animefx
Established
I've considered the m8 as well, especially since (I've heard) I can find one for around $2,300 (I have yet to find one for that price) It looks almost as good as the m9 in my mind. My only issue is a 1.33x crop being an issue... I would like to start with a 50mm lens since it may be my only lens for a year or so.
The ability to literally take my camera *everywhere* has a huge appeal to me. I like the idea of taking it into the grocery store where a DSLR simply wouldn't work. Hehe
The ability to literally take my camera *everywhere* has a huge appeal to me. I like the idea of taking it into the grocery store where a DSLR simply wouldn't work. Hehe
Tim Gray
Well-known
Oh yeah, minimum focus distances. For most lenses, it's .7m. Some older lenses only go to 1m (older 50/1.4's), as do some of the longer ones and super fast ones (90/2, 50/1, etc.).
With only 2 exceptions that I can think of, .7m is as close as you'll get while still RF coupled. A couple lenses let you go closer with no coupling, but its a guessing game at best there.
With only 2 exceptions that I can think of, .7m is as close as you'll get while still RF coupled. A couple lenses let you go closer with no coupling, but its a guessing game at best there.
Ai Servo
Ai Servo
If you are having issues with AI SERVO then a rangefinder will drive you mental.
I use a 5D MKII and Leica M8s and they get used for different situations because they have different strengths.
I am always amazed how well AI SERVO works. It’s absolutely magic. What lenses do you use?
S.
Ai Servo
If you are having issues with AI SERVO then a rangefinder will drive you mental.
I use a 5D MKII and Leica M8s and they get used for different situations because they have different strengths.
I am always amazed how well AI SERVO works. It’s absolutely magic. What lenses do you use?
S.
Last edited:
lorenzo1910
Established
OK guys...back in the track...what about low light focusing? (OP question)
user237428934
User deletion pending
I had this behavior a few times myself. It spoiled a really nice scene where I wasn't fast enough because of focus hunting. But, I missed more moving scenes with the M8 because I didn't get the focus right in the hurry.
animefx
Established
Do you guys have any issues manual focusing in low light situations?
kevin m
Veteran
Autofocusing, like metering, is just a tool. It's up to you to know what to do with the results it gives you. Looking for "the answer" is a sure sign you're on the wrong track no matter what system you purchase.
Ranchu
Veteran
It's a tough call, like tom says. I've only used non Leica rangefinders, and generally I spend more time composing or waiting for my picture than focusing. I'm slower to shoot with them, but I like that. With AF, focus is quicker, but I shoot quicker too. It's a different ballgame. I would give the nod to AF in low light though.
One thing that really helps AF in one shot is double pumping the prefocus. The AF works by predicting how far out of focus you are and then moving the lens that distance, it doesn't check focus again after that unless you hit it again.
One thing that really helps AF in one shot is double pumping the prefocus. The AF works by predicting how far out of focus you are and then moving the lens that distance, it doesn't check focus again after that unless you hit it again.
Last edited:
soelin
Member
When I saw a used M8 with approximately 20,000 actuations at a local Camera store (Hunt's in Boston) listed @$2000, I jumped on it. I even got the sales person to give me a discount of 6.25% to offset the sales tax. The camera was, I would say, in excellent condition with plastic intact to the bottom plate. Came with everything but the box. Apparently, the shutter life is around 400K when the dealer called Leica to confirm (it's not easy to find what the M8's shutter life is, online). Even if the shutter fails, I could send the camera to Leica for a new shutter or Shutter/Sapphire glass/Bright line frames upgrade for less than a price of a new, decent Canon DSLR.
I don't think 1.33x crop factor should be a big problem. Also, coming from a 5DMk2, I also thought I'd have trouble with this. But, in reality, I'm fine with the crop factor. In M8 (like all RF cameras), you're not seeing through the lens. You see .68x field through M8's viewfinder with framelines for different lensese. Because of 1.33x crop factor, the 50mm frame lines are a little tighter (compared to full frame M6). I'm able to frame my subjects fine with slightly tighter "crop."
kevin m
Veteran
I love Hunt's. I walked out of there with a Hexar RF kit I had NO intention of purchasing before I entered the store just because they let me play with it to my heart's content.
