Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: henrikfoto on April 11, 2009, 02:39:39 pm
-
I am looking to buy a small camera that is light and makes the best possible image-quality for the days I don´t feel like carrying my Hasselblad.
Is anybody using the Leica M8, Epson or the compact Sigma? How good are the files compared to those from the larger cameras?
Any experiences are very welcome.
I know this is not the correct forum, but I am sure some people here use this cameras??
Henrik
-
Yes it is the wrong forum, and I am not saying that as a policeman, but in trying to help. There are forums where cameras like these exact models are discussed and compared, and where you will find your answers quickly in the archives. Example: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55)
-
Yes it is the wrong forum, and I am not saying that as a policeman, but in trying to help. There are forums where cameras like these exact models are discussed and compared, and where you will find your answers quickly in the archives. Example: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55)
Thank you very much!
Henrik
-
I have now seen some tests that states that Canon 5d produces better images. The only problem is that it seems that all tests are done in jpg.
Has anyone seen tests on Leica M8 in RAW?
Henrik
-
I have now seen some tests that states that Canon 5d produces better images. The only problem is that it seems that all tests are done in jpg.
Has anyone seen tests on Leica M8 in RAW?
Henrik
Actually this is a pretty good place to discuss the Leica M-8 because of any 35mm "professional" camera produced today it's the only one I know that has a ccd, no aa filter and gives somewhat the look and feel of a medium format back.
In fact it acts a lot like a medium format back as iso is more limited than the Canon and Nikon 35mms, the combination of Leica and no aa filter makes for very sharp images and like all specialty camera it has some quirks.
Color can be beautiful to strange, usually beautiful, black and white is pretty, the higher iso is grainy but so was high iso 35mm film so it's not that big of a deal.
Unlike most medium format backs the lcd is good.
It's a great camera and one I am very attached to.
Raw files are dng, will process in anything from Photoshop 7 and above.
Just a great little camera.
http://www.russellrutherford.com/fashion/p...19rr_salon.html (http://www.russellrutherford.com/fashion/pictures/00019rr_salon.html)
http://www.russellrutherford.com/fashion/p...5rr_beauty.html (http://www.russellrutherford.com/fashion/pictures/005rr_beauty.html)
http://www.russellrutherford.com/desert_ed...rz_2b_jeep.html (http://www.russellrutherford.com/desert_editorial/pictures/06final_horz_2b_jeep.html)
I know nothing of the sigma though it looks interesting, especially the skin tones.
JRR
-
Thank you for very interesting facts. Have you tested the M8 in jpeg or should it be used in RAW only?
It seems like people who don´t like Leica like to compare jpeg files made from Canon and Leica..
Henrik
-
to get the best out of an M8 you MUST shoot in RAW mode, and externally
process the resulting RAW files.
and if you are looking for a camera that will deliver solid JPG files, straight
out of the camera, you should be looking at cameras other than the M8.
-
Thank you for very interesting facts. Have you tested the M8 in jpeg or should it be used in RAW only?
It seems like people who don´t like Leica like to compare jpeg files made from Canon and Leica..
Henrik
The M8 requires the use of an IR filter on the lens in order for it to get the colors "accurate" under situations where IR radiation is being reflected from the subject. It is not nearly as small and light as the other models you mentioned and is much more expensive. (Several consumer DSLRs and kit zoom lenses will be lighter.)
I really haven't compared any of these cameras but perhaps you should look at more alternatives. The Panasonic GH1 looks interesting. The consumer Canon DSLRs such as the new 500D with 18-55 lens is pretty light weight, reasonably small, inexpensive, versatile, and should make nice quality images. A lot of professionals that I know really like the Canon G10. Why don't you do some research and then go to a store and try them out? DPReveiew.com should have reviews on all of these.
-
I am not looking for a camera that can deliver good jpegs. I am just looking for the best possible camera that can fit in a relative small camera-bag for trips I don´t want to carry a full
medium-format equipment. If the best result come from an expensive Leica, I would like to own one. But if it´s no better than a Canon G 10 it would be a sad waste of money..
If anyone have seen or done any tests I would be happy to learn.
Henrik
-
If the best result come from an expensive Leica, I would like to own one. But if it´s no better than a Canon G 10 it would be a sad waste of money..
That will partly depend on which apertures you like to shoot at. I don't believe there is a Noctilux equivalent for the G10
Noctilux @f1 (photo: 'Robsteve' at fredmiranda)
(http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/2/2/l1031068_1200w.jpg)
-
I normally shoot at the aperture where the lens is at it´s best. That is never at f.1. Not even Noctilux is very sharp at f.1, even if it creates an interesting look.
-
I normally shoot at the aperture where the lens is at it´s best. That is never at f.1. Not even Noctilux is very sharp at f.1, even if it creates an interesting look.
Many Leica lenses perform exceptionally well wide-open, like the 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH or 75mm f/2 APO-Summicron-M ASPH. One of the biggest reasons to get a Leica is for the glass. Out of 20 current M lenses there isn't a single dog in the entire lineup. The Noctilux, while pretty, isn't designed to be sharp at f/1 and is a 30+ year-old design.
I carry an M8.2, 16-18-21 WATE, 35 f/2 ASPH, 50 f/2, 90 f/2.8, small SF24D flash, 21mm finder, ND filters, and a bubble level in a Crumpler 5 Million Dollar Home (same size as a ladies purse) and the whole kit weighs less than 10lbs. This kit has served me well for travel and I cover everything from extreme wide-angle to medium telephoto.
The quality is really quite exceptional (provided you shoot DNG). I use C1v4 to process all my M8 files with great results. The files hold up perfectly up to 20x30 inch prints.
And, I would say that the M8 beats the 5D on image quality quite easily. I've shot both, and between the lack of AA filter and the superior glass, the Leica behaves much more like MFD.
Good luck with your decision.
David
-
... I am just looking for the best possible camera that can fit in a relative small camera-bag for trips ...
If the best result come from an expensive Leica, I would like to own one. But if it´s no better than a Canon G 10 it would be a sad waste of money..
what's "best" can only be determined by you ... and any
other observation of "best" is merely an opinion, of what's
best to the one offering such opinion.
an m8 is capable of delivering stunningly beautiful images,
in the right hands and/or proper circumstances.
an example of some such images can be found here: LINK (http://gallery.lfi-online.de/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=lastup&cat=-2775)
at the same time, the camera can also be quite finicky and
temperamental, and thus very frustrating to some.
and in the "wrong" hands and under some circumstances can
be no better than your cell phone camera.
as was suggested earlier ... do your homework/research ...
then visit your local photo gear supplier for a hands-on demo
... so you can decide for yourself, as to what's "best" ...
-
The new Sigma DP2 seems to have the larger sensor of their DSLR and pretty decent(finally) software. They also seem to have fixed the DR and put a faster lens on it.
I love the look myself, even though it doesn't have the absolute resolution of some of the others (it's about equal to a 10MP Bayer type sensor, give or take). It seems ideal to me for family photos and other average-user type tasks, because it creates very clean and photo-like looking results(speaking based upon the SD14 and older cameras).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtLylj3V-EQ...re=channel_page (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtLylj3V-EQ&feature=channel_page)
I nice review of the older DP1(his comments I find to be more enjoyable than a boring review).
http://www.rytterfalk.com/ (http://www.rytterfalk.com/)
He recently posted a blog entry of sorts about using the SD14 and DP1 for a year. Lots of pics and scans and so on of both.
It's coming out in May and should compete very well I think.
-
The new Sigma DP2 seems to have the larger sensor of their DSLR and pretty decent(finally) software. They also seem to have fixed the DR and put a faster lens on it.
I don't know the DP2 personally, but the DP1 produced images of stunning quality at base ISO. However, if the M8 is limited at high ISO, the DP1 is even more limited. The resolution is also very low, although the images scale well. I doubt that they will hold up to large prints though, because no matter how good the pixels, in the end there are only 4.7MP of them, which is about right for a stunning 8x10" print, but not much larger. It also has a fixed lens, and a non-zoom at that (DP2: 41mm f2.8). The crop factor is higher than for the M8, btw, i.e. the sensor is smaller.
-
For really top-notch image quality, of the three cameras you list only the Leica is a contender. I was very interested in the Sigma but it was a disappointment. Just not nearly enough resolution, and odd colour response.
While many shooters have produced excellent results with M8, I along with many others, was deeply disappointed with it as a camera. The response times are slow, the finders inaccurate for framing, and the LCD near useless. I say that as a lover of rangefinder cameras and someone who desperately wanted the M8 to be my main camera.
I am told the M8.2 fixes some of these problems, but it is very expensive.
Personally, I did not find the image quality to be any better than my 1DsII. The Leica was noisier, and had less resolution.
Moreover, the Leica M lenses are completely out of control now in price.
I don't want to discourage you from trying the M8 - for some people it is a good solution they enjoy using. Just try before you buy. There are a fair number at good prices on the resale market.
This may sound heretical, but the latest Rebel with a few prime lenses might be no heavier, a fraction of the price, and more productive.
Good luck,
- Nick.
-
For really top-notch image quality
- Nick.
There is no logical reason to buy a leica. Hell, regardless of what you read on this forum this is no logical reason to buy anything other than a Canon or Nikon, maybe that Sony.
Even the Nikon N-90 file vs. file, inch vs. inch, ounce vs. ounce is a better camera than the Leica.
Like it or not Nikon and Canon are the real Toyotas of the camera world, not Mamiya, because they always work, the do it on the cheap and you don't even have to think about them, you just turn them on and shoot.
I would never tell anyone just to buy a Leica and compare it to anything, because it is slow to start, the batteries are small, the data card goes in the bottom and the framing is a surprise. Color accuracy in available light is almost impossible to figure out.
The Leica does have a different look and you will shoot different things with it. I know, I also laughed at the Leicaness of photos and of the photos I've seen through the years shot will all Leicas 90% are just snapshots though 10% are much more and well that 10% is something.
There is a difference shooting with the Leica and I'm not just saying this a mumbo jumbo, bigger is better, spend 5 grand to get to 2 because it doesn't make senses unless it makes you and your subjects feel good.
Then it's worth it and used M-8's are out there for $2,500. Also you can buy all the Leica glass you want though most of the lenses are non usable. Try a 90 on the m-8 and you'll laugh looking at a frame the size of a 12 pt. helvetica W.
So after buying a 24, or 28 and maybe a 50 you probably won't use anything else anyway. Actually I haven't taken the 28 off of it in a year.
