Is the Leica M8 the answer?

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>Sorry, the M8 is not for you. You mentioned small chip size TWICE in your initial post. It's going to bother you. </p>

 

[marco_hidalgo]

<p>Yes Nicky... you mention twice that the sensor is not big enough. Is a 1.33X sensor really that small as to call it TINY? Nikon just got FF after years and years of using their 1.5X sensors. Many Canon users are perfectly fine with the 1.3X sensor of the 1D series. And I am sure most prints will look great from a 10.3 MP sensor. 20+ Megapixels is an overkill for most applications. Of course lots of megapixels are useful when cropping for commercial work, but we don't really need that much for producing good images.</p>

 

[noah]

<p>I wouldn't exactly call a D700 with a small prime lens 'massive', but the Nikons are larger than the M8 to be sure.<br>

I've gone back and forth over which system to use, and I've finally settled with a couple of M8s. The reasons for me had to do with size and the quieter shutter (yes, even the original M8 shutter is quieter than the d700, especially with the discreet mode). But mostly the reason I decided to stay with Leica is that I love shooting with rangefinders. The method of focusing and viewing works better for me than the SLR method. I like to have a clear view of everything in the frame and a little extra so I can compose better.<br>

While some say the M8 framelines are inaccurate, I find myself needing to crop images I take with the M8 much less than I do with DSLR cameras. In fact as a rule I don't crop at all. And with Leicas, film or digital, I find I have fewer distracting elements ending up in my compositions by accident.<br>

If Leica comes out with a full-frame camera I'll upgrade, but really a 1.33x chip isn't 'tiny'. It's larger than Nikon's DX cameras by a good margin, and the same as the 1D series canons which are used by many pros. I would prefer full-frame since my lenses would perform the way I expect with 35mm, but in the meantime I'll be glad to use a 24mm as my main lens instead of a 28mm. No big deal unless your favorite focal lengths are super-wide, then you'll be limited somewhat. Cost is definitely an issue though if you need wide lenses faster than f/2,8. The new f/1,4 21mm and 24mm are extremely expensive. <br>

I've made 40-inch wide prints from the M8 and the D700 with zeiss glass, and the difference at iso 320 and below is very small. The Nikon gives more overall contrast (could be the zeiss lenses) but the Leica has an edge in microcontrast and maybe a tiny edge in sharpness. It's basically a draw. It was just a test out of curiosity. Normally I print 12x18in. and both cameras can handle that easily. At my normal print size I find the Leica photographs do sort of have a similar look to my film Leica images, but that probably has more to do with the way I shoot with RF cameras.<br>

Of course the Nikon can make very good quality images at very high ISO. But shooting the M8 feels a bit more like shooting film to me. When I shoot film it's always tri-x at 400, so with the M8 I work under the same limitation. I don't really go above iso 320 (which on the M8 is really equal to about 400). Sometimes that means slow shutter speeds and some blur, but I like the atmosphere that provides. Some photographers (and clients!) might prefer super-sharp and clean images in low light and for that you can't beat the Nikons, in my opinion. <br>

I'm working on a project right now in Rio and Sao Paulo and I'm only shooting with two M8s, a 21 Elmarit and 35 Summilux ASPH. It's a small kit, very easy to travel with and it's been a real pleasure. I shot the first half of this project on D700s and I'm enjoying the Leicas much more. <br>

Leicas have always been a bit quirky, and the M8 is no different. Especially if you've never used an RF camera before, you might want to rent or borrow one for a weekend to try it out. Chances are you'll either hate it or you won't want to give it back...</p>

<p> </p>

[steve_swinehart]

<p>There are some processing techniques you can use on M8 files at high ISO. Using Capture One 4 is the best processor for M8 files. Set luminance noise reduction to zero. Set chrominance noise reduction to 75 for ISO 1250 or 2500. Turn off chrominance noise reduction for ISO 640 and under.</p>

[blakley]

<p><em>I wouldn't exactly call a D700 with a small prime lens 'massive'.</em><br>

<br /> Maybe not, but I've got THREE medium-format cameras (Mamiya 6, Rolleiflex, and Zeiss Super Ikonta) which weigh less than the D700 with a lens, and all three take up less space too (if you collapse the lens on the Mamiya) . I passed on the F5 because it was too big and heavy back in the film days, and finally settled on an F100 - a wonderful camera which was nevertheless just a bit over my maximum tolerance for size and weight. All of Nikon's top-end digitals (D3, D3x, D700, D300) are bigger and heavier than the F100, and the grip ergonomics of these cameras are RADICALLY worse than their film counterparts (and a lot worse than the current crop of Canon DSLRs too, sadly).<br>

From my perspective the M8 wins at least this aspect of the contest hands-down.</p>

[anthony_brookes5]

<p>Nicky - Photography is not about equipment. You seem to know exactly what you want to do and the secret is to find the equipment that best suits your aims. If the Nikon is too heavy the this will affect your enthusiam. Try the M8 . I think you will be happy with the change and, forgetting the technicaities,you will be happier with your photography. Just look at the superb pictures taken withthe 5mp Leica Digilux 2. They are as good as any 10mp of other makes.</p>

[paul_goutiere]

<p>Since I already have a few lenses for my M2 and M4-P I considered, for one mad moment, the M8. At the time I was considering, there were a few issues with the camera (which have likely been taken care of). The reports of these issues, at that time, completely discouraged me and I remain without the M8.</p>

<p>Instead I bought a Canon G10, to sit in the camera bag along with my Leicas. I'm sure this little camera will become redundant about the time the M8 is replaced by the M9 but I'm impressed with the G10. The small size, the excellent quality of the image, a zooming viewfinder, long battery life and if it is important, it feels solid in my hands.</p>

<p>As a documentary camera the G10 could easily function particularly well, as an unobtrusive tool. Or...is a camera more than a tool?</p>

[lee_carruthers]

<p>Big digital SLRs are a weird anachronism, characteristic of these days. Seems like there's been a shift that prescribes large cameras as somehow being superior. Must be a cultural thing. Or maybe just ego based??<br>

<br /> I thought progress would lead us toward smaller, handier, less intimidating cameras. Apparently I'm mistaken - except for the M8. I know that for my purposes, I much prefer a smaller, less intrusive camera. Give me a Leica or FM2n over all these huge Nikon/Canon digital monsters with their oversized AF lenses. And, even the smaller digitals (XSi, in my experience) have lousy viewfinders nothing like even the cheapest film SLR. I think people are beginning to forget just how good a good finder can be.<br>

<br /> I do have a Canon 5DII, but would prefer it was much smaller. It certainly doesn't rate a place in my backpack or bicycle panniers when I'm heading overseas. Lately, I've been enjoying my Bessa Rs with Leica glass, in spite of the hassle of film. Re the M8, it just demonstrates that digital has still not quite arrived. I would pay serious dollars for a digital full-frame Leica or Nikon Fm2n size camera that actually gives me the same shooting experience (including viewfinder and depth of field control), and the image quality of low ISO negative film (dynamic range and . . .). Once that happens, we might say digital has arrived.<br>

<br /> I speak as someone who has been riding the digital wave since 2001, from the Canon D60, 10D, 1Ds, 20D, 5D, Xti, XSi, 5DII (not to mention a gaggle of P&S digicams). Concurrently, I've owned EOS 7n, M6, FM2n and Bessa (not to mention 6x6 and 4x5) film cameras. And, I still agonize over the film/digital decision every time I plan a trip. Digital has still not quite arrived in the global sense. Yes, the image quality is there with the best of digital, and no, the total expierience is not. If I could afford it, I'd still look at the M8 . . . but, I probably wouldn't buy.<br>

