Difference between M7 and M8?

I gotta always wonder where these 18 yr olds get the money to decide between an M7 and an M8 with a D200 back in the closet. I am 57 never been on food stamps, always worked. I would give my left n-t to be able to afford to have such a dilemna. Anyway order me a Bentley when you are through and good luck.
From the over 50 crowd.
 
intinsifi said:
I shoot B&W 75% of the time. Do you think that I made a wise decision by going the analog route? The second reason I am afraid to by the M8 is the value. I already see the D200 as a huge depreciating asset since it is digital. I see myself having the M7 for a long time unlike the other digital cameras I have had in the past.
Click to expand...

if you want a leica to keep for a long time, can i recomment a MP or maybe a M6? Less electronics and more mechanics. the thing about the M7 and M8 are that they are both highly electrical, albeit one uses film and the other has a sensor.

i sold my M6TTL to make funds for the M8, but lately have been doing alot of film shooting again and wish i had my M6 again...

M8 makes Amazing images. but there is something in film images that the M8 can never quite duplicate.

still, i use my M8 99% percent of the time and whip out what i have of my film gear just for fun. just to reminisce. i would never leave both though.
 
I think the M8 would be a nice camera to have, but I guess scanning isn't much of a drawback for me. I shoot a roll every 4 to 5 days. I dont shoot nearly as much as I do with my D200. Ive taken tons of photos with the D200 and most of them rot on my harddrive. Everything from the M7 has been printed in atleast 4x6.
 
This is a ludicrous question.
The M7, fine camera though it is, is merely a light box containing film, a shutter, and a lens mount.
A picture taken with an M7 will look substantially the same as a picture taken with any other M-style body (including my preference for film, the Konica Hexar RF) -- all other conditions being equal. The operative condition here, of course, besides the film, is the lens.
Same lens, same film, same light and exposure = same picture.
The M8, is a totally different proposition. Whether it beats the film Leicas or not is to a significant extent a subjective aesthetic judgment.
My own sense is that film M rigs still rule in B+W. The M8 wins in color, except for the most exacting film shoots, such as perfectly exposed Provia, etc.
 
I think the main reason I am confused is because I've grown up on digital. I decided to switch to film because I got tired of all my digital things becoming outdated. My first camera was an AGFA back in 1999. The images were 640 x 480, and they were terrible. It was a family camera, but I ended up using it most of the time. I'd say that the AGFA is what got me into photography. My second camera was a 4mp from Fuji. It had a few manual settings, but I outgrew it quickly. My third camera was the D100. I have pictures from my first two cameras, but I'm sad that the quality was so bad. I can't really do anything practical with the images. Do you think down the road that all the cameras with 10MP sensors such as the M8 and D200 will be looked down upon or have we gotten to a point where 10MP is good enough quality?
 
I doubt if there is much more the M8 could do over your D200 that the average eyes could notice, plus the D200 gives you things not possible with the M8, like macro, telephoto, speed, etc. I love the results with my M7, use the D200 for work, and had the opportunity to sell some stuff to buy the next camera lusted after...not the M8, but Mamiya 7. As wonderful as the M8 is, I have no desire to own it, and to offer an opinion on the OP's question...image quality between the two would be subjective, as the digital "look" is world's apart from the look of film. My opinions, of course.
 
You should keep the D200 for all those things that an SLR can do that are not what RF cameras are best for, such as macro work and long lens stuff, if you ever will want to do any of those.
I just got myself a Nikon Coolscan 5000 and I'm very impressed. The image files are *much* better than I used to get with the KM Scan Dual IV ... which is getting a bit rickety now after 3 years of pretty heavy use. Also you can scan an entire film at a time if you get the roll film adapter, so you don't have to keep feeding in short strips of film. You just set it up and come back when its done. Also the Digital Ice reduces the amount of spotting needed by a factor of about four.
Unless you plan on making very big enlargments, I'd say there's not a huge difference in practical quality between film scanned on this scanner and 10MP digital. I don't have an M8, but I have a Canon 5D which is 12.8MP. This is far better than film + scanning, but you only see the difference on prints bigger than about A3+. At normal print sizes, digital files are "cleaner", but the scans from film have more texture.
For film I generally use colour negative in the range of ISO 160-200, or 800-1600 for after-dark. You could get finer grain with Velvia but you'd have less dynamic range and too much color saturation for my taste. You can always go to B&W in PP, but if you use B&W film, you don't have the choice.
If you get an M8, you'll probably want at least one more lens for the short end because of the 1.3x crop factor. Also (from what I hear) for colour you'll probably need IR-cut filters for all your lenses, unless you are willing to accept the hassle of moving filters around.
HTH, John
 
Last edited:
cmogi10 said:
I'm sorry, but am I the only one who saw the thread title and thought they would post...

"well you see, one's digital..."

I told myself I wouldn't, but Oh well.
Click to expand...

Hey .. . I was so tempted to just post ...


1​


... but I restrained myself! 😛
 
charlesfoto said:
plus the D200 gives you things not possible with the M8, like macro, telephoto, speed, etc.
Click to expand...

😛 😛 😛

Macro on M8:
bloengeel.jpg



Telephoto on M8:
vlieg.jpg



Speed on M8:
dolphin.jpg



Speed and tele on M8:
2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Jaap,

Great images. However, for that work, you need the Visoflex. Also, I don't think you can have AF with this arrangement, which can be important for some work. For someone who already has a D200, that's not the route I'd suggest unless I already had most of this kit from earlier days with M cameras.
 
The dolphin is with the Summilux 75, no Visoflex, the seagull with the Tele-Elmarit 135, no Visoflex. Actually, I find AF would not have worked well with these subjects, as 1. With the dolfin the spray would have confused the AF, causing a wrong plane of focus, especially as you need to see it coming before it breaks the wave. Reaction time on a DSLR would have been too slow too. You need instant response. and 2. The seagull, AF would have had a hard time picking up the beak of the bird. It might as well have been its feet or a wing. Shallow DOF bird photography is far more successful with manual focus, as it is virtually impossible to keep the AF field on the eye or the beak and compose at the same time. A rangefinder is particularly useful, as you can see the periphery of the shot and anticipate the movement of fast moving birds. Plus, again, camera response time was crucial to get it just as its feet touched the water. Btw, I looked at your gallery ; both the Dolphin and the Gull were shot in the Everglades, coincidentally.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom