Back in the game - New old M8

[knut_schwinzer]

<p>This time I bought it used bundled with a Zeiss Biogon 25mm/f2.8. (Recall: effective FOV 33mm, widest lens supported by the RF of the M8) .<br>

Though I'm a little concerned about possible repair issues and prices on that,<br>

I couldn't be happier having chosen that ol' camera IQ wise. <br>

These are the first snaps on our way to the kindergarten this morning,<br>

sorry, no artsy stuff here:)</p><div></div>

[knut_schwinzer]

<p>Yes, these are straight out of the camera fine JPEGs.</p><div></div>

[knut_schwinzer]

<p>Nice camera, no? Has even a hotshoe! Here comes another one, converted to bw, slight curves and yellow/red channel tweaking.</p><div></div>

[tom_higgins3]

Well done Knut, it's a beautiful camera, underrated because of the initial controversies/perceived shortcomings. Beautiful files, wait until

you see what you can do with raw. The only issues I ever had with it were the black fabric rendition (comes out purple sometimes) and

the performance at higher ISOs- it can get funky above 640. Other that that tho, a very capable machine. Enjoy!

[tom_higgins3]

<a href=" title="image by TommyHig, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7284/8744770565_0e247e5fa8_o.jpg" width="538" height="869" alt="image"></a>

 

I hacked this in photoshop so bad, then ran it through silverefx pro, I could still print it poster size (I wouldn't, but I could :)) - also, the voigtlander 15mm is well worth having if wide angle is your thing

[philip_wilson]

I find that I can shoot a 21mm with the M8 viewfinder- obviously it includes a bit wider than the VF but since I have always

found Leica viewfinders (and Contax G for that matter) approximate at best I find 21 mm fine. Wider lenses do need an

accessory finder.

[ky1]

<p>All nice pictures. The M8 is a great " bargain" as far as Leica digital is concerned!<br>

It is especially great in taking B & W photos because of its IR sensitivity. In addition, put an IR pass filter on your lens, you can take IR pictures hand held.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Is the dog a Camera Inspector?</p>

[ky1]

<p>On second look, Knut's color picture looks strangely unsharp. The color also looks weir. May be it is the lens plus the IR pollution. </p>

[knut_schwinzer]

<p>Mukul: It's the other way around: The camera is inspecting the dog:)</p>

<p>Kin: Unsharp? The background, maybe? I set the camera's sharpening on standard; for weird colors, I agree, it is too saturated (medium high). Well, as I said, no ps pp applied...</p>

[ky1]

<p>Knut: Just my impression. May be it was the aperture at f4. It may also be the 25 mm lens. The head of the dog and the camera were sharp, but the fur from the neck down and the legs were not sharp at all. The small size of the file also may have affected it. <br>

Just for fun, here are two pictures taken with a M8.2. The B & W was shot with a 50 years old screw mt Leitz Elmar with no filter, and the color one with a 50 mm summcron v IV with the Leica Ir/UV block filter. Both files were about 100 kb. Both shot at f5.6. The women were cropped and enlarged. Look at the details revealed in the B & W picture and the net behind the tennis players.</p><div></div>

[ky1]

<p>another pictue</p><div></div>