Leica M8 ---> Not Happy!

[Ara Ghajanian]

I don't care how many of you are offended, I need to tell the truth. I bought an M8 a few months ago. I liked it at first, but found a few things inexcusable. One thing in particular was the amount of noise in the photos. I found that 640 was the highest ISO I could set before noise made photos completely unusable. Even 640 was not very good. I sold it within a month and lost a few hundred dollars in the process.

I just purchased a Canon 5D. I took photos at ISO 1600 the other day with dim room lighting and there was no noise I could perceive in the images. How can a camera that presently costs $1899 produce images dramatically better than a camera which costs over $5000? I need Leica to explain this to me. I love their film cameras to death and would never stop using them, but the M8 is worthless to a professional.

Mind you, I AM a professional, not some amateur who doesn't know the difference between a prosumer and pro camera. I've used everything from Hasselblads to Mamiya to Nikon to Rollei. This camera is an insult to Leica owners and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Go ahead... flame me. I stand firmly by my opinion.
Ara

 

[FioreVelviamo]

I just have to ask: What kind of professional are you?

Are you any good?

 

[FioreVelviamo]

I don't get it.

I just saw your flickr shots. There are many other issues waaayyy before the noise issue.

 

[jasoncohen]

Ara... sorry to hear about your bad experiences so far... I think that for high iso performance the 5d is one of the best on the market, so to compare the m8 to it is a bit unfair. Also you mentioned that iso was one of many things that you were disappointed with, but did not see any other things in your post... i am just curious of what else was a disappointment for you...

 

[swoop]

I agree. It's a crap camera. But when I need to work in digital. The M8 doesn't make me have to change my style. So I keep it.

 

[arseniii]

M8 is the last in my wish list and it is there only for a reason of being an investment. If I'd want a digicam I will buy Canon for sure. Film Leicas are wonderfull you right here ;-0

 

[Ara Ghajanian]

I don't get it.

I just saw your flickr shots. There are many other issues waaayyy before the noise issue.

Listen to me clearly: I did not say the camera would instantly make me a better photographer than you. I stated that it was unacceptably poor at high ISO's.

There is no need to be insulting to the individual who makes this claim. If anything, my concern is that we deserve a better camera than what is offered. If Leica reads these forums then maybe they will put more R&D into their offerings before charging such high prices. We should expect more for our dollars (or Euros).

 

[bigdavid]

Will M8 hold its value or not?

Will M8 hold its value or not?

Not to add on to the flames. Die hard Leica supportor or not, one can't help but to question whether M8 is really an outstanding performer in the digital field compared to the beasts from Nikon and Canon. I understand its 2 different operating platform to start with. But with a digital sensor, sd card storage, battery dependable, iso settings and other features, everything else is the same except for the "major" mirror flip difference.

We understand the high standard of handling, the quiet operation, the stealth of Leicas cameras and M8 has not managed to keep up in my humble opinion. It is very loud, even louder than my 1D at low shutter speed. Operation is not straight forward, no jog dial and all, setting up the M8 is slow, Image quality far from being impressive at high ISO.

I think all the above are acceptable and normal for any digital camera, but at such price tag is simply audacious. My humble opinion is that Leica is still far behind in digital sense and if you shoot digital since the start, you will understand that M8 really is behind time.

Hence we all know Leica is not about incorporating the newest technology since the beginning. Takes many a testing for this very conservative company to change or add anything and going digital was considered such huge leap.

The question is: do you think M8 can hold it's value over the years like the previous Ms? M6 for example, retains its value rather well. Since a major factor of what contributes to the image quality is the film used (that will improve overtime I reckon). Overtime, the mechanic operates the same, optic wise can be improved further with newer lens of higher resolving power. In M8's case, its heart lies with the sensor (which is super pricey) and the processor (speed will be so important when you start shooting 20 mp in raw). Upgrading these parts I forsee will burn such a big hold in your pocket you might as well get a m9 or m10.

 

[Darren Abate]

I don't get it.

I just saw your flickr shots. There are many other issues waaayyy before the noise issue.

Wow. Allow me to award you with "rudest message of the week." Everyone's professional status aside, that comment was decidedly not pro.

 

[bigdavid]

Wow. Allow me to award you with "rudest message of the week." Everyone's professional status aside, that comment was decidedly not pro.

you got it. i call it: "die hard brand supporter's syndrome". sometimes people worship something they understand so little about. any negative remark will result in uncontrollable state of retaliation. 😱

 

[sonyleica]

I don't know why I used M8 recently more often than my DSLR, everytime I went out shooting. I guess in the last minute thought it was decision about the compactness of M8 and the convenience not to bring any flash! However I used DSLR for other situations such as good lighting, fast moving objects and need of flash.

 

[Avotius]

I know you will and have got the torch for this comment but I'm with you pretty much all the way, when we got our hands on an m8 two weeks ago and poored over the results that we took in the studio, undoubtably the easiest place to score the highest quality control from a camera, we were disappinted when comparing it to our bread and butter 5d. Yes the camera has very sharp results and really squeezed a lot of information from my zeiss and leica lenses but when we compared it to the canon's results we were disappinteed that inferior lenses on a better camera were more then keeping pace.

We came to a conclusion that the m8 would be a great camera if it was in the sub 15000 yuan(2600 dollars) category, which we felt generous considering what you can get for that elseware, but for the most part no it is not a good choice for a competitive pro who does not absolutly need to keep with the rangefinder platform.