Last edited:
beewee
Member
Not sure why people complain about the AF on the 5DII. I have a 30D, 5DII and an M8.2 and have absolutely no complaints about the 30D or 5DII's ability to AF. Are you using the off centre focus spots?
I rarely (3-5 times a year) use the off-centre AF points. 99.9% of the time my camera is set to use centre focus only and I simply point at something i want to focus on, hit the AF button to focus and reframe if the subject is static. If I'm shooting moving subjects, I use AI Servo and this has worked well for everything from birds in flight and snowboarders flying down half pipes (not something I'd even bother try to shoot with an RF body).
With regards to colour, the auto WB is definitely hit/miss on the M8.2 but if you're shooting RAW what difference does that make? Just select a bunch of photos in similar light, adjust the WB on one photo and 'sync' the settings in lightroom. It takes 2 seconds.
The main reason for getting the M8.2 for me is to shed weight. My M8.2 + 28/2.8, 50/2, 90/2.8 weighs less than 3lbs and this is perfect for hiking in the mountains (10km+ with 3000+ft elevation gain). I've done it with the 5D but it's not fun and takes the enjoyment out of the hike. That and the fact that landscapes don't really move so I can take my sweet time focusing precisely with the RF.
On another note, the M8.2 metering is nothing remotely close to what you get with the 5DII. I've never had a problem with the 5DII for as long as I've been shooting with it and in general the auto-look-at-the-entire-scene-and-find-a-smart-exposure-setting-for-aperture-priority setting works as it's suppose to. This is not the case for the M8.2 and I find it takes much more attention to properly expose the images without blowing the highlights. But I'm always up for a fun challenge.
Anyway, my suggestion is similar to everyone else. Try before you buy and try for a lot longer before you sell your Canon glass. I definitely see the DRF and DSLR as being complementary to each other and it does make sense to own both. However, if I had to pick one or the other, I'd stick with the dSLR.
I rarely (3-5 times a year) use the off-centre AF points. 99.9% of the time my camera is set to use centre focus only and I simply point at something i want to focus on, hit the AF button to focus and reframe if the subject is static. If I'm shooting moving subjects, I use AI Servo and this has worked well for everything from birds in flight and snowboarders flying down half pipes (not something I'd even bother try to shoot with an RF body).
With regards to colour, the auto WB is definitely hit/miss on the M8.2 but if you're shooting RAW what difference does that make? Just select a bunch of photos in similar light, adjust the WB on one photo and 'sync' the settings in lightroom. It takes 2 seconds.
The main reason for getting the M8.2 for me is to shed weight. My M8.2 + 28/2.8, 50/2, 90/2.8 weighs less than 3lbs and this is perfect for hiking in the mountains (10km+ with 3000+ft elevation gain). I've done it with the 5D but it's not fun and takes the enjoyment out of the hike. That and the fact that landscapes don't really move so I can take my sweet time focusing precisely with the RF.
On another note, the M8.2 metering is nothing remotely close to what you get with the 5DII. I've never had a problem with the 5DII for as long as I've been shooting with it and in general the auto-look-at-the-entire-scene-and-find-a-smart-exposure-setting-for-aperture-priority setting works as it's suppose to. This is not the case for the M8.2 and I find it takes much more attention to properly expose the images without blowing the highlights. But I'm always up for a fun challenge.
