test results seem to indicate that newer is better. In this case Leica M8 was announced in Sept. 2006 but it really used the R9 digital back sensor that was even older than that. Having just reread the Dpreview M8 test, I saw that they disliked the JPEG images and recommended only using RAW because the processor was poor. Of course Dpreview brought up about the IR sensitivity and the need for cut filters and poor dust sealing, white balance and and other faults that a camera that costs $5K should not have.<br>

That's it get the best $1200 camera you can get and sell it every two years and get the best follow up model that comes out.</p>

[don_e]

<p>"I think Don now gets why the measurements that help us compare cameras image potential without regard to their price help us see that you don't always get what you spend a lot more for."<br>

I get what I paid for when the camera enables me to make an A4 or A3 print that looks the way I imagined it should look when I made the exposure. Unless your photos are taken from a tripod or you have a specialized need, any of the 1200$ dslrs, no matter how they are ranked in the tests, lenses being equal, are likely to produce similar results in that sized print. In fact, the 700$ dslrs are likely to, as well. What matters is how the camera works in one's hands, which is a much more important factor in image quality in handheld photography than what a DXO test might turn up as evidence that another camera has a ooch more goodness than another.</p>

 

[doug herr]

<p>Don E makes a good point: the way a camera works in your hands is an important consideration. Comparisons like DxO's or the old Consumer's Union report I mentioned a few days ago are valid up to a point, but they cannot possibly test every factor that might matter to any photographer (BTW the Consumer's Union test that ranked the Miranda Sensorex much higher than the Nikon F was as detailed and tested as many factors if not more as the DxO test).</p>

<p>How does a generic one-size-fits-all test put an objective value on the type or quality of the viewfinder? Or the camera's ability to handle abusive treatment? What about the maker's after-sales support? Does the company have a history of making their old lenses unusable on the new cameras? How is this objectively quantified?</p>

<p>For a rank beginner who knows little of subjective factors involved in using a camera the pixel-peeping tests have some value, and those who proclaim the superiority of Camera A over Camera B based on these these tests are telling me much about their skills.</p>

[harvey_edelstein1]

<p>The D90 is about as good as the D700 in high iso and about as good in dynamic range. Color rendition is also important all these are much improved over the last 2 generations of sensors.<br>

If you get the same look at iso 1600 as at iso 400 you can use a high shutter speed and eliminate the tripod requirement. The tests show which cameras excel in sensitivity and low noise. Even more, many lenses have IS/VR that reduces seen shake 2 or more stops. </p>

 

[ray .]

<p>what if I don't want to use a forkin' slr? get it??</p>

[ray .]

<p>you can objectively evaluate whether you should marry a girl who keeps the house clean, cooks, does laundry, is always faithful, and earns 100 grand a year. but so what if you don't love her?</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> In fact, the 700$ dslrs are likely to, as well. What matters is how the camera works in one's hands, which is a much more important factor in image quality in handheld photography than what a DXO test might turn up as evidence that another camera has a ooch more goodness than another.<br>

<br /> That is so true...<br /> <br /> My current cam is $560 on Amazon. Superior RAW files and resulting images. Great performance to ISO 1600. And ergonomically outstanding for one handed shooting; which is a requirement for me. Can change ISO, aperture, exposure compensation, etc. all one handed with the strap wrapped around my wrist. And it's small and light weight - it's like it's not there...</p>

[derek_stanton2]

<p>"An iconic example why digital sucks, that a two year old camera is outclassed by the new in "features" and "image quality" or well, the tests show that at least. One wonders whether the photographer has anything to do but to buy every 18 months and drive his camera to a location and let it shoot away."</p>

<p>That's not an example why digital sucks. It's an example why consumers are weakminded. There's nothing wrong with the ongoing march of technology. No one ever complained when film manufacturers developed and evolved their products. That you can shoot a Fuji neg film at a box-rated ISO of 800, when 50 years ago, a reasonable ISO might have been under 100.... Did anyone complain that modern photographers had to do less to make good photographs? None of the features in a digital camera have anything to do with composition or timing or taste. </p>

[derek_stanton2]

<p>My question about the 'value' of an M8 is one of 'relativity.' <br>

It seemed that, among the early reports of M8 'fantasticness,' those glowing comments came from long-time Leica users who had, to that point, been exclusively analog photographers. The M8, for them, was the first serious digital camera, because, as 'traditional Leica photographers,' they had previously been resistant to digital. So, if someone like that raved about the beauty of an M8 file, or waxed lyrically about the detail and subtleties found in an M8 file, yada yada yada - were those comments coming simply out of the novelty of the technology? </p>

<p>Because, later, when others bought the M8 - others who were used to a 5D, for example - i don't recall any of those people ever saying the M8 was quite as 'magical.' Those opinions seemed more tempered and objective. It was more like, the 5D may have slightly better files, but i enjoy using the M8 (for whatever reason). </p>

<p>I still have not seen a test that shows that an M8 file is actually better than a 5D file. But, this may also be consistent with the DMR-users' claims that the DMR gave files that were superior to everything else, but that only THEY could see those differences. And, that people who didn't see them were just plain photographically ignorant....</p>

[doug herr]

<p>A long-time user of both the M8 and 5D recently purchased a 5DII:</p>

<p>http://leica-users.org/v38/msg05517.html</p>

 

[don_e]

<p>"That's not an example why digital sucks. It's an example why consumers are weakminded. There's nothing wrong with the ongoing march of technology."</p>

<p>You're right. My statement was off-base and digital doesn't suck, so I retract that. However, "the ongoing march of technology" is often merely the ongoing march of the merchandising plan. </p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"I still have not seen a test that shows that an M8 file is actually better than a 5D file. </p>

<p>Derek, you may wish to check Erwin Puts quantitative comparison of the 5D (which he owns) and the M8 performance, about 2 years ago, where the nod went to the M8 (but not by much). Sorry, I haven't got the link, but it is no doubt easy to find. He also compared the M8 to a digital Hasselblad (no contest there, as expected) in another review, and I think also the flagship Canon.</p>

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

<p>Harvey got his wish. The debate goes on.....and on.........andzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....</p>

[harvey_edelstein1]

<p>Ray my mom said "you could love a rich girl as easily as a poor girl". If your familiar with the Panasonic G1 with its HD lcd finder you know the march of technology will obsolete the slr and the rf some day when the HD LCD gets a little better, no more mirror slap, and no more rf parallex at close focus, no focal length limitations etc.<br>

Ray I hear you, best to get a real rangefinder like M2, M3, M4 with no electronics at all not even a meter. You can boss it around make it clean the house and take pictures your way.<br>

Derek well said you nailed it, Leicaphiles touted their M8 and did not compare it to other leading cameras because they were DSLR and Leica has had the digital RF except for the Epson all to themselves. But the emotionality " what if I don't want to use a forkin' slr? get it??" that is just luddite like. I love using my M4P and other really tiny optical finder cameras like my Rollie SE, Minox gl, Mamiya TLR that also have no mirror. <br>

But, any comparison to Leica digital must be done against the only competition the Dslr since nobody else currently make a digital rf.</p>

[harvey_edelstein1]

<p>Ray my mom said "you could love a rich girl as easily as a poor girl". If your familiar with the Panasonic G1 with its HD lcd finder you know the march of technology will obsolete the slr and the rf some day when the HD LCD gets a little better, no more mirror slap, and no more rf parallex at close focus, no focal length limitations etc.<br>

Ray I hear you, best to get a real rangefinder like M2, M3, M4 with no electronics at all not even a meter. You can boss it around make it clean the house and take pictures your way.<br>

Derek well said you nailed it, Leicaphiles touted their M8 and did not compare it to other leading cameras because they were DSLR and Leica has had the digital RF except for the Epson all to themselves. But the emotionality " what if I don't want to use a forkin' slr? get it??" that is just luddite like. I love using my M4P and other really tiny optical finder cameras like my Rollie SE, Minox gl, Mamiya TLR that also have no mirror. <br>

But, any comparison to Leica digital must be done against the only competition the Dslr since nobody else currently make a digital rf.</p>

[ray .]

<p>Even the 5D at a third more weight and twice the size doesn't have the viewfinder of the M8. This is one of many things you Leica haters never talk about. Get a smaller dslr closer to the size of the Leica and you have a puny little finder. No thanks.<br>

But y'all can do what you want and kiss my ass. :P</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Whats happened in the industry is this: In the film days, the film was the constant and the lens and artistry of the photographer was the differentiator. Into that add digital, and we now have another variable...the sensor and its supporting software. This makes it impossible to campare like to like.<br>

So you can't compare like to like now at a price point. Or csan you. So how much is, say, a D700 plus a 50/1.4...maybe $4k or a bit less. Canon equivalent, the same. How much is a used M6 and a Summilux,....perhaps a bit less . Upload a RAW image from the D700 or 5D. Process and scan with say a 400 ISO B&W negative from the Leica....then you will see the difference at that point.<br>

In digital you pay for technology. In film, you actually have to do some work, but its worth it. Thats if you are an artist, that is!</p>

[sitemistic]

<p>The M8 is simply old technology. If you are happy with what its three year old sensor can do, fine. But, The latest generation of DSLR cameras blow it away image wise. There isn't anything magical about the M8 or its sensor that shields it from the advancing state of the art in sensor technology. That's a problem for Leica. They sold fewer than 20,000 M8's, and had nothing to replace it when needed. The 8.2 is selling very poorly, and Leica doesn't have three more years on it's old 10mp sensor. So the 8.2 is unlikely to help their bottom line very much. It will likely be the last digital M.</p>

[c_levett]

<p><!--StartFragment-->Jim, you've never seen an M8 file—let alone worked on one, hey<!--EndFragment--> </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Jim's dire prognostications aside (where have we heard the "death of Leica" before?), the M8's sensor is old now - it does not matter really in terms of photographic results, but it probably does if one is in the market for a top-notch digital camera. I know because I am thinking of it myself and it is a difficult decision to make: a second hand M8 (if one could get one for $2,500), or, say, a new Canon 5DmkII at the same price. Certainly a new M8.2 is out of the question for me.</p>

[harvey_edelstein1]

<p>The sensor in the M8 is the same as the one introduced 4 years ago for the R9 digital back.<br>

The sensor is nowhere near capable of the Leica lenses resolution which would take at least 16mp.<br>

I think that the idea these days that you can keep the same sensor for 5 years is crazy.</p>

[vivek iyer]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1050464">Harvey Edelstein</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" title="Frequent poster" /> </a> , Dec 22, 2008; 01:15 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>The sensor in the M8 is the same as the one introduced 4 years ago for the R9 digital back.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it isn't. The DMR's sensor has a very efficient UV/IR cut filter affixed on the sensor. A pity about the price and some support issues but that (DMR) was a stellar product from Leica.</p>

[harvey_edelstein1]

<p>Vivek your posts are very dramatic. Thanks for your showmanship. Thanks for your contribution to this discussion.<br>

Both sensor 10mp, both no AA filter, both from review at the time were Kodak sourced if I remember that far back. The only difference I saw was one DMR was crop factor 1.37x vs. 1.33x on M8 sensor. Could you see the difference of 0.04x larger sensor? I won't quibble with you the difference is irrelevant but there for hair splitting posts. Close enough for horseshoes I think, unless you are good with a micron measuring.<br>

Vivek OFF topic, did you ever read the fine test report on Photozone de of the Sigma 30mm f1.4 in Canon mount. This would make a good lens for a M4/3 conversion. Read the test an you will see why.</p>