I have a lot of cameras, too many actually, but if today every one of them disappeared I'd go out tomorrow and buy 3. Two 1ds3's (or Nikon D3x's) to make a living and one leica to make me smile.
JRR
-
This is very interesting. I think the feeling of a camera is an important factor, but do you think the image-quality of the Leica M files are inferior to the newer Canon-files at low ISO?
Can I ask if you use the 28mm f.2 or the f.2,8?
Henrik
-
This is very interesting. I think the feeling of a camera is an important factor, but do you think the image-quality of the Leica M files are inferior to the newer Canon-files at low ISO?
Henrik
I sold my M8 to buy the 5D2, so I haven't directly compared, but my eye tells me that the 5DII produces a much more detailed (ie: high-res) image, irrespective of the presence of the AA filter or inferior (to Leica) Canon lenses. The files will are also 'smoother' . This is a comment on the texture of the image as a function of noise processing. Canon has always had a smooth look -- and here I pass no judgment on this aesthetically. By contrast, I found that, even at ISO 160, the Leica produced more texture in the file. I actually liked this. While not truly filmic in quality, this characteristic of the files was visually pleasing to me. I liked how the camera looked at ISO 320 as well.
I'd be interested in what James' view on this is, given his much greater use of (and affinity for) the camera.
- N.
-
I've owned and shot with most of them, including MF, and for sure at 11MP the M8 produces an outstanding file. But then so did the 1D2 at 8MP, so did the 5D at 11MP, so does the D700 at 11MP, and so does the 1Ds3 at 21MP... And guess what? I own a little Panasonic G1 with the 14-45 kit zoom, and it produces superb images too! All that said, I would say the M8 produced better files than either the 5D, D700 or the G1, but at the end of the day, unless you had big prints from each side-by-side, you'd be hard pressed to call any of them out.
My point is that the person behind the camera is probably the most important thing to making a good image. You want really small and light that makes great images, get the G1; you want to own something few have mastered, is relatively small and light and makes great images, get the M8; you want something that is really versatile but isn't as compact as other choices and makes great images, get a Nikon or Canon DSLR.
My .02,
-
I wish I could provide you with the website (which I have forgotten), but there was a post by a professional who acquired a 5D MkII who stated that the files from that camera compared favorably to his M8 files, but obviously with more resolution. I'm certain the M8 replacement when it arrives (not too soon, I hope, because I don't have any saved money yet!) will have more resolution. I personally can't imagine using a finer shooting device - the finest lenses and the lightest most discreet professional package.
Good luck in your search.
-
I wish I could provide you with the website (which I have forgotten), but there was a post by a professional who acquired a 5D MkII who stated that the files from that camera compared favorably to his M8 files, but obviously with more resolution. I'm certain the M8 replacement when it arrives (not too soon, I hope, because I don't have any saved money yet!) will have more resolution. I personally can't imagine using a finer shooting device - the finest lenses and the lightest most discreet professional package.
Good luck in your search.
I handled a Leica M8 someone was carrying at the local art museum. It felt like a brick almost - very heavy for its size. Today I was holding someone's Canon XTI with a long zoom lens, and it felt half as heavy as the M8.
-
I don't know the DP2 personally, but the DP1 produced images of stunning quality at base ISO. However, if the M8 is limited at high ISO, the DP1 is even more limited. The resolution is also very low, although the images scale well. I doubt that they will hold up to large prints though, because no matter how good the pixels, in the end there are only 4.7MP of them, which is about right for a stunning 8x10" print, but not much larger. It also has a fixed lens, and a non-zoom at that (DP2: 41mm f2.8). The crop factor is higher than for the M8, btw, i.e. the sensor is smaller.
The new sensor claims about twice the ISO of the original. So it should work well for what it is. As for it being 4.7MP, those are real pixels like on your monitor. The Leica is 3936 x 2630, but if you convert it to real pixels due to Bayer losses, you get 2624 X 1753. Or 4.6MP. Bayer sensors suck to be honest, and need a lot of data points(I call them sub-pixels myself) to compensate. If it was a 12MP+ camera, like, say, the G10 or the Fujis or the(list of better cheap pocket cameras continues...)
Oh wait... Just buy the G10. Seriously. Loads of pixels, small, and has a decent zoom. It will crush the M8 quite easily. Of those you mentioned, I'd get the DP2, but if you want small and great pictures in a pocket camera, the small prosumer types have to be added. And the G10 is currently at or near the top of that list.
Leica M8 Horizontal LPH 1900
Leica M8 Vertical LPH 1700
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page20.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page20.asp)
G10 Horizontal LPH 2450
G10 Vertical LPH 2500
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong10/page23.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong10/page23.asp)
30% more resolution, give or take, and as good as both the Sigma and Leica images look, it's quite not enough to beat the G10. 14.7MP, even with a cheaper sensor, is enough to come out ahead.
It's the best I can come up with until I see the DP2 in a month and make a final decision. The choice of the M8 seems odd, because the millisecond you mention it anywhere online, people start talking lenses. But these lenses and a bag to hold them... it's suddenly as cumbersome as a small DSLR.
-
I sold my M8 to buy the 5D2, so I haven't directly compared, but my eye tells me that the 5DII produces a much more detailed (ie: high-res) image, irrespective of the presence of the AA filter or inferior (to Leica) Canon lenses. The files will are also 'smoother' . This is a comment on the texture of the image as a function of noise processing. Canon has always had a smooth look -- and here I pass no judgment on this aesthetically. By contrast, I found that, even at ISO 160, the Leica produced more texture in the file. I actually liked this. While not truly filmic in quality, this characteristic of the files was visually pleasing to me. I liked how the camera looked at ISO 320 as well.
I'd be interested in what James' view on this is, given his much greater use of (and affinity for) the camera.
- N.
We tend to judge photographs, at least on technical forums in very different and somewhat strange ways.
I'm not sure what an inferior file is unless I pull it up on a screen at 300% and then kind of go huh, who looks at a photo at 1/100th of a crop at 300%.
This is going way off the original topic, (or maybe not, depending on how you are predisposed), but in my view, digital has changed the way we look at a photograph.
I know this forum is more about equipment than the actual photo, but last night my wife and I had a drink at the Joule Hotel in this library bar. There was a few pocket sized books, one of photographic masters.
The books are small, but well done, simple and really is just about the photograph. One image stood out to me and it was a Rolling Stone shot Annie did of the Blues Brothers. It was film so it was raw, way un retouched, kind of off color and nothing special in technique, other than it was just really amazing and so much different than what she does now, or for that matter what most of us do now.
No over retouching, no pixel peeping, no smoothing down noise/grain until the image looks like a painting, just a very interesting photograph with very interesting colors in the raw, in the flesh with all the humanity attached to it, scars, pimples and all.
Now how this pertains to the M-8 is to me the leica is kind of like a film camera. I've never shot an image with it I wanted to over retouch, or mask, or modify to the point that the humanity is washed off of it. In fact I rarely take the lcd off the black and white setting, though I run a lot of color images from the camera.
To me, it's almost the perfect camera because I don't expect much out of it. I like the noise/grain, the somewhat off colored look, the slightly surprised framing.
I love the fact it has f stops on the lens, has a real shutter dial that actually has shutter speeds printed on it. I like that the light meter in the camera is for s*&t because at this stage most of us should be able to look at the light and have a damn close idea of what the exposure should be.
I also like the fact the camera weighs more than a few ounces, doesn't fit in a pocket, but doesn't require a tripod or a rolling case.
It's not film, sometimes looks like film, sometimes doesn't but it's not a camera that you buy today, just hoping for the next upgrade tomorrow. In fact I like the strange color so much, (especially with studio flash) that I've resisted even updating the firm ware because I don't want to loose the look I get from it.
Everytime I use this camera I think I'll just buy another one as backup and never use another camera again. Just let things fall as they should. If it's noisy at high iso, then good, that's life, or if a few frames are out of focus, fine because focus can be way overrated, but then like most of us I start thinking about not have 20, or more megapixels, or a clean 1000 iso, or the ability to tether 30" across and then think naw, I might get in trouble.
It's probably just me, but I do love this camera and maybe I'm fooling myself and I've been seduced by the red dot.
JRR
-
Hi,
Not talking feel, just technical issues, I'd say that the M8 is wasteful with optical resources. At 10 MPixel the sensor has relatively low resolution and it's just an APS-H size device. Leica puts a lot of effort into developing lenses which are corrected to the outmost corner of full frame at a very high resolution, but much of that effort is not even utilized. To fully utilize the quality of the optics probably something like 20 MPixels would be needed (as it seems that on APS-C we reach diminishing returns about 15 MPixels and APS-H is 1.33 (or so) times the areas of APS-C. To put it short:
- The lenses would require a sensor of at least twice the resolution
- The present sensor wastes at least half of the information from the lens
The calculation above is essentially based on normal designs, like a Canon 50 mm lens.
Having big pixels is of course good for low light performance. It's a bit like using Tri-X. Tri-X would probably not take any decent fixed focal to the limit, but T-MAX 100 or Technical Pan would do.
Another issue with the M8 is that it is a rangefinder design so the distance between sensor and the output pupil of wide angle lenses is very short. That is causing a lot of problems and was probably one of the reasons of Leica's choice of sensor size. It's a great pity, the most brilliant lens designs don't really fit in a filmless world. DSLR vendors were lucky in this sense, the need to have place for a moving mirror caused their designs be pretty optimal for digital.
That said, 10 MPixels is more than ample enough for much photography, it's just that you don't need 5000$-lenses for 10 MPixels, 500$-lenses will do fine.
By the way, resolution for films is more often than not given at a contrast of 1:1000 which is ridiculous. But essentially says that there remains a discernible difference between a black line and white line that was originally 1000 times brighter than the black one, or that MTF is going down to 0.1 percent (just in case someone comes up with a resolution of 100 lp/mm for Tri-X).
Best regards
Erik
For really top-notch image quality, of the three cameras you list only the Leica is a contender. I was very interested in the Sigma but it was a disappointment. Just not nearly enough resolution, and odd colour response.
While many shooters have produced excellent results with M8, I along with many others, was deeply disappointed with it as a camera. The response times are slow, the finders inaccurate for framing, and the LCD near useless. I say that as a lover of rangefinder cameras and someone who desperately wanted the M8 to be my main camera.
I am told the M8.2 fixes some of these problems, but it is very expensive.
Personally, I did not find the image quality to be any better than my 1DsII. The Leica was noisier, and had less resolution.
Moreover, the Leica M lenses are completely out of control now in price.
I don't want to discourage you from trying the M8 - for some people it is a good solution they enjoy using. Just try before you buy. There are a fair number at good prices on the resale market.
This may sound heretical, but the latest Rebel with a few prime lenses might be no heavier, a fraction of the price, and more productive.
Good luck,
- Nick.
-
After having tried so many 'small cameras' i gave up and just used my 5 d with small manual lenses for carrying around. before i went digital my M6 was my preferred camera, but i couldn't get myelf to buying the m8.
a few weeks ago my local camera dealer handed me one without me asking an I just bought it. and i must say i really grow to this camera. somehow the 1,33x factor still puzzles me, as my old lenses don't feel as i knew them, the keeper rate is much lower than with any camera i am using, the color sucks most of the time, but still this thing is the nicest camera i have and use, and it is so much more joy to use than any canon or leaf or other plastic ikage computer i am using for my professional work.
the one thing i am not sp shure yet is whether my old lenses are really up to it, maybe i will getting one or two new ones.
-
The new generation of microlenses (according to the technical specs of the 48MP DALSA) is further advanced than before, a Full-Frame-M9 will come and is necessary. As said, the M-lenses are spectacular but the sensor is too small. But the small flange distance is part of their secret, lenses like the new Summiluxes would have been impossible with an DSLR-retrofocus-design at this size.
But the M8 is not a P&S and has nothing to do with cameras like the G10! The DPREVIEW-data was measured with JPGs, which are horrible with the M8. In fact, the M8 delivers about the same resolution as a Full-Frame 12MP-camera. The DPreview-measurements are ridiculous, >2213LP with 4416Pixels are IMPOSSIBLE.
-
Hi,
I just wanted to give my experiences having owned a Leica M8 since Feb 2007. I grew up learning photography/shooting with rangefinders, so when Leica announced the M8, I HAD to have one.
Image quality wise, with proper exposures, it easily out resolves Canon 5D 12.8mp files (which I've also owned for several years).
Leica cameras are not for everyone, and they are not the most appropriate tool if you plan to shoot anything and everything under the sun. That said, Leica lenses are just second to none, and the "tiny" sensor in the M8 is very unique when compared to the dSLR realm.
Owning a Leica will not make you a better photographer, but for me it somehow gives a greater connection to my work, lets me shoot in a looser, more abstract way, and DAM I just love the camera.
Taking good photographs is about a completed idea, choosing the right equipment is just such a minute part of the equation.
Attached are some photos from a promo mailer (I shoot fashion advertising) shot with the Leica M8 and a 50mm Noctilux about a year ago. I chose this combo because it was appropriate for the look and feel of the location/wardrobe/concept.
hope this helps,
andy
[attachment=12986:Andy_Lee..._winner2.jpg][attachment=12987:Andy_Lee...winner04.
jpg]
-
Hi.
I have just bought the Hasselblad H3D11-50 as my first professional digital camera (or to use the DCU off it on a P3, which will be my first professional digital camera.)
I also have a Leica D-lux 3, which I think is good by the 12 Megapixel yard stick, and has a useful zoom lens ( I think there are no zoom lenses for the M8). It produces adequate A4 prints, and is about a tenth of the price of an M8.
The main problem with the D-lux 3 is that it has no flash sync socket, and no fully manual flash mode, so you cannot use it reliably with external flashes (I did use it with my studio flash system by partially masking off the flash).
If there was a decent compact professional camera I would be interested.
-
Hi.
I have just bought the Hasselblad H3D11-50 as my first professional digital camera (or to use the DCU off it on a P3, which will be my first professional digital camera.)
I also have a Leica D-lux 3, which I think is good by the 12 Megapixel yard stick, and has a useful zoom lens ( I think there are no zoom lenses for the M8). It produces adequate A4 prints, and is about a tenth of the price of an M8.
The main problem with the D-lux 3 is that it has no flash sync socket, and no fully manual flash mode, so you cannot use it reliably with external flashes (I did use it with my studio flash system by partially masking off the flash).
If there was a decent compact professional camera I would be interested.
Yeh But the D-lux 4 does and supposedly BLOWS the D-lux 3 away.. Just have not wanted to spend $$$$ to upgrade yet!!
Snook
-
But why is Leica M8 always compared to other cameras in jpeg?
Seems to me it´s just done to prove what they are hoping for - Leica is expensive and inferior to Canon/Nikon.
Or what??
-
But why is Leica M8 always compared to other cameras in jpeg?
Seems to me it´s just done to prove what they are hoping for - Leica is expensive and inferior to Canon/Nikon.
Or what??
I can only see three reasons:
1) Laziness.
2) Ignorance.
3) Wanting the M8 to underperform.
DPReview, bless their heart, fall mainly into category 1), maybe a little into 2). I don't think they fully realize to what extent they are shafting certain cameras (M8, A900, ...) by only using ACR and/or JPGs. The M8 really needs to be shot in RAW, unless you only need small results.
-
I have owned and used several small cameras but the only one which produces really image quality to my taste is the M8.
The dp1 produces very sharp and detailed images. However I see several problems:
1) color balance: Sometimes reds and yellows blow out pretty early
2) If you go to ISO 400 or higher color gets washed out and muddy
3) low resolution -> 4.7MP-> limited print size
4) slow lens
5) limited to one focal length
The M8 delivers IQ which is stuning up to ISO 640, very good and fast lenses (if they are calibrated correct). If the resolution is enough I dont know a camera which delievers better IQ (expcept the DMR under 400 ISO) ...for my taste.
Tom
-
I have owned and used several small cameras but the only one which produces really image quality to my taste is the M8.
The dp1 produces very sharp and detailed images. However I see several problems:
1) color balance: Sometimes reds and yellows blow out pretty early
2) If you go to ISO 400 or higher color gets washed out and muddy
3) low resolution -> 4.7MP-> limited print size
4) slow lens
5) limited to one focal length
The M8 delivers IQ which is stuning up to ISO 640, very good and fast lenses (if they are calibrated correct). If the resolution is enough I dont know a camera which delievers better IQ (expcept the DMR under 400 ISO) ...for my taste.
Tom
What do you mean by calibrating the lenses? Do the older lenses have to be calibrated by the fabric, or is this a simple procedure you can do on your own?
H
-
i can only second what james has already said, there is very little logic in recommending the M8...rangefinder, expensive,....but yet the images tell the story...don't try and shoot sports with it, but then again, maybe you should!
either way it is in a completely different category then the G10 and all other p&s because of the size of the sensor....i bought the G10 and am very disappointed mostly because i know what a small package like the M8 can produce....the images just sing...
i don't really like anything over 400, which is annoying, to me the M leicas always were low light cameras...but the sensor is CCD, smaller and older....
i did a test M8, D3, 1dsIII....to check base iso raw image quality and resolution....and because of my findings i did not get the D3 which just did not have the resolution of the M8 (lenses? CCD?) but the DsIII...the m8 files also rezz up very nicely but just can't compare to the dsIII....at 800 or 1200iso, both DSLRs won easily....but of course there is all the other stuff like AF,...
i never shoot jpeg, so i don't know about that....there are some tests (on the leica forum!) comparing the m8 to the G1....and th eG1 looks very, very, very nice.....i haven't tried it....when they ship that tiny pancake fast lens for it, i will get one so i don't have to pick up the G10 anymore......
my fav. lenses on the m8 is the 35.....btw: voigtlander makes very nice cheap lenses....but unfortunately the leica lenses are better....
-
i can only second what james has already said, there is very little logic in recommending the M8...rangefinder, expensive,....but yet the images tell the story...don't try and shoot sports with it, but then again, maybe you should!
either way it is in a completely different category then the G10 and all other p&s because of the size of the sensor....
I wonder how much it is the camera forcing you to work to its design.
-
I wonder how much it is the camera forcing you to work to its design.
actually it is a perfect design! but not for everybody....i happen to love rangefinders...the fujis are maybe my all time favorite cameras....and the m8 is amazingly simple and efficient compared to canon/nikon,....i mean i shoot everything on manual with all cameras anyway....and the one thing i love about the G10 is the iso dial on top.....
i happen to love the m8.....but i would strongly recommend trying it out before buying.....that is what i meant...
-
actually it is a perfect design! but not for everybody....i happen to love rangefinders...the fujis are maybe my all time favorite cameras....and the m8 is amazingly simple and efficient compared to canon/nikon,....i mean i shoot everything on manual with all cameras anyway....and the one thing i love about the G10 is the iso dial on top.....
i happen to love the m8.....but i would strongly recommend trying it out before buying.....that is what i meant...
I think it's also a perfect design except for two things. The meter is just way, way off and works like some kind of spot meter and I would like just a little better iso . . . ok maybe three things, better quality control on the lenses . . . well maybe 4, a bigger buffer.
I have one lens that is just miles off in focus, it's brand new, sent back same but since it's a 90 and I never use anything but the 28, I don't really care.
I do caution if you try the camera, try it for a few weeks, at least a week, not just a day, because if your like me and are not use to rangefinders it will drive you crazy at first.
Once you get used to it, it's like riding a bicycle and you never forget how to do it.
The only camera I find as enjoyable as the Leica is the Contax and they are both very similar in the fact they both have real lens f stops, real shutter knobs and feel like real cameras, not computers, ray guns on plastic.
I also love shooting with the Contax, more with the p21+ than the p30+ because the p21 is faster and let's the camera work more like it was designed for. With the p30 it seems sluggish in comparision and like the M-8 if you want one I would buy it now before they do the mfdb thing and come out with a billion megapixel camera. Buy it shoot with it, enjoy it.
JRR
-
What do you mean by calibrating the lenses? Do the older lenses have to be calibrated by the fabric, or is this a simple procedure you can do on your own?
H
No,
all lenses should work fine. Its just that a rangefinder system needs to be calibrated very precisly. Its should be fine from the beginning but in my experience maybe 10-20% (estimation) are slightly off which can lead to slight front or backfocus when shooting wide open. So no matter if you buy used or new lens for the M, I recommend to run a quick focus test to make sure everything is in specs and fine. From then on justenjoy the great IQ.
-
another plus for the leica: i think the 10MB/raw image is just the perfect file size. there is plenty of resolution to go moderately large, but for 'daily photography' the 20MP & more is overkill in my book. I use 4GB Sandisk dukati SD Plus Cards with it, which gives you more than 300 images per card. I know disk space is cheap, still after backup and redundancy i am fighting with too much file space.