<br /> Next generation please . . .</p>

[lorenzo_ward1]

<p>Recently bought an M8 to clear my conscience about keeping a small stable of Leica lenses buried in a drawer. If you used an M6, the M8 will feel natural. With a 28mm lens the camera will fit in your pocket; there is a special kind of pleasure in getting it out to snap. Need more glass to cover people? carry a 90mm/2.8 in a pocket and you have a really outstanding portrait lens. This user has a Nikon DX and a battery of lenses; great kit and will deliver in any circumstance. The drawback is size and weight; a small camera like the M8 will look like a snap n' shoot and people will respond. My photo files are detailed and ideal to print anything up to A3. Of course, if you shoot long lenses in sports, studio pics intended for blow-up, macros of mating butterflies... then, the M8 may be second choice but if you have some Leica lenses already, it is a no-brainer, go for it.</p>

[jtk]

Pentax K20D.

 

It's more rugged than D700, inexpensive, and it has superb physically tiny prime lenses (pancakes). Very bright prism. The only negative is that it's a dslr and although it's small, it's heavy (stainless steel subframe).

 

There's supposedly a K7D in the wings but it won't be as small as K20D.

[charles_trentelman1]

<p>What would be useful at this stage of the game is someone with technical knowledge who can explain just why a DSLR has to be so massive -- they make these tiny digital cameras the size of credit cards, then a digital camera the size of a truck -- surely there is some middle ground?</p>

<p>Maybe not. At the newspaper I work at they let me borrow a DSLR at times and it always feels huge compared to my Leicaflex SL2 -- I'm going to guess, since it's aimed at the pro user, that the DSLR (a canon of some sort) has a tough shell made of metal? An internal computer of massive abilities? Plus all the mechanics of mirror-box and so forth, plus batteries (probably the major weight) to drive the whole mess.</p>

<p>If one wants to do high level photography, and one wants to go digital, it may be that has to be the way to go, with the M8 the only alternative that I am aware of. Didn't Cosina make a Digital rangefinder a while back?</p>

<p>The"that thing scares me" effect is real -- point a DSLR at people, they visibly tense up. No amount of street-shoot skills can overcome that, huge cameras change what you are shooting as you shoot it. And, keep in mind, some mass transit agencies (such as Utah's) target "professional" looking camera users because of so-called security concerns. For some reason they think Osama Bin Laddy-boy doesn't know how to use a cell phone camera.</p>

<p>For the time being, I'll stick to my Leica CL for travel, the SL or an M-model for home shooting, street shooting, etc -- digital photography is still changing too fast for my taste -- the descriptions of the computer power one needs just to handle the images, not to mention the cost of making digital prints, scares me.</p>

 

[roland_dobbins]

<p>After messing around with Canon APS-C cameras for the last 4.5 years (20D/30D/50D), and after watching my Canon gear gather dust as it was just too big/heavy to drag around, I sold all my Canon stuff and bought a Leica M8.2 with the 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/2, and the 90mm f/2.</p>

<p>I've learned more about photography in the last 3 weeks with the Leica than in the last 4.5 years with the Canons.</p>

<p>Also, my lower back no longer bothers me when I take my camera and lenses places; I just stuff the two lenses not currently mounted to the M8.2 in the pockets of my cargo shorts or into the pockets of my photo vest, along with my LensPen, SensorPen, folded chamois cloth and rocket blower, and I'm good to go!</p>

<p>For shooting action/sports, autofocus is really handy, so the dSLR still is the best choice for those applications. Noise Ninja works pretty well to clean up high-ISO shots from the M8.2, though it shouldn't be so noisy in the first place (hopefully, M8.3 or M9 will fix this).</p>

<p>For my applications - street/landscape/portrait/candid - the M8.2 is infinitely superior to the dSLR. I'll never buy another dSLR again. Think about the type of photography you're doing, and you'll be able to make the correct decision for yourself.</p>