<snip...> not having experienced the so-called joys of shooting with a Leica, I'm struggling to find any practical benefits that such a camera as the M8 could offer, compared with cheaper models of similar resolution but greater flexibility.
The ineffable subtleties of the Leica appearance, loosley described as 'non-digital', or like the differences between a medium quality and fine quality wine, don't seem convincing to me. The chain in the processing from capture to print can be long and convoluted. One should be able to get any 'look' one likes. Merely using a RAW converter such as Raw Shooter instead of ACR can change the 'look' of an image enormously.
I'd also be rather concerned with the less than stellar noise performance at high ISOs. A comparison in the review shows a Canon 5D shot at ISO 3200 with significantly less noise than the M8 at ISO 2500. Do we know how accurate the Leica ISO ratings are? One might think because it's Leica the ratings would be spot on. If that's the case, then the actual comparison is between the 5D at ISO 4000-4400 (not sure exactly) and the M8 at ISO 2500.
The extra large viewfinder which allows one to see outside the picture format is clearly an advantage, but not more advantageous than any zoom on a DSLR which offers, probably most of the time, an even greater field of view, except when using the shortest focal length.
Rangefinder focussing might well offer greater accuracy, but at the cost of less speed. Not much point in great accuracy of focussing if you miss the shot.
My feeling is, the M8 is still a rich man's toy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83345\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's NOT easy to explain. I have a Nikon 12mp D2x and a 6mp Epson R-D1 with Leica glass, and in the last year, I've just drifted away from using the D2x, although I still take it out. I don't plan to replace it with a new Nikon. I am getting an M8.
You can't get any look you want if the detail isn't there. Sharpening a picture isn't the same as having a sharp picture. If the non-AA "look" is what you want, getting it right out of the box is different than having to manipulate 100 pictures at a time to try to get it.
We do know how accurate the Leica's ISO is, if Sean Reid's tests are corrrect -- it's very conservatively rated. The 2500 is actually 3200, the 1250 is actually 1600 -- in other words, move up to the next standard rating from Leica's rating. You say it's noise performance is "less than stellar." Reid actually says that it IS stellar -- just not as good as the 5D, which is the best at noise control. (The 5D ISO is also conservative at the top end. Reid said that 3200 is closer to 4000.) So the 5D is better on noise at the high end, but the Leica is good, and has more detail. More detail, less noise: take your pick.
You say: "Rangefinder focussing might well offer greater accuracy, but at the cost of less speed. Not much point in great accuracy of focussing if you miss the shot." Somebody else might say, "No point in getting the shot if it's out of focus."
As for the rich man's toy, if you look at rangefinder forum, you'll see that most M8 owners aren't rich -- there are whole threads on how you might go about financing or otherwise getting your hands on an M8. A number of people have pointed out that you could buy a one-size smaller car next time -- people routinely spend $25,000 for a car that lasts only four years; so buy a $19,000 car and an M8 which will last for a couple of decades.
As an owner of both a DSLR and a digital rangefinder, I agree that the DSLR is a lot more flexible, better for macros, for zoom capability, for telephoto shots, and certainly usable for everything else. I also don't buy the argument that the 5D or the D200 are huge obtrusive machines, because they aren't (although the 1DsII is, and to a somewhat lesser extent, the D2x.) And they all take good photographs.
But man, a rangefinder is just *different.* The body on the M8 I hope to have Saturday is smaller than one of the common zoom lenses for the 1DsII. You can put a whole Leica kit in a small Domke bag. You can shoot at night without a flash, and I really like the "look" you get from that.
I think your post suggests a faulty analysis, a common kind of disconnect. An analogy is a guy who likes, say, hard rock, and he sees a bunch of people enjoying dancing to disco. He says, "On a practical level, that's not enjoyable music, therefore they can't really be enjoying themselves..." And he says it, despite the evidence of his eyes that the ARE enjoying themselves. You say that you haven't used rangefinders, and despite lots of people's insistence that the handling is the most important thing about them, you analyze them based on your requirements: that flexibility is most important. But Gary Winogrand didn't use a Leica because he couldn't afford a Nikon...
This rush of enthusiasm for the M8 isn't faked: there really ARE a lot of people who like rangefinders. Might not be for you, but for other people, they're great.
JC