-
I use Canons (inc. a 5DII) and an M8. IMHO the Canon's are workhorses but the M8 is a 'photographer's camera'. If I can choose which to use I'll opt for the Leica but often the Canons prove to be more effective for many jobs where reflex viewing and a high degree of versatility are essential. The M8 produces very fine images but relies on considerable user input and as such is not for everyone. As has been said before you really need to try it out extensively before you opt for it.
-
I use the M8 with 35 Asph Cron along with my workhorse 1DS3 and would offer a couple of observations. Firstly i agree with previous posters who say that some lenses can be off in terms of focus wide open, i tried 3 bodies to get one that was right. Secondly the image quality, is literally beautiful... in a very un-Canon/Nikon way, bit noisy but very sharp and textural with 'body' to the colour that is different to my Canon, in fact the Leica file in Capture One reminds me of Kodachrome.
Leica files upsize incredibly well and viewed at 50% look at least good as my 1DS3 files, however in terms of detail at 100% fall short in reality. As others say, for assignment i would rely on the Canon, but the Leica has real personal appeal and can really surprise.
Gary.
-
I use the M8 with 35 Asph Cron along with my workhorse 1DS3 and would offer a couple of observations. Firstly i agree with previous posters who say that some lenses can be off in terms of focus wide open, i tried 3 bodies to get one that was right. Secondly the image quality, is literally beautiful... in a very un-Canon/Nikon way, bit noisy but very sharp and textural with 'body' to the colour that is different to my Canon, in fact the Leica file in Capture One reminds me of Kodachrome.
Leica files upsize incredibly well and viewed at 50% look at least good as my 1DS3 files, however in terms of detail at 100% fall short in reality. As others say, for assignment i would rely on the Canon, but the Leica has real personal appeal and can really surprise.
Gary.
Hi!
Is it possible to see a file or two? (Just a dowsampled one for this forum maybe..)
Henrik
-
Hi,
I have Sigma DP1 as small complement to my Aptus 65 on Mamiya 645 - DP1 feels like a mixed bag, capable of more "near medium format like" images than any camera of its size, albeit not medium format obvious. I do not feel content with the colors, while the Aptus 65 is excellent. Had the G9 for few weeks before, sold it off to my nephew. Some of photos he has pulled from it with no photo experience has surprised me. I have not owned an M8 but I do find it an interesting camera, and the images as posted on internet appear much as 10MP medium format images. What more... it is a camera, with manual focus and aperture on the lenses, and it feels like a camera in the hands and when viewing through it! Having the Voiglander 28mm viewfinder on my DP1 sure helps... but still...
I shot Nikon F100 before, but with digital Nikon and SLRs lost me... too much auto features and buttons. The DP1 is step in right direction, but... feels still a tad too much like build of digital compact, but with a sensor that can yield very capable results under certain circumstances... given that one take time to process them. Is the M8 more right on, if exposures are right? Sure, many buy it as luxury goods and make snapshots... but even such photos show image attributes of the sensor such as pleasing color etc. That is interesting... thus if I speculate; is the M8 then perhaps similar to my Aptus 65 when viewing rawfiles... and frequent requiring few adjustments if exposure is made correct (perhaps exposed same as slide film??)? Would that correct way to say???
See threads on M8 here for photos and more http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=3 (http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
Reidreviews have articles that well describes the M8 and its limitations in design http://www.reidreviews.com/reidreviews/ (http://www.reidreviews.com/reidreviews/)
James, did you say that when shooting color raw it is possible to leave the lcd set to B&W??? That would be awesome, same as seeing tonal zones displayed (graphic) after a shot, same as the zone system tonal scales!
Here is one forum thread on DP1 versus M8 http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/...comparison.html (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/50740-leica-m8-sigma-dp1-comparison.html)
Reidreviews also have articles on lenses. The Leica 28mm 2.8 seem stellar, but Voiglander have some gems as well; 12mm, 15mm, 50 / 1.5, 75mm / 2.5.
I hope above helps. Some interesting posts in this thread.
Regards
Anders
-
With some of the earlier firmware revisions, you could set the camera to DNG+JPG, change to B&W, and then set the camera back to DNG only, with the previews and DNG header thumbnails being B&W. Unfortunately, it was removed by Leica in one of the updates. I would love to have that back in a formally sanctioned implementation. It was very nice to have a B&W workflow while shooting.
You can still shoot in B&W if you shoot either JPG or DNG+JPG, but the former is not terribly satisfying, as the M8's JPG quality is not that great, and the latter slows down the camera significantly, and then you have to trash all these extra JPGs at some point.
-
Firstly i agree with previous posters who say that some lenses can be off in terms of focus wide open, i tried 3 bodies to get one that was right.
I thought Leica's main justification for high price was exceptional quality control. Are you saying that their M8 bodies have that much variance?
-
I thought Leica's main justification for high price was exceptional quality control. Are you saying that their M8 bodies have that much variance?
Err...... afraid so! The problem can be the body or lens or both.
-
Err...... afraid so! The problem can be the body or lens or both.
This makes the problem sound worse than it is: the focusing mechanism is fully mechanical and can go out of adjustment with a medium bump, so trying three bodies was necessary only to get one which was still properly adjusted for focus. The tools for doing this yourself are simple and it can be done at home with a bit of patience (I have done it), or alternatively, it can be sent to local Leica experts who can do it. There is nothing inherently wrong with a body which cannot focus properly, it is just a question of adjustment.
The lenses are more complex, but also rarely need this type of adjustment, and they don't tend to go out of adjustment, so it is mostly a one-time thing.
-
This makes the problem sound worse than it is: the focusing mechanism is fully mechanical and can go out of adjustment with a medium bump, so trying three bodies was necessary only to get one which was still properly adjusted for focus. The tools for doing this yourself are simple and it can be done at home with a bit of patience (I have done it), or alternatively, it can be sent to local Leica experts who can do it. There is nothing inherently wrong with a body which cannot focus properly, it is just a question of adjustment.
The lenses are more complex, but also rarely need this type of adjustment, and they don't tend to go out of adjustment, so it is mostly a one-time thing.
I don't really think that it makes it sound worse than it is, as the problem is there for sure, and as you say with rangefinder focus is an issue and has always been an issue, just that the M8 makes it easy to check straight away and digital is more focus critical than film especially with the ease of 100% viewing, and maybe people used to think they had missed focus rather than blame their M6's.
Yes the problem can be fixed, but it is not so easy with variations of lenses and bodies. Suffice to say if you get a lens and body that work together then great, leave it on and shoot.
Gary.
-
I don't really think that it makes it sound worse than it is
My issue was that the description made it sounds like several flawed bodies (like the Canon lens QC roulette) rather than bodies which needed adjustment.
-
My issue was that the description made it sounds like several flawed bodies (like the Canon lens QC roulette) rather than bodies which needed adjustment.
Agreed. There were FAR more than several flawed bodies :>))
Mark
-
I have some full-size raw files here (http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Leica_M8.html); I think they are on the 4th page. The M8 is an amazing camera, but if measured on price & pixels, then the business case is not pretty. James' comments aptly describe the M8.
-
Has anybody tried the Zeiss-glass for Leica M8?
H
-
Has anybody tried the Zeiss-glass for Leica M8?
H
I have. Several of them are phenomenal ---- the 18, 21 and 28 are all excellent.
-
Agreed. There were FAR more than several flawed bodies :>))
Mark
This sounds terrible. Worse than terrible. I don't see pros buying nearly as many of these as a few thousand quality-conscious "purists" who were always attracted to Leica M cameras. And for $8000 or so they can't even get the basics right?
Now I do remember reading about M cameras being "accurized" back in the 70's and 80's, for example to get the shutter to do what the setting indicated. But that was just a variance in speed, easily compensated by changing the setting. But the M8 is digital, and I can't imagine buyers expecting to have to accurize them, let alone the lenses.
-
Has anybody tried the Zeiss-glass for Leica M8?
H
Hi
reidreviews.com have reviews that compare the Leica / Zeiss / Voiglander lenses on an M8. The site cost money to access, but was worth it for the reading.
Regards
Anders
-
My issue was that the description made it sounds like several flawed bodies (like the Canon lens QC roulette) rather than bodies which needed adjustment.
There are some Leica flawed bodies and lenses. Every maker has them, maybe Leica more than others, who knows?
The thing is this is not a logical camera, which makes it even better but logic really doesn't weigh into it when it comes to this stuff, using what you want to use is what matters.
It's a Leica and just like a Maseratti is fascinating so is this camera, Though a toyota is a more logical choice and has a lot less flaws.
You'll never be able to make logical sense of this purchase, but that is a good thing.
-
Has anybody tried the Zeiss-glass for Leica M8?
H
I have the 50/1.5. It delievers a special look however the bokeh can get funky sometimes.
For wides (35mm and wider) I would prefer Leica glass because it is coded and you can use the vignetting and color correction of the M8 without having to self-code or post-correct.
My absolute most used and favorite lenses are 28/2.0asph and 50/1.4asph.
I also believe that the Summarits are very nice lenses (I only own the 75 Summarit but prefer it even to the 75/1.4)
-
This sounds terrible. Worse than terrible. I don't see pros buying nearly as many of these as a few thousand quality-conscious "purists" who were always attracted to Leica M cameras. And for $8000 or so they can't even get the basics right?
Now I do remember reading about M cameras being "accurized" back in the 70's and 80's, for example to get the shutter to do what the setting indicated. But that was just a variance in speed, easily compensated by changing the setting. But the M8 is digital, and I can't imagine buyers expecting to have to accurize them, let alone the lenses.
Lens problems are no more frequent than for other brands. The vague "flaws" statement might refer partially to the rangefinder system, which goes out of adjustment too easily, and needs to be updated for the modern age. It might refer to the "oversight" of the infrared sensitivity of the sensor, requiring filters. It might refer to the behaviour with a bright light just outside the viewable area, where a green stripe might appear. Other than that, I don't recall anything which could be referred to as "far more than several flawed bodies", and Leica has dealt with all of this under warranty and with firmware updates, other than the two issues mentioned.
I agree that the IR sensitivity and the green stripe aren't desirable and shouldn't have happened. Neither should the AF failures of the high-end Canons. Neither should the IR sensitivity of some early Nikon DSLRs. Neither should any number of other problems which happen daily in the MF world.
But in the end, it is what it is, and each of us must decide if we want an M8 or not. I adore the camera, in spite of its faults. I was happy to sell my 5D, and the Leica has exceeded my expectations in almost all ways. The lenses are awesome. But it isn't for everyone, and as James says, it isn't necessarily a rational decision. I am thankful that there are still some cameras on the market which awake emotions in me. The typical DSLR might as well be a brick for me, with respect to emotions. The M8 is much more. In that sense, it is like the Contax 645, another flawed, but deeply loved camera, or the Hasselblad V, or the Rolleiflex TLRs, and so on. All these have problems, but their owners wouldn't have traded them for anything, until digital changed the game.
