I've been sorely tempted to sell my M8. The image quality doesn't really compare anymore _ a D3 does everything better, except be small. I haven't sold out yet because I keep thinking that there will be a G1-type camera worthy of the glass (whether it's the G1 or not, I don't know) or that Leica will actually produce a modern camera (the M8-II is like some kind of subtle German joke.) And as the M8 gets older and older, it becomes worth less and less, thus making me think I might as well hold onto it for a while longer, since I wouldn't get that much for it anyway...Eventually, I suspect it'll be like one of those M3s that people find in an attic when grandpa dies, and they take it down to the local camera shop and somebody offers them $40 and says the shutter is sticky...
But then, maybe the M9 will be an act of genius and wit, and I will thank my lucky stars that I never sold the glass.
Sometimes you get to the point, at least I have, that you step back from all of the digital upgrades and pixel staring and say it doesn't matter if the photograph is pretty.
Shooting for a client that has 200% computer view expectations is one thing, shooting for yourself is another.
We have different expectations with digital than we did with film (most of them not good) in that we pull these things up on screen at huge percetages and start judging sharpness, noise, ca in minute detail and actually we never really did that with film, at least not to the same extent. Also when we scanned film and saw grain (noise) nobody lost thier mind we just said, film is what it is.
That's the way I see the M-8, it is what it is. I know technically, the Nikon, Canons are superior but from the standpoint of art, or vision or whatever you want to call it I think the M-8 is out of this world.
In fact everything people want corrected I don't. Frame lines, higher iso, it's always a guess, but it's a nice guess. Shooting a frame and looking on the lcd is kind of like going to the lab. It always looks a little different than what you expected.
There is just certain things the leica makes you do that look different than most digital cameras. Maybe it is the lenses, or just working through a rangefinder, but it doesn't matter if you like it.
There is also something unique about the size and weight of the camera. It's small but not tiny, it's solid but not overwhelming, it's unobtrusive but the subject seems to understand that it's a professional camera and the photograph is important. That leica red dot probably carries more weight than any camera I own. I find it really interesting that from the famous to the unknown, if you pull out the m-8 almost to a person they smile and say oh, a leica.
I am not a walk around photographer, though I do carry the leica some, not a lot but some and with this in mind I thought about getting a G-10. I held one the other day and it seemed too small and too plastic toy like. I'm sure it's a good camera, but I just couldn't get past the feel of the camera and have a hard time taking it seriously.
Not that the m-8 and the G-10 are after the same market, but I do know if every camera I own was stolen tomorrow, the Canon 1ds3's would be the first thing I would have to replace to earn a living, but the leica would be the first camera I would buy.
Logic isn't the most important element of photography.
The M-8 is not a camera that makes logical sense, unless you own it and see the results.
I do know that I see the world different through the leica and I shoot in a different style, I can't explain it but I see it and that is all that matters to me.