Anyway, my suggestion is similar to everyone else. Try before you buy and try for a lot longer before you sell your Canon glass. I definitely see the DRF and DSLR as being complementary to each other and it does make sense to own both. However, if I had to pick one or the other, I'd stick with the dSLR.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Ranchu
Veteran
Last edited:
tightsqueez
Well-known
Equal potential, biased flavors
Equal potential, biased flavors
My 5D MkII paired with a Eg-S screen and fast lenses do make a difference in low light but I have found that years of RF practice is much more accurate. The Canon is great out of the box but the Leica M requires most from its user. The only issue I have found with the M in low light is that you need to keep your viewfinder clean. Any finger smudge will greatly reduce contrast that is needed for focusing. Also, with wide angle lenses that need accessory finders can be extra cumbersome in low light. Using my 5D MkII + 24mm f/1.4 II is much quicker than my M9 + 24mm Summilux. Anything narrower than a 24mm on the M9 yields consistent results. Not to say the 5D MkII is lacking, it's just that my mistakes with the M9 are better (if that makes sense).
In terms of color. Well, when I first received my Canon I did a comparison with the M8 and actually liked the M8 files better. I'm not sure if this was the result of knowing how to post-process an M8 file inside and out or rather the lenses were doing a better job. With the M9 now, I even like the files even more than any camera I have ever used.
Comparing the Canon color and the Leica color is almost like comparing a Fuji film with a Kodak film, respectively. I guess it's what you prefer. A lot of the files from the Canon almost seem artificial in my opinion. There are certain hues and subtle tones that I consistently notice in the M8 and M9, and that goes for other photographer's images as well.
Personally, all the cameras described above are excellent. Each one offers individual perks but every one is sufficient to make an image of a lifetime. I like the M9 because it travels well every moment in life; there isn't a situation when it leaves my side.
http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2009/10/vignetting-correction-issues-on-leica.html
In response to the link posted above: Apart from worthless charts, algorithms and images of pure white backgrounds (great subject by the way - I think I'll start a documentary on various white backgrounds across the world), I have yet to see this dreaded red edge. Quite possible it is present in a few images but just maybe most audiences are too busy looking at the parts of the image that matter.
Equal potential, biased flavors
My 5D MkII paired with a Eg-S screen and fast lenses do make a difference in low light but I have found that years of RF practice is much more accurate. The Canon is great out of the box but the Leica M requires most from its user. The only issue I have found with the M in low light is that you need to keep your viewfinder clean. Any finger smudge will greatly reduce contrast that is needed for focusing. Also, with wide angle lenses that need accessory finders can be extra cumbersome in low light. Using my 5D MkII + 24mm f/1.4 II is much quicker than my M9 + 24mm Summilux. Anything narrower than a 24mm on the M9 yields consistent results. Not to say the 5D MkII is lacking, it's just that my mistakes with the M9 are better (if that makes sense).
In terms of color. Well, when I first received my Canon I did a comparison with the M8 and actually liked the M8 files better. I'm not sure if this was the result of knowing how to post-process an M8 file inside and out or rather the lenses were doing a better job. With the M9 now, I even like the files even more than any camera I have ever used.
Comparing the Canon color and the Leica color is almost like comparing a Fuji film with a Kodak film, respectively. I guess it's what you prefer. A lot of the files from the Canon almost seem artificial in my opinion. There are certain hues and subtle tones that I consistently notice in the M8 and M9, and that goes for other photographer's images as well.
Personally, all the cameras described above are excellent. Each one offers individual perks but every one is sufficient to make an image of a lifetime. I like the M9 because it travels well every moment in life; there isn't a situation when it leaves my side.
http://chromasoft.blogspot.com/2009/10/vignetting-correction-issues-on-leica.html
In response to the link posted above: Apart from worthless charts, algorithms and images of pure white backgrounds (great subject by the way - I think I'll start a documentary on various white backgrounds across the world), I have yet to see this dreaded red edge. Quite possible it is present in a few images but just maybe most audiences are too busy looking at the parts of the image that matter.
jamato8
Corroding tank M9 35 ASPH
The visoflex's I have show that my M9 has zero problem with lens flange to sensor. The image that I focus on the ground glass is "exactly" in focus on the M9 with the lens wide open.
On the 5D or 5DII vs the M9. I have all three and love the rendition of the 5D and will never give it up. The M9 is also great. They all have their pluses and I get great auto focus on the 5D or II in dark areas, no problem at all and I have used them extensively in field work. The M9 in dark areas, well that gets harder but I won't be without my M9 now either. They are all great if you use their strengths.
On the 5D or 5DII vs the M9. I have all three and love the rendition of the 5D and will never give it up. The M9 is also great. They all have their pluses and I get great auto focus on the 5D or II in dark areas, no problem at all and I have used them extensively in field work. The M9 in dark areas, well that gets harder but I won't be without my M9 now either. They are all great if you use their strengths.
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I find any defined point of contrast in even very poor light makes the M8 easy to focus. I've used mine a fair bit in light that made reading a shutter dial impossible but I was still able to get reasonably quick focus on my subjects!
Actually tonight is the first time I'll be using my D700 professionally to do the job I've done for the last couple of years with my Leica ... high ISO capability aside I am a little anxious about the Nikon's abilit to focus in this light!
Actually tonight is the first time I'll be using my D700 professionally to do the job I've done for the last couple of years with my Leica ... high ISO capability aside I am a little anxious about the Nikon's abilit to focus in this light!
swoop
Well-known
I am absolutely sure.
I am more comfortable focusing manually and get more in focus shots with my Leica's than I have with any autofocus system.
I've been using Leica's for years. And I guess I have more practice with them then most but I find the focusing to be quick. The only tricky situation is when someone is moving toward me. In that situation I focus ahead at where they are going to be and wait until the image comes together in the viewfinder. It works about 70% of the time.
I sold all my Canon gear to acquire the M8. It was worth it. While it limited my capabilities as a photographer. It was all I needed for work. Eventually I grabbed an SLR to use for those situation where a Leica isn't the most adept. Sports and product shots. For those scenario's any cheap crop DSLR will do. After I ditched the Canon system. About a year later picked up a Pentax K10D. That was stolen months later. And the I picked up a Lumix DMC-L1 and it worked well for what I needed. When it was outdated I grabbed an Olympus e-620. But I became frustrated with the 4/3rds format. Now I keep a Nikon D2x around with only a macro and telephoto lens. It spends a lot of time on the shelf but it's nice to have in the event I need it. Most of my work is done with the Leica.
I would go with the 90mm over the 75mm. I have both and use the 90mm along with a 50mm most of the time. It's a more useful combo.
I don't do much processing on my images. My standard flow is to adjust white balance, then exposure, maybe a bit of contrast and dodge+burn. I'll rarely touch saturation or vibrancy.
I will say I like the look of canon images better though. But the Leica is definitely more natural looking and true to what you see.
If you're undecided I suggest you go all out and get the M9. It is noticeably better than the M8. If only for the 1/3rd stop ISO settings. The noise performance is also a huge bonus. And if you use NIK Dfine 2.0, you can increase noise performance another stop. Bringing it into 5D/D700 territory.
animefx
Established
Thanks guys, this has been most helpful.
If anyone knows where I can get full sized DNG files from the m8 or m9 that would be great so I can see how I am able to process them in Lightroom vs. how I process my 5D mk2 shots.
If anyone knows where I can get full sized DNG files from the m8 or m9 that would be great so I can see how I am able to process them in Lightroom vs. how I process my 5D mk2 shots.
tom_f77
Tom Fenwick
I've moved in the opposite direction to most here... I came to rangefinders from OM SLRs to learn real photography, and then moved back to SLRs for affordable digital when I could no longer keep up with my developing and scanning. Initially I was unsatisfied with the DSLRs for many reasons but persisted.
Now, with 5Ds, and the availability of decent reasonably sized MF primes from CV and Zeiss the only things I miss about rangefinders are the soft plop of the M6 shutter, and being able to post work in the gallery here for pleasure and occasional feedback.
But everyone's different; good luck in your quest!
Tom
Now, with 5Ds, and the availability of decent reasonably sized MF primes from CV and Zeiss the only things I miss about rangefinders are the soft plop of the M6 shutter, and being able to post work in the gallery here for pleasure and occasional feedback.
But everyone's different; good luck in your quest!
Tom
Ben Z
Veteran
Coming in late on this thread so excuse if I say something that's been said already.