-
'The M8 is much more. In that sense, it is like the Contax 645, another flawed, but deeply loved camera, or the Hasselblad V, or the Rolleiflex TLRs, and so on. All these have problems, but their owners wouldn't have traded them for anything, until digital changed the game'.
Agree with that!
-
But in the end, it is what it is, and each of us must decide if we want an M8 or not. I adore the camera, in spite of its faults. I was happy to sell my 5D, and the Leica has exceeded my expectations in almost all ways. The lenses are awesome. But it isn't for everyone, and as James says, it isn't necessarily a rational decisions. I am so thankful that there are still some cameras on the market which awake emotions in me. The typical DSLR might as well be a brick for me, with respect to emotions. The M8 is much more. In that sense, it is like the Contax 645, another flawed, but deeply loved camera, or the Hasselblad V, or the Rolleiflex TLRs, and so on. All these have problems, but their owners wouldn't have traded them for anything, until digital changed the game.
Please note that the whole 'net era has rather sharpened the critique on the M8... its a rather peculiar phenomenon, where the flaws are highlighted, and the strengths are now "emotional". There is a reality to the difficulties with the early M8's, and there still remains some awkwardness in the much more refined M8.2. But the issues ar not just limited to Leica - the level of precision required for good digital work is much much higher than most all of us were (are?) accustomed to in the film era. We also (for our $) expect perfection from companies like Leica, and they, like everyone else, has had issues of catch-up to work out.
Other manufacturers have had issues as well. Without getting into the canon/Nikon discussions, Joseph Holmes has written about very high end MF gear, surprisingly so. Its not at all clear what is going on - but the issue of specificity and dimensional tolerances are causing a sea change in the photo field. Note that many are testing pictures and sharpness at very high levels of observation (100-200% crops, in the corners) on our PC's.
The issues with the M8 have been well documented and vetted to be sure; some (like IR) are a bit cumbersome to be sure. But the quality of the M8 pictures are still there, gloriously so. The pictures have a presence and a depth that just lasts over time. Sure, that's an emotional read, but so is use of the eyes to take a picture.
On my first viewing of the M8, it seemed like a silly camera, half nostalgia/half electrics. Months later, took one for a brief spin with a 50 'lux, set on B/W, and surprisingly it made sense. Didn't want it to, didn't need it to, hadn't thought it would....but it did. Over time, its been nice to learn that those guys in Solms are actually thinking about photography and taking pictures. Not always easy to deal with, and price is certainly an issue, but they are thinking over there, and meeting the needs of real photographers.
On the price issue, the CV lenses are quite nice, and there is a big secondhand market, of high quality.
All this is to say take the criticism with some distance, use your own judgment, and take one for a walk. That goes for all cameras - and the ones with personalities sometimes take a longer time to get to know. Just like people.
-
It is interesting to observe that these discussions invariably arise about exactly these flawed but wonderful cameras. No one sits around defending a 1Ds3 or D3x for hours and hours, discussion the emotions, the raw photography and so on. If someone promotes a 1Ds3, it is almost always with words like "it just works", "my customers don't see the difference to MF", and so on, not with passion. Not that this is a bad thing, the world needs them too.
But in 5, 10, 15 years, will people remember the M8? Will people remember the 1Ds3? In some ways I think that only cameras that invoke a feeling of conflict in their owners, which is limited in some way, which will be remembered. It is a rare camera which just does the job which is remembered for years and years.
-
I can only see three reasons:
1) Laziness.
2) Ignorance.
3) Wanting the M8 to underperform.
This surprises me, coming from you Carsten...
(and I'll put it out there that I've only ever really shot raw with my canon stuff)
But, the idea of having a film-like experience... which is what I perceive the m8 to attempt to attain... is right in line with shooting jpegs. Can you imagine just how much more popular and usable, especially for photojournalists (whether shooting weddings or wars) the M8 would be if the jpeg engine were good. This is why many (wedding) journalists that have gone from dslr to m8 end up going to film m6's and 7's. When I shoot weddings and events, the ability to not be perceived in the room is so hard to attain with the big black cameras of today... at least without buying a $6000 200/f2 so that you can "snipe" your subjects from 100 yards away.
... god, what a joy it would be to have an M8 that had jpeg output that mimicked the consistency of film and allowed a shooting experience that didn't keep in the back of one's mind the hours of post-work ahead.
YMMV
-
Hi
reidreviews.com have reviews that compare the Leica / Zeiss / Voiglander lenses on an M8. The site cost money to access, but was worth it for the reading.
Regards
Anders
Thank you, Anders!!
This was a very nice site for some serious tests. Seems like those Zeiss-lenses in many cases proves more contrasty and sharper even on a Leica M8
The Leica-lenses even struggles with the 500$ Voigtlander-glass. Take a look and see for yourselves. At least that is what my eyes tells me..
I wonder if the only reason to spend so much more money on the lenses are the coding (should only be important for the wider lenses, like 35mm and shorter)..
Henrik
-
... god, what a joy it would be to have an M8 that had jpeg output that mimicked the consistency of film and allowed a shooting experience that didn't keep in the back of one's mind the hours of post-work ahead.
hmm ... that would be called an M7 and a decent scanner ...
-
This surprises me, coming from you Carsten...
(and I'll put it out there that I've only ever really shot raw with my canon stuff)
Perhaps I should have made the context a little clearer: in comparing the M8's performance against other cameras, and knowing that the JPG engine is really not very good, I can see only three reasons for choosing JPG: 1) laziness, 2) ignorance, 3) wanting the M8 to underperform. I have nothing against JPG shooting in general, with other cameras, or even with the M8, but clearly this is not the way to get the M8 to perform well in comparison testing.
-
Seems like those Zeiss-lenses in many cases proves more contrasty and sharper even on a Leica M8
I don't mean to put down Zeiss lenses in any way, and it is entirely possible that some are indeed sharper, but keep in mind that higher contrast gives the appearance of sharper images. They may or may not actually be sharper. Higher contrast can be a minus though, especially in places like the south-western States, where the light is very contrasty already. The captured DR can suffer from higher contrast lenses, with shadows or highlights blocking out quicker.
-
Perhaps I should have made the context a little clearer: in comparing the M8's performance against other cameras, and knowing that the JPG engine is really not very good, I can see only three reasons for choosing JPG: 1) laziness, 2) ignorance, 3) wanting the M8 to underperform. I have nothing against JPG shooting in general, with other cameras, or even with the M8, but clearly this is not the way to get the M8 to perform well in comparison testing.
ah.. much clearer (and I agree)!
-
one thing i really hate is the bad power switch design of the m8. please Leica, make the Self-timer setting adjustable to 0 sec, that would help a lot
-
one thing i really hate is the bad power switch design of the m8. please Leica, make the Self-timer setting adjustable to 0 sec, that would help a lot
I know that this isn't a solution which everyone will want to try, but I took my switch apart, adjusted the various tensions, and now the first tension point is non-existent (power on), and the second one has a very light touch (lock exposure). It is a joy to shoot with. One photographer on the Leica forum even polished the various bits in the assembly, and has a smooth as glass release. Okay, he is also a watch-maker, but it is possible
-
I know that this isn't a solution which everyone will want to try, but I took my switch apart, adjusted the various tensions, and now the first tension point is non-existent (power on), and the second one has a very light touch (lock exposure). It is a joy to shoot with. One photographer on the Leica forum even polished the various bits in the assembly, and has a smooth as glass release. Okay, he is also a watch-maker, but it is possible
The OP was referring to the annoying habit of the on/off switch collar rotating too far to self timer mode which many have "fixed" with a judicious piece of tape. However the "roughness" of the shutter release you refer to is also an irritation. The smoothness of my M2s (with no intermediate meter position) is to die for.
-
The OP was referring to the annoying habit of the on/off switch collar rotating too far to self timer mode which many have "fixed" with a judicious piece of tape. However the "roughness" of the shutter release you refer to is also an irritation. The smoothness of my M2s (with no intermediate meter position) is to die for.
Ah, I see. Yes, there seems to be some variation here. My copy has nice firm detents, and it is rare that I don't hit what I want. I have heard of others with too light detents, though.
-
I just bought an M8. I was walking down Broadway and passed the Leica Gallery. I went up to take a look and ended up going to Kurland. I walked out with an M8. A toital impulse buy.
Its a strange camera. Its not as good as an M6. Its close. Its not as heavy, as others have mentioned, the shutter button is not smooth. Mine has deep detents on the on/off/mode switch. The motor drive sound drove me nuts until I put it in "Discrete" mode. Now it just clicks like a M6. Its bigger than the M6 and feels huge compared to an M4.
Frame lines are suggestions at best.
Despite all that, this is a real camera. You can reconnect with picture taking. Its intuitive. You can carry an M8, charger, three lenses in the pockets of a snorkel parka. My wife wants one, and she has no interest in cameras.
Under lights at base ISO, stopped down, IQ is the same as any digital camera. They all look alike under lights. To tell the difference between the M8, P30, Aptus 22, 5D (when shot under lights) you need to look at 100% and that is counter productive.
Essentially it has (slightly) better than 5D MK I resolution (down to lenses and no AA, I suspect) and much better color out of the box. Wide open, dim natural light, the lenses tell the story. Its a nice camera and something I will keep. Actually, its the first digital device I've used that isn't destined for a landfill in three years.
-
I just bought an M8. I was walking down Broadway and passed the Leica Gallery. I went up to take a look and ended up going to Kurland. I walked out with an M8. A toital impulse buy.
.........................
Actually, its the first digital device I've used that isn't destined for a landfill in three years.
Ah the Leica gallery trap. Been there done that and will probably do it again.
You walk into that old tiny gallery and your surrounded by those historical photos of Bobby Kennedy in Harlem, or some French Cabaret Dancer in a smokey night club and you find yourself wanting, desiring to get out of the perfect spell checked, digital world of 2 second gratification and go back to where photo studios smelled like two month old fixer and had a futon in the corner that was the den, living room, kitchen table, bed and casting couch.
You see photographs that were not shot for a "job" or for a seminar or to prove that sharpness, micro detail even focus is that important to any photograph.
Those photographs were shot by photographers that had to shoot those photographs.
Next you find yourself in Kurland standing in front of aggravating Eli plonking down a credit card for one of his overpriced metal boxes.