I also decided not to post my conclusions here in a thread for fear of the whip but who cares now, we sure do not.

In a nut shell, we are waiting on something else to fullfill our feild digital rangefinder needs. We also agree there are some real advantages to the m8 but none of those justifies the cos
t of one which really sucks for us here right now given the m8 is more then 6000 dollars here.

 

[FioreVelviamo]

Wow. Allow me to award you with "rudest message of the week." Everyone's professional status aside, that comment was decidedly not pro.

If Sebastiao Salgado says the M8 is garbage, I'll listen.

If someone with garbage and blown red channel shots says the M8 is garbage, I'm sorry but I won't be listening.

In this case, the source is not credible. The M8 is not garbage 🙂

 

[TJV]

I'm with most of you.
For what it costs, even when it was released, it's not worth it. My personal experiences with three faulty units make me qualified to talk about how unreliable it is etc etc etc. Most of all, I didn't like the picture quality when they did work. It's all old news, I guess.
Having said that, if it was priced the same as a 40D I'd think it would be considered a worthy product with a heck of a lot of quirks.

Some people, especially over on the LUF, would send you hate mail and put dead animals in your letter box for saying the above. I hope you don't get hate directed your way from here.

I wait for the next model too.

 

[Ronald M]

How can you say this when I am going to Leica day tomorrow at Calumet with a new SD card. Bo who..

I will bring my D40 and duplicate the shots. I am sure I will end up agreeing Leica has lost its way.

You forgot the reliability issue. It is terrible and would not be acceptable for a $100 camera.

 

[kittyphoto]

-->ARA
If you don't see the difference between M8 and 5D, you are lucky.
If you see 5D is better than M8 you are more lucky.
You save a lot of money.

May I suggest you get 40D and save some more money.
You may not notice difference between 5D and 40D too.

I am a unlucky person who see the difference M8 and 5D.
I also see the difference between M8 and Phasone back.

When you see the difference. You will understand why people pay for M8, Phaseone, H3D.

Good luck,
kitty

 

[bigdavid]

-->ARA
If you don't see the difference between M8 and 5D, you are lucky.
If you see 5D is better than M8 you are more lucky.
You save a lot of money.

May I suggest you get 40D and save some more money.
You may not notice difference between 5D and 40D too.

I am a unlucky person who see the difference M8 and 5D.
I also see the difference between M8 and Phasone back.

When you see the difference. You will understand why people pay for M8, Phaseone, H3D.

Good luck,
kitty

ah... another brand loyalist. we all understand phaseone and H3D for crying out loud. I dare say its for the picture quality we are paying that kind of money. Can you find a comparable system in the market with lower price? The answer is NO. They blew the rest far far away. So how can you compare picture from m8 with them??? They are just worlds apart and the whole point of this debate is not even what camera you use. Its digital in general and price you are paying for.

that the picture quality of m8 is unacceptable, even worse than lower cost 40d or 5d. That said, please be objective and not play the smart aleck in the corner. that only shows how childish you are.

 

[rxmd]

M8 is the last in my wish list and it is there only for a reason of being an investment.

That is a fundamentally bad idea. Cameras aren't a good investment and digital cameras even less so. You lose 5-10% already upon opening the box and there's no way to recuperate that. Buy state bonds or something, they're way more secure *and* still more profitable.

If you're lusting for the damn camera, you'll do yourself a favour by admitting that it's lust and not pretending to take a rational choice.

Philipp

 

[Socke]

If Zeiss or Cosina had introduced a digital RF with the M8s capabilities some three years ago, RFFers would have seen it as proof beyond any doubt that digital doesn't cut it and film is the way to go.

 

[jaapv]

I don't care how many of you are offended, I need to tell the truth. I bought an M8 a few months ago. I liked it at first, but found a few things inexcusable. One thing in particular was the amount of noise in the photos. I found that 640 was the highest ISO I could set before noise made photos completely unusable. Even 640 was not very good. I sold it within a month and lost a few hundred dollars in the process.

I just purchased a Canon 5D. I took photos at ISO 1600 the other day with dim room lighting and there was no noise I could perceive in the images. How can a camera that presently costs $1899 produce images dramatically better than a camera which costs over $5000? I need Leica to explain this to me. I love their film cameras to death and would never stop using them, but the M8 is worthless to a professional.

Mind you, I AM a professional, not some amateur who doesn't know the difference between a prosumer and pro camera. I've used everything from Hasselblads to Mamiya to Nikon to Rollei. This camera is an insult to Leica owners and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Go ahead... flame me. I stand firmly by my opinion.
Ara

I must be doing something VERY wrong - ISO 640 with all noise-reduction, also in C1, switched off....

You know - the answer to your question is fairly simple, albeit a bit technical.Cmos sensors are more noisy than CCD sensors per se. So the noise reduction starts with circuitry on the sensor board and even before raw conversion. That produces clean files, albeit with some tradeoffs, specifically in microcontrast. Canon has this down to a fine art, but it does produce files with a specific look. Many photographers like that look, others don't. That results in reviews calling the Leica, which eschews such manipulation, "more filmlike" . A matter of priorities, I guess, and it clearly does not suit you. But calling the camera garbage goes a bit against the opinion of quite a number highly respected pros, wouldn't you agree?