I have a 5D-I and an M8, only used a Mk-II for an afternoon, likewise an M9, so I can't weigh in on those models other than to say that the MK-II didn't wow me more than my Mk-I, and neither did the M9 wow me more than the M8.
As for color, I don't understand where people are getting their comparisons from. Even if you limit it to RAW/DNG and rule out JPEG entirely, the color still depends within each camera on the raw converter and the chosen profile. I use Capture-One v.4 with my M8, and there are 3 OEM profiles, none of which I care for. The one I use most of the time was made by David Farkas of Dale Labs, and occasionally I use one made by Jamie Roberts. They are all very different in the way they render the colors. Plus, I always use their "film profile" called "wide latitude" (or something like that). Before v.4 I used CS2's ACR which I found much better color-wise (and other ways too) to Capture One LE that came with the M8. OTOH I've tried Capture One for my 5D and found their profiles much less pleasing to me than either Canon's proprietary converter or CS2's ACR. Bottom-line, depending on what converter/profile I use, I could form totally opposite opinions comparing cameras.
I also do not see a whit of superiority of prints from the M8 than the 5D. If I processed the M8 prints using my 5D workflow I'd say the M8's prints were worse; vice-versa if I used the M8 workflow on 5D files. If I standardized on a single workflow for both cameras, I might say they both were worse than a DLux-3 if that workflow happened to be optimal for the DLux. I'm not into comparing anything but final prints, because that's the name of the game for me. In that respect, the IQ of both cameras is equal in my estimation, except the 5D is at least 2 stops cleaner in the noise department from 800 up. However when the 5D does get noisy (ISO 3200) the noise doesn't look as film-grain-like as the M8 at 2500.
Focusing, I've never had a problem with the 5D's AF in low light with fast lenses (35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8), or with manual-focusing those lenses (or some fast Pentax and Nikkor manual lenses adapted to the 5D mount), and that's with the standard focusing screen. And I'm nearsighted w/asitgmatism, need bifocals, and am close to the half-century mark.
I have a 5D-I and an M8, only used a Mk-II for an afternoon, likewise an M9, so I can't weigh in on those models other than to say that the MK-II didn't wow me more than my Mk-I, and neither did the M9 wow me more than the M8.
As for color, I don't understand where people are getting their comparisons from. Even if you limit it to RAW/DNG and rule out JPEG entirely, the color still depends within each camera on the raw converter and the chosen profile. I use Capture-One v.4 with my M8, and there are 3 OEM profiles, none of which I care for. The one I use most of the time was made by David Farkas of Dale Labs, and occasionally I use one made by Jamie Roberts. They are all very different in the way they render the colors. Plus, I always use their "film profile" called "wide latitude" (or something like that). Before v.4 I used CS2's ACR which I found much better color-wise (and other ways too) to Capture One LE that came with the M8. OTOH I've tried Capture One for my 5D and found their profiles much less pleasing to me than either Canon's proprietary converter or CS2's ACR. Bottom-line, depending on what converter/profile I use, I could form totally opposite opinions comparing cameras.
I also do not see a whit of superiority of prints from the M8 than the 5D. If I processed the M8 prints using my 5D workflow I'd say the M8's prints were worse; vice-versa if I used the M8 workflow on 5D files. If I standardized on a single workflow for both cameras, I might say they both were worse than a DLux-3 if that workflow happened to be optimal for the DLux. I'm not into comparing anything but final prints, because that's the name of the game for me. In that respect, the IQ of both cameras is equal in my estimation, except the 5D is at least 2 stops cleaner in the noise department from 800 up. However when the 5D does get noisy (ISO 3200) the noise doesn't look as film-grain-like as the M8 at 2500.
Focusing, I've never had a problem with the 5D's AF in low light with fast lenses (35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8), or with manual-focusing those lenses (or some fast Pentax and Nikkor manual lenses adapted to the 5D mount), and that's with the standard focusing screen. And I'm nearsighted w/asitgmatism, need bifocals, and am close to the half-century mark.