The Leica makes absolutely no sense, as you say the framing is just a basic idea of where the crop lines are, the sound of the shutter is somewhat reminiscent of somebody dropping a beer can in a rubbish bin and if it doesn't jam once a day your not using it enough.
Then again, it's a real camera with real F stops, made out of real metal for real photographers.
Every time I shoot with it and look at the lcd it's like going to the lab and seeing those wonderful organic surprises because what you see in the smudged Leica viewfinder looks nothing like what you see on the back of the camera, which is always better than what you thought it would be.
Every time I navigate the ms dos menu I laugh because it's almost like Leica begrudgingly put a digital sensor in their film camera and said, "ok we did it, we didn't want to do it, but since we had to do it the digital part is here, just don't shoot it like a digital camera, because it's not".
JRR
-
Congratulations on the Leica! I was just out shooting today and had partially forgotten how much I enjoy it. There is a solution to three of your comments: 1) give the M8 to your wife, 2) buy the M8.2, and 2a) the framelines are much more accurate, and 2b) the shutter is much quieter, as is the winding. You can even get the M8.2 in black paint with vulcanite covering.
-
Ah the Leica gallery trap. Been there done that and will probably do it again.
You walk into that old tiny gallery and your surrounded by those historical photos of Bobby Kennedy in Harlem, or some French Cabaret Dancer in a smokey night club and you find yourself wanting, desiring to get out of the perfect spell checked, digital world of 2 second gratification and go back to where photo studios smelled like two month old fixer and had a futon in the corner that was the den, living room, kitchen table, bed and casting couch.
You see photographs that were not shot for a "job" or for a seminar or to prove that sharpness, micro detail even focus is that important to any photograph.
Those photographs were shot by photographers that had to shoot those photographs.
Next you find yourself in Kurland standing in front of aggravating Eli plonking down a credit card for one of his overpriced metal boxes.
The Leica makes absolutely no sense, as you say the framing is just a basic idea of where the crop lines are, the sound of the shutter is somewhat reminiscent of somebody dropping a beer can in a rubbish bin and if it doesn't jam once a day your not using it enough.
Then again, it's a real camera with real F stops, made out of real metal for real photographers.
Every time I shoot with it and look at the lcd it's like going to the lab and seeing those wonderful organic surprises because what you see in the smudged Leica viewfinder looks nothing like what you see on the back of the camera, which is always better than what you thought it would be.
Every time I navigate the ms dos menu I laugh because it's almost like Leica begrudgingly put a digital sensor in their film camera and said, "ok we did it, we didn't want to do it, but since we had to do it the digital part is here, just don't shoot it like a digital camera, because it's not".
JRR
James,
If I recall correct you also shoot using Leaf digital backs. How do you find working with the M8 files in comparison (neglecting the different pixel count)?
Much thanks!
Regards
Anders
-
Ah the Leica gallery trap. Been there done that and will probably do it again.
You walk into that old tiny gallery and your surrounded by those historical photos of Bobby Kennedy in Harlem, or some French Cabaret Dancer in a smokey night club and you find yourself wanting, desiring to get out of the perfect spell checked, digital world of 2 second gratification and go back to where photo studios smelled like two month old fixer and had a futon in the corner that was the den, living room, kitchen table, bed and casting couch.
You see photographs that were not shot for a "job" or for a seminar or to prove that sharpness, micro detail even focus is that important to any photograph.
Those photographs were shot by photographers that had to shoot those photographs.
Next you find yourself in Kurland standing in front of aggravating Eli plonking down a credit card for one of his overpriced metal boxes.
The Leica makes absolutely no sense, as you say the framing is just a basic idea of where the crop lines are, the sound of the shutter is somewhat reminiscent of somebody dropping a beer can in a rubbish bin and if it doesn't jam once a day your not using it enough.
Then again, it's a real camera with real F stops, made out of real metal for real photographers.
Every time I shoot with it and look at the lcd it's like going to the lab and seeing those wonderful organic surprises because what you see in the smudged Leica viewfinder looks nothing like what you see on the back of the camera, which is always better than what you thought it would be.
Every time I navigate the ms dos menu I laugh because it's almost like Leica begrudgingly put a digital sensor in their film camera and said, "ok we did it, we didn't want to do it, but since we had to do it the digital part is here, just don't shoot it like a digital camera, because it's not".
JRR
James,
Absolutely.
I've had it less than a week and am gaga over this thing. Damn Eli and his honey trap on Broadway. I find myself "needing" a 24mm so I can use the broadest frame lines possible, even if they are just suggestions. I find myself asking what I've gotten myself into.
-
M8: 138mm x 77mm x 38mm
Film-M (except for M6TTL/M7): 139mm x 80mm x 37mm
It's funny how the design seems to trick the subjective impression of the photographer... It's just as big as other Ms (except for 3mm (!!!) height difference).
The viewfinder-frames in the M8 were designed for close distance, they should never show more than the actual picture - this was changed with the M8.2
If I had to choose now, I would take the M8.2 - don't underestimate it's subtle improvements.
-
M8: 138mm x 77mm x 38mm
Film-M (except for M6TTL/M7): 139mm x 80mm x 37mm
It's funny how the design seems to trick the subjective impression of the photographer... It's just as big as other Ms (except for 3mm (!!!) height difference).
It is not only an impression. The M8 is thicker where you hold it. The total thickness isn't the whole story. I could make some more pertinent measurements of my M8 and M6 (classic) when I get home, if anyone is interested.
More seriously, the removal of the film wind lever makes the M8 harder to grip properly, and the M6-style grip is not available for the M8. Personally, I don't like the shape of the M8 grip, so I use it without, but I would dearly welcome the return of the winding lever to cock the shutter manually, and to place my thumb behind..
-
Carsten, have you tried the 'Thumbs Up'?
-
Carsten, have you tried the 'Thumbs Up'?
I've thought about picking one up, and I am pretty sure that it would fix the problem while shooting, but three things bug me: 1) it doesn't fold away when the camera is not in use, 2) the hot shoe is now a cold shoe, at best, and 3) it does nothing to make the winding noise quieter, as a real winding lever would. In the end, I found the compromises too strong to want to invest in it. I can use the M8 as is just fine, but I just see room for improvement.
-
Just passing and was somewhat bemused to find this thread in the MFDB section and then baffled to see it was five pages long, but then realised it had turned into one of those strange, anally retentive discussions on the merits of Leicas and some sort of sense happened.
In relation to what Henrik wants, this is quite simple. If he has the money for an M8 and he is a good photographer, he will take good pictures with it. The same is also true for the other cameras mentioned, but much less money will be involved.
However, there are some strange things:
1/ Why the preoccupation with jpeg quality? Is this a sort of oxymoron thing? Cards and storage are dirt cheap. Why would someone wanting an M8 not be prepared to process raw files? Perhaps Henrik should tell us about his level of experience and why this is as important as the esoteric discussion of certain Leica lenses and performance at certain apertures?
2/ Where does this comparison of cameras with cars come from? Toyota vs Maserati? Or is this just more Leica snobbishness? Getting from A to B is not the same as looking at great photographs (note, it is the photographer who takes the pictures).
At the end of 2007, I handled an M8 in the Calumet store in Chicago. I almost got the credit card out stright away and bought it, but I did look at the practicalities of the thing before I did. Specifically, I got them to put the WA tri-Elmar on it together with the accessory finder. Suddenly I found that the camera had increased in size a lot. I was setting the focal length on the lens, remembering that I needed to apply a focal length multiplier of 1.3x and set the parallax correction on the finder and then focus with the finder on the camera....ridiculous. Then I compared shots taken on the premises with the camera compared with a 5D and it would be fair to say that the IQ did not seem a whole lot better. Yes, I can see that the lenses are better, but then so they should be. So I put this beautiful jewel like thing down and put my credit card away and remembered that money can only buy you a small amount of extra photographic goodness. Perhaps Henrik needs to remember the same?
-
Just passing and was somewhat bemused to find this thread in the MFDB section and then baffled to see it was five pages long, but then realised it had turned into one of those strange, anally retentive discussions on the merits of Leicas and some sort of sense happened.
In relation to what Henrik wants, this is quite simple. If he has the money for an M8 and he is a good photographer, he will take good pictures with it. The same is also true for the other cameras mentioned, but much less money will be involved.
However, there are some strange things:
1/ Why the preoccupation with jpeg quality? Is this a sort of oxymoron thing? Cards and storage are dirt cheap. Why would someone wanting an M8 not be prepared to process raw files? Perhaps Henrik should tell us about his level of experience and why this is as important as the esoteric discussion of certain Leica lenses and performance at certain apertures?
2/ Where does this comparison of cameras with cars come from? Toyota vs Maserati? Or is this just more Leica snobbishness? Getting from A to B is not the same as looking at great photographs (note, it is the photographer who takes the pictures).
At the end of 2007, I handled an M8 in the Calumet store in Chicago. I almost got the credit card out stright away and bought it, but I did look at the practicalities of the thing before I did. Specifically, I got them to put the WA tri-Elmar on it together with the accessory finder. Suddenly I found that the camera had increased in size a lot. I was setting the focal length on the lens, remembering that I needed to apply a focal length multiplier of 1.3x and set the parallax correction on the finder and then focus with the finder on the camera....ridiculous. Then I compared shots taken on the premises with the camera compared with a 5D and it would be fair to say that the IQ did not seem a whole lot better. Yes, I can see that the lenses are better, but then so they should be. So I put this beautiful jewel like thing down and put my credit card away and remembered that money can only buy you a small amount of extra photographic goodness. Perhaps Henrik needs to remember the same?
First: I never shoot jpeg. I am not interested in the jpeg quality. I just disapproved with many tests of the M8 that were done only in jpeg. I am en experienced shooter, but not a pro.
I like best to work with Hasselblad V cameras, but also have the H.
I like the idea of the M8, and have now tested it. I did not like how the colors many times were calculated wrong, but the files were many times beautiful. I have tried the Elmarit-M 24mm asph. That lens did not impressed me at all. I feel it´s lacking a lot of sharpness compared to the biogons and the modern digital lenses from Schneider and Rhodenstock. The Summarit M 50mm
(a rather cheap lens compared to the other Leicas), was the other lens I tried. That lens was a positive experience. I think it was quite sharp and had a nice look to it.
But all together the files wasn´t too good, and really the M8 gives nothing that a Canon 1ds mk3 can´t with the right lenses. The Noct-Nikkor lenses with an adapter to canon really gives the
same or better effects than the Noctilux 50. . . . . .but still it´s something about the M8.. just hoping for a M9 with a new sensor before I buy I think..
Henrik
-
We're all waiting for a M9 which doesn't throw away 60% of the image circle of our precious lenses.
Until that happens, I'll invest into the lenses and enjoy both, MP and M8.
"I like the idea of the M8, and have now tested it. I did not like how the colors many times were calculated wrong, but the files were many times beautiful. I have tried the Elmarit-M 24mm asph. That lens did not impressed me at all. I feel it´s lacking a lot of sharpness compared to the biogons and the modern digital lenses from Schneider and Rhodenstock. The Summarit M 50mm"
The Summarit is a nice lens, but the Summilux Asph blows it away and sets the standard for 50mm-lenses. The 24mm-Asph is outperforming the sensor of the M8 with ease - something gone terribly wrong with your shots!?
-
I did not like how the colors many times were calculated wrong, but the files were many times beautiful. I have tried the Elmarit-M 24mm asph. That lens did not impressed me at all.
You asked, you got a reply so you tested for yourself. That's all you have to do to make a decision.
Remember though, this camera makes no sense in the world of electronic boxes that auto everything. It makes a ton a sense if you want a thrill.
This is a compare the pixels forum, usually with an agenda to sell someone up the ladder and the people that use the M-8 aren't trying to sell or justify anything, in fact they usually start each post with how little sense the Leica makes . . . until you use it.
Would I like more from this camera. . . damn straight. I'd like it to be full frame and have higher iso and maybe some kind of way to actually tether it, but it is what it is and that's the real beauty of it.
It's a camera you buy for yourself, without thinking about client demands or what if they want to crop 1/3 of the frame to make a vertical. It's just a mechanical box that has an electronic sensor instead of film.
This isn't a second guess, buyer remorse camera. You buy it and use it.
JRR
-
In the last 10 years i must have bought literally a few dozens of cameras, nearly every digital SLR Canon made, too many point and shoots, a few analogue and one digital Medium format systems. only four stand out:
in 1999 i bought a leica M6. the only camera i am married to
in 2003 the original 1Ds, a revelation
in 2006 a ricoh GRD, Still the only compact i am able to photograph with
in 2009 the leica M8, and i am happy as a bunny with it.....
-
In the last 10 years i must have bought literally a few dozens of cameras, nearly every digital SLR Canon made, too many point and shoots, a few analogue and one digital Medium format systems. only four stand out:
in 1999 i bought a leica M6. the only camera i am married to
in 2003 the original 1Ds, a revelation
in 2006 a ricoh GRD, Still the only compact i am able to photograph with
in 2009 the leica M8, and i am happy as a bunny with it.....
Ditto, except for the Ricoh. Never used one. I'd also add the Red One in 2008. Changed my life, literally.
-
You asked, you got a reply so you tested for yourself. That's all you have to do to make a decision.
Remember though, this camera makes no sense in the world of electronic boxes that auto everything. It makes a ton a sense if you want a thrill.
This is a compare the pixels forum, usually with an agenda to sell someone up the ladder and the people that use the M-8 aren't trying to sell or justify anything, in fact they usually start each post with how little sense the Leica makes . . . until you use it.
Would I like more from this camera. . . damn straight. I'd like it to be full frame and have higher iso and maybe some kind of way to actually tether it, but it is what it is and that's the real beauty of it.
It's a camera you buy for yourself, without thinking about client demands or what if they want to crop 1/3 of the frame to make a vertical. It's just a mechanical box that has an electronic sensor instead of film.
This isn't a second guess, buyer remorse camera. You buy it and use it.
JRR
actually it tethers beautifully with aperture!...the DNG is also something i really like about it....
-
I have not read this entire thread but I'd like to add my opinion.
Rangefinder photography is a different animal from SLR (D or otherwise) photography. Comparing a 5D to an M8 or Epson is not fair. If you want to shoot fast sports get the right tool for the job. An SLR is more versatile than an RF in many ways. Longer lenses, faster handling with wide lenses, also bigger and louder.
The question is, do you want to shoot with a RF camera? If yes then pick one. I have an M8.2 and love it, but I have many other cameras for different purposes and do not expect the M8 to be there as my one and only camera. It is however my constant companion on vacations since that what I got it for. I like the mostly-distortion-free lenses that can be designed for a RF camera. No mirror means better lenses right off the bat. That's important to me since I shoot mostly architecture.
-
Leica USA is offering a "take it out for a test spin" with the M8.2. Body, two lenses for the weekend for free to play around with. I have never ever been remotely interested in the Leica but this thread got my juices going (all because of TMark). Man, I'm digging this thing. It's so simple, so less crap between you and what you're shooting. It's liberating really, freedom. Almost like skinny dipping, this is the way it should feel. This is not what I do for a living. I'm studio still life with a ton of strobe and a slow calculated complicated workday.
I bought a G9 last year for a trip to Italy. There was no way in hell I was going to drag around a SLR. Hated the G9, the photos were ok but the camera sucked the energy out of you using it.
I'm going on another trip this Christmas and may have to tell my youngest that next years tuition down in Santa Barbara will need to be paid for by herself since I'm using it to buy a new camera.
-
Leica USA is offering a "take it out for a test spin" with the M8.2. Body, two lenses for the weekend for free to play around with. I have never ever been remotely interested in the Leica but this thread got my juices going (all because of TMark). Man, I'm digging this thing. It's so simple, so less crap between you and what you're shooting. It's liberating really, freedom. Almost like skinny dipping, this is the way it should feel. This is not what I do for a living. I'm studio still life with a ton of strobe and a slow calculated complicated workday.
I bought a G9 last year for a trip to Italy. There was no way in hell I was going to drag around a SLR. Hated the G9, the photos were ok but the camera sucked the energy out of you using it.
I'm going on another trip this Christmas and may have to tell my youngest that next years tuition down in Santa Barbara will need to be paid for by herself since I'm using it to buy a new camera.
Awesome! Maybe Leica will give me a bunch of IR filters for helping them make a sale!
Enjoy!
-
I am looking to buy a small camera that is light and makes the best possible image-quality for the days I don´t feel like carrying my Hasselblad.
Is anybody using the Leica M8, Epson or the compact Sigma? How good are the files compared to those from the larger cameras?
Any experiences are very welcome.
I know this is not the correct forum, but I am sure some people here use this cameras??
Henrik
Henrik-if you decide on a Leica M8 -I have a black body version in mint unused condition condition,and in Estonia.cicerone30@hotmail.com
-
Seems to be a lot of M8 for sale on ebay.. Does this mean a new Leica is coming out soon that we do not know about..
Besides the minor updated M8.2?
Snook
-
Yeh But the D-lux 4 does <have a flash hot shoe> and supposedly BLOWS the D-lux 3 away.. Just have not wanted to spend $$$$ to upgrade yet!!
Snook
Is anyone contemplating the D-Lux 4?... even if only for web/personal use?
Do they do a zoom to make the M8 a handy 1 piece camera like the D-Lux 4?
-
I own the M8 and also an Epson (which I haven't used much since I got the M8) and also a D3/D300 and a G1. The smaller cameras are part of my continuing search to find a really good-quality camera that I like, and that I can travel with.
The M8 makes terrific images, but the operation is completely different than a DSLR and I don't know why anybody who doesn't have an specific attachment to rangefinder cameras would want one, except for peculiar aesthetic reasons -- the "look" that James Russell speaks of. It really is a bit different. The camera also forces you to shoot differently, which also changes the look of your photos...and the lenses are a lot different than Nikon/Canons...no auto-focus, which teaches you to be very careful, and slows you down, which again changes the way your photos look, or allows you to speed up, with zone focusing, which again changes the look...A relatively complete Leica outfit may cost more than $20,000, and that's without a backup body. (A new body, a WATE, a 24-35-50 (maybe two 50s) 75-90 and perhaps 135.)
However, if the OP is a professional or an artist, looking for a smaller pro-level camera that's easy to carry, I'd suggest looking at the Pentax K7 which will be released in a couple of weeks. Very small -- not much larger package than the Leica, and lighter, I think -- with a series of very small good prime lenses to go with it, and a couple of decent (not great) zooms. A fairly complete outfit could be had for $2,500-$3,000 or so, or about 1/8 the cost of a Leica outfit. The photos will much resemble the Canon/Nikon/Sony stuff.
Or, if the OP is thinking about a walk-around shooter and wants to explore the M8, a good used body can be had for ~$3,000, and a couple thousand more for a fast 35, and if the experience isn't right, most of that could be recovered in a re-sale.
JC
-
Is anyone contemplating the D-Lux 4?... even if only for web/personal use?
Do they do a zoom to make the M8 a handy 1 piece camera like the D-Lux 4?
I have been thinking about it..
The Only thing is I HATE the battery usage of my D-lux3 and am afraid the D-lux 4 has the same problem!!! No one wants to verify this for me...
I just happen to do a search on ebay and noticed a lot of M8's for sale.
I like the quality of my D-lux 3 specially in RAW but hate the freakin battery usage. With flash the battery last for about 50 shots.. I have almost thrown it against the wall a couple times already!!
Snook
supposedly the D-lux 4 is much better but how much better I have no idea!
if you get one let us know...:+}
Snook
-
The M8 makes terrific images, but the operation is completely different than a DSLR and I don't know why anybody who doesn't have an specific attachment to rangefinder cameras would want one, except for peculiar aesthetic reasons
I enjoy my four week old M8. My focus is not rangefinders but photography. It is very simple to use if one understands photography. The M8 lack the multitude of buttons, functions and auto of a dslr. Actually, it reminds me of the old Canon Av-1 (slr) I had during twenty years, same simple. For small camera I have over 8 yeaars been through a small Canon 3mp, Casio, G9, DP1. The M8 makes near perfect small camera and is one that I can shoot with instead of taking only snaps. Image quality is high. It makes focus on photography and not camera. The 28mm is a great match.
IR and B&W is cool
Anders
-
There is an intimacy of shooting people with a leica you just cannot do with a dslr. For people that say get a pentax or cheap canon well the look of the world at 1/30 at f1.4 is much different then 3200 and f2.8 with a bouncing mirror. I want a m9 full frame with low 3200 iso but 640 at 1.4 and 1/30 of a second is a look you cannot get with any canon and yes I own 4 canon bodies but they are another animal for a different kind of work. Used leica lenses are much cheaper these days I found a mint like 50 lux for 1900 my 35 lux for 2200 and 75 for 1900. I would not get a voigtlander but the 21 25 and 50 zeiss lenses are nice. I have an m8 with shutter and framelines upgraded. If you have some money get an m8 if funds are limited find a used one. If you want to shoot landscapes get something else if people buy the m8 . David
-
I was hooked as soon as I saw the negs from my first try-out of an old M3 and a battered 50 cron. My Leica kit has grown from then..there is no other glass made by anyone that comes close to leica quality - @ wide open. if you want to shoot at smaller apertures - well use anything you like..
I take a Leica with me every day and everwhere - it is a companion and a friend and records my personal diary.
If you want to know wether the Leica is for you or not there is a very simple test. Just pick one up and hold it in your hand - get a friend to watch you as you do this for the first time. If you dont immediately get a smile on your face ..just the feel of the thing..well then it probably isnt for you ..
The m8 as others have said - and by the way i think Jmaes has said it quite eloquently - is flawed compared to practically everythign else out there - unlike other cmeras though I dont care - because its very flaws are part of its charm. I didnt know ther ewas a Jpeg mode shoot raw and use C1 to process - and then get yourself an M6/m3/m7/MP film body soup up your own B&W and watch your eyes bug out when you see teh negs..
Life without a Leica around close somewhere - unimagineable. In a aworld where pixel peeping and all that stuff seems to have taken over the vernacular of photography- Leica continues to be clean air and water and a pretty girl sashaying down the street. I feel sorry for peopel who just dont get what Leica is...and I dont mean that in a nasty way - it is liek people who are tone deaf or colour blind..or peopel who dont liek animals..or dont fancy a drink..
oops I think I have waxed lyrical for too long.
-
[quote and then get yourself an M6/m3/m7/MP film body soup up your own B&W and watch your eyes bug out when you see teh negs..
oops I think I have waxed lyrical for too long.
[/quote]
I don´t think that´s very good advice, so perhaps you have waxed too long!
I already have a perfect F3 - one of the very last available - and it sits unused.
Fortunately, the manual lenses, also bought at the time the camera was bought in an effort to replace my 35mm gear which was all lost when I made the mistake of getting completely into 6x7, work with my digital Nikon.
The freezer is still stacked with both b/w and colour tranny material, the latter having crept up and up in processing price as the labs to process it vanish from the face of the Earth.
I had often thought about buying an M Leica, but every time I did, it failed at the critical question of in which part of my daily work would it replace the Nikons? I can only think of other photographer friends who have had to sell off their Ms for much the same reasons and for the simple fact that as money still hasn´t learned to grow on trees, a trade-in of little-used equipment in pusuit of much-needed digital top-line cameras makes financial - as opposed to sentimental - sense.
Despite owing my entire livelihood to film, I would not go that route today. For a wealthy enthusiast - who knows? I have worn a Rolex Submariner of stainless steel since around '72; others spend zillions to buy a Rolex in gold, with diamond surrounds. In my opinion I wear a watch, the others just look like bookies. So roll your penny where your fancy takes you.
Rob C
-
Well my apologies for any offence - please dont read my blatherings as 'advice'.
For sure - your Nikon is much better than my Leica - whatever ..
peace man.
Cheers.
-
For sure - your Nikon is much better than my Leica - whatever ..
peace man.
Cheers.
And for sure you´re determined to miss my point: to restate, it has nothing whatsoever to do with brand and everything to do with film/digital.
Film photography is not something I would advise anyone to spend money chasing. It was everything for many years, did its job pretty well perfectly, but has been sidelined. Refusal to accept that and the dwindling range of it available is up to you; I would simply say it isn´t a good investment to spend more buying into a dying medium. My F3 is in perfect condition and as perfectly unsellable. You´ve heard about paperweights.
Rob C
-
Film photography is not something I would advise anyone to spend money chasing. It was everything for many years, did its job pretty well perfectly, but has been sidelined. Refusal to accept that and the dwindling range of it available is up to you; I would simply say it isn´t a good investment to spend more buying into a dying medium. My F3 is in perfect condition and as perfectly unsellable. You´ve heard about paperweights.
Rob C
Some of the top pictorial professionals, who can afford it, are now moving from 10" * 8" or larger to Medium format digital...
...but, If you can work out how to get the best out of a 10 * 8 Sinar, and you only take a few pix a day, and you sell limited editions of 100 of most of what you take for £350, a 10 * 8 Sinar is a very cost effective piece of kit.
-
And for sure you´re determined to miss my point: to restate, it has nothing whatsoever to do with brand and everything to do with film/digital.
Film photography is not something I would advise anyone to spend money chasing. It was everything for many years, did its job pretty well perfectly, but has been sidelined. Refusal to accept that and the dwindling range of it available is up to you; I would simply say it isn´t a good investment to spend more buying into a dying medium. My F3 is in perfect condition and as perfectly unsellable. You´ve heard about paperweights.
Rob C
Film is good, available, pretty, cheap, and easy to home process B&W.
The M8 is the only digital camera that feels like a camera, aside form trhe 1 series Canon and the D3 Nikons, but they feel like cameras I never liked.
-
Film is good, available, pretty, cheap, and easy to home process B&W.
Sure is available: got a freeze full but that doesn´t mean it will remain in production very long. I even have some Kodachrome without mailing vouchers. Yes, it is easy to process b/w but that doesn´t make its long-term viability any the happier.
As I said in my last post, film is/was wonderful and I would be the last to decry it; that isn´t enough to sustain its future, sadly.
Why would one imagine film companies will continue to produce where the camera companies have already decided there is no longer any market worth hunting?
Seems to me to be an even worse bet than MF digital might be, though personally, I wish all these companies good luck.
Rob C
-
I am looking to buy a small camera that is light and makes the best possible image-quality for the days I don´t feel like carrying my Hasselblad.
Is anybody using the Leica M8, Epson or the compact Sigma? How good are the files compared to those from the larger cameras?
Any experiences are very welcome.
I know this is not the correct forum, but I am sure some people here use this cameras??
Henrik
I have had the M8 since its introduction, love it, and still love it, but I use it less and less , nothing about the image quality, it was great when it is new, and 3 years later I think it is still great. I guess the reason I use it less due to the compactness. It is small, but not as small as a Canon G10 which I can use it for almost anything - except for paid jobs of course, but with its range of focus (super macro to infinity), but G10 file quality is way behind M8. I also use DP-1 and DP-2, both great camera, and truly compact, and I would pick DP-2 over DP-1 as all around pocket camera - only wish its LED screen is better and can correspond to manual setting adjustment, and I found both DP-1/DP-2 focus excellent in normal day-light, but with strong back-lit situation, the focus becomes a little troubled. The file quality is great for what it is, but still visibly behind M8.
I will not compare the file quality from M8/Sigma to my DLSR, either 1Ds3 or D3X, or my Phase One of Hasselblad back, they are different. Either can take pictures the others couldn't.
Bottom line suggestion: Everyday pocket compact - DP-2, if you need wider angle, stitch it. Serious travel compact - M8. Heavy weigh choice - anything you can figure.
Regards, K
-
Bottom line suggestion: Everyday pocket compact - DP-2, if you need wider angle, stitch it. Serious travel compact - M8. Heavy weigh choice - anything you can figure.
Regards, K
I'd say the Panasonic G1 could substutute well for a M8. And only $629.
-
After looking in the viewfinder of the G1 to me that is like comparing a Mercedes to a Yugo. Yes I know I am dating myself. Small size does not equal the joy of using a leica.
-
And for sure you´re determined to miss my point: to restate, it has nothing whatsoever to do with brand and everything to do with film/digital.
Film photography is not something I would advise anyone to spend money chasing. It was everything for many years, did its job pretty well perfectly, but has been sidelined. Refusal to accept that and the dwindling range of it available is up to you; I would simply say it isn´t a good investment to spend more buying into a dying medium. My F3 is in perfect condition and as perfectly unsellable. You´ve heard about paperweights.
Rob C
I wouldnt advise anyone to do anything old chap. The M8 delivers great files - that is just a fact. It is also a portable system and a great travel companion. If you have an M8 - buying a used 3/6/7 or MP is a cheap way to enhance the whole experience for the user - it was an aside not 'advice' as stated above - keep your aggro to yourslef. Not interested in film, death of film vs digital debates - thats just internet chatter. Enjoy your CaNikons and 'Rollex'.
T@
-
After looking in the viewfinder of the G1 to me that is like comparing a Mercedes to a Yugo. Yes I know I am dating myself. Small size does not equal the joy of using a leica.
I really did like the viewfinder of my Leica M6, and especially the split-focus method. But that's not without compromises, such as parallax error. And although the M6 cost many times as much as the G1, the build quality IMO wasn't as good. The exterior textured leatherette coating or whatever it was on the Leica had a tendency to peel slightly. The G1 OTOH has a flawless exterior.
So there are many, many differences between the two cameras, and what applies to the M6 might not be exactly true of the M8, but then again, you only have to read this forum to note all the problems with the M8 that led to the M8-2. When I can honestly say that the G1 is comparable to the M8, and perhaps even better overall, that really says something considering the enormous cost difference. And I'm not cheap, having bought two M's, and other even more expensive items.
-
I wouldnt advise anyone to do anything old chap. The M8 delivers great files - that is just a fact. It is also a portable system and a great travel companion. If you have an M8 - buying a used 3/6/7 or MP is a cheap way to enhance the whole experience for the user - it was an aside not 'advice' as stated above - keep your aggro to yourslef. Not interested in film, death of film vs digital debates - thats just internet chatter. Enjoy your CaNikons and 'Rollex'.
T@
And coming to that point, I think it is quite meaningless to look at today's camera and compare it to the past. For pure image quality, I think today's high-end DSLR is equal or sometimes better than the medium format film camera of the past, and medium format digital back to challenge the large format or surpass them. And if we include the ability to digitally stitch very large panoramic images, my Canon G10 can produce file (10 more more capture stitch together) with a quick sequence of shoot, file larger and stunning image that is no less or better than a Linhof 617, and may be even faster than setting up the Linhof - the shoot, sorry, not the post processing time.
Just 10 years ago, a camera data back for Nikon F5 cost more than a DSLR today with much less function, and the ability to print shooting data to film was a high tech feature only available by additional bulky data back, until Contax 645 made it a standard feature. Photography was more or less a serious hobby or professional pursuit, today, it is part of our culture and part of everyday life, for just about everyone. I don't see the change only from film to digital, I think the meaning of camera is also changed. I don't thin the size of sensor matter as much as the size of film and certainly not to migrate such idea into today's device.
But, the feeling of holding a fine camera in man's hand is perhaps the only thing didn't change.
Regards, K