A reality check with the Leica M8

[Magnus]

Magnus, why would you spend all that money if the results are no better then a $900 consumer camera?

excuse me 900$ !

I paid 649 including a 4mb memory card.

.... but this was before I got the M8, I have no experience with digicams and I always thought the M8 .. well would be "Leica" quality.... I found out that in terms of image quality it doesn't differentiate form other... much. Like I metioned before if I would of known all this, I wouldn't of purchased it at all, but I have and I do like it but it's not worth the money, simple.... it is not worth the money.... just for the red-dot .... nah I don't think so.... and I mean the original leica red dot, not the huge one at the end of the lens!

and after all I am just a consumer taking all this marketing hype seriously ...


But thank god I don't have the institution to defend the product I purchased until the end of days just becasue I purchased it. .............

 

[Ben Z]

No I mean it - filters for the existing line and all that lovely old glass - internal filtering for any new stuff.

Jaap, they make a little badge you can pin on your coat that'll warn you if your N2O lines are leaking

 

[HAnkg]

Well Magnus if my digicam was producing prints equal to my 1Ds, my Canon gear would be on eBay tomorrow. It would be great to be able to slip my entire photo kit into my pocket!

 

[John Camp]

I believe the real long-term solution is incorporating the IR filtering in the lens design.

Yes, and it's probably do-able, but it will take 20 years to get the necessary range of lenses out. I'm happy with the filter solution -- I'm more worried about the electronics problems coming off the sensor. They'll eventually get them right.

People who don't like filters are like people who don't like CDs. It's just an archaic form of religion and there's no arguing with them. I'd suggest that everybody give up on that; I will say I prefer sharpness of the M8 to the softness you get with an on-sensor IR filter.

Magnus makes me laugh. Since he probably won't see any quality difference, he could save a fortune with one of these:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/funkeycam.shtml

JC

 

[jaapv]

Jaap, they make a little badge you can pin on your coat that'll warn you if your N2O lines are leaking

Scoff all you want but mark my words: It is a typical Leica solution: esoteric but impeccable from an engineering point of view, superior to any other solution in terms of quality, retro-compatible and not particularly friendly to their customer's wallets.

 

[Magnus]

I don't know anthing about 1Ds's ... but I suggest you try a R-1, you will be surprised, although it's not a small camera

 

[Ben Z]

People who don't like filters are like people who don't like CDs. It's just an archaic form of religion and there's no arguing with them. I'd suggest that everybody give up on that; I will say I prefer sharpness of the M8 to the softness you get with an on-sensor IR filter.

Purists who don't like filters at all because they fear the value-added of that thousand extra dollars they paid for a Leica lens will be diminished in the pix of their cats and bookshelves, are not the same thing as people who have experienced flare and ghosting in real-world photography in certain lighting conditions and will not be able to remove the filter with the M8 because of the IR contamination.

 

[Ben Z]

It is a typical Leica solution: esoteric but impeccable from an engineering point of view, superior to any other solution in terms of quality, retro-compatible and not particularly friendly to their customer's wallets.

By your definition the IR filters+coding is a most a-typical Leica solution (on all counts except the last one).

 

[jaapv]

Not really. Leica used to be known as a factory of adapter-rings that also happened to build lenses and camera's....

 

[rvaubel]

Purists who don't like filters at all because they fear the value-added of that thousand extra dollars they paid for a Leica lens will be diminished in the pix of their cats and bookshelves, are not the same thing as people who have experienced flare and ghosting in real-world photography in certain lighting conditions and will not be able to remove the filter with the M8 because of the IR contamination.

Ben

I'm about as anti-filter as you can get but the sad fact is, if you want the form factor of a rangefinder with the results of a full frame DSLR (almost, lets not argue) we are stuck with IR filters until at least the M9. And frankly, I can't wait.

Your concern about flare caused by shoting into the sun is very well taken. My test of filter use many years ago convin ced my this is the major bugaboo about filters. However, think about this. How often aare you shooting an extreme backlite scene where the IR contamination would make any difference? Think about it. Typically, the color balance in a backlite sign isn't very important anyway, colors are very subjective. I was looking at a lot of scenes that the filter could cause a flare problem and frankly, I would have just taken the filter off ! No harm done in 99% of the cases..

Thinking about it that way, makes the filter solution a little more palatable. At least for me.

Rex
I still don't like them

 

[jaapv]

I just spoke to Michael Huppert of Foto Huppert
He is sending out filters (including mine) The logjam seems to have broken.

BTW - OT This is a great shop for ZI gear as well

 

[Ben Z]

I was looking at a lot of scenes that the filter could cause a flare problem and frankly, I would have just taken the filter off ! No harm done in 99% of the cases..

In a club or bar or restaurant or at a theater or at a banquet or a wedding reception, or outside on a city street at night there are bright , directional point sources of light overhead, in front and to the side that cause flare and ghost images with a filter. And there are people in black clothing in all those situations. For all those situations, where the Leica M is particularly suited, the IR filters are a huge problem. For taking outdoor scenic snapshots in daylight, perhaps less so, in fact unless there was a lot of greenery you might even get away without the IR filter too. But for purely that sort of photography--which at this point seems to make up the bulk of images put up to "prove" what a perfect camera the M8 is--a rangefinder wouldn't be my first choice to begin with. I do do that kind of photography with my M6, that's true, but that's because I rather not carry a second camera system for what makes up maybe 10% of my subject matter, so I have trained myself how to compose scenics accurately with the M framelines.

we are stuck with IR filters until at least the M9. And frankly, I can't wait.

I don't think the wait for an M9 will be more than a year and I can wait that long. If it doesn't come, I'm still satisfied with my M6 for film, and my 20D for digital. I don't even have my tail on fire for a 5D. With slides (scanned) or digital I watch them on a big-screen HDTV (gave up messing with a projector and screen). I rarely ever print and never bigger than 11x14.

 

[ywenz]

Yes, I'd like to see more indoor, mixed lighting, candid shots in the M8 gallery. The film Ms are made for these situations. Is the M8 less so?

 

[jaapv]

In a club or bar or restaurant or at a theater or at a banquet or a wedding reception, or outside on a city street at night there are bright , directional point sources of light overhead, in front and to the side that cause flare and ghost images with a filter. And there are people in black clothing in all those situations. For all those situations, where the Leica M is particularly suited, the IR filters are a huge problem. For taking outdoor scenic snapshots in daylight, perhaps less so, in fact unless there was a lot of greenery you might even get away without the IR filter too. But for purely that sort of photography--which at this point seems to make up the bulk of images put up to "prove" what a perfect camera the M8 is--a rangefinder wouldn't be my first choice to begin with. I do do that kind of photography with my M6, that's true, but that's because I rather not carry a second camera system for what makes up maybe 10% of my subject matter, so I have trained myself how to compose scenics accurately with the M framelines.

Look at my gallery: I'm not "proving" anything; it is my style of shooting, and I've preferred RF's for that for decades.

I don't think the wait for an M9 will be more than a year and I can wait that long. If it doesn't come, I'm still satisfied with my M6 for film, and my 20D for digital. I don't even have my tail on fire for a 5D. With slides (scanned) or digital I watch them on a big-screen HDTV (gave up messing with a projector and screen). I rarely ever print and never bigger than 11x14.

Maybe, I think that is highly doubtful. Listening to what ZI has to say and seeing the products of Epson and Leica, I think we are at the limit of what is possible and likely to stay there for quite a while. I think you are totally right to be hesistant about the M8. It really shines when one prints large.

 

[Ben Z]

Look at my gallery: I'm not "proving" anything; it is my style of shooting, and I've preferred RF's for that for decades.

I wasn't referring to you specifically. Just that the majority of the "look at how great the M8 images are and there's no streaking banding, noise or magenta" are mostly outdoors where there are no bright point lights in a dark setting and daylight is more forgiving to IR, not to mention ISO 160 is sufficient. Your style and mine are more similar than different, we both shoot a variety of subjects in a variety of light, much of it while travelling. I always preferred an SLR however, until my eyesight precluded accurate focusing my compact Pentax Spotmatics (dark screen and no way to fit a + diopter and still wear my distance glasses, which is what I have to do). That is when, faced with switching to a larger pro-type SLR with larger lenses or a cheapie with plasticky lenses or a Leica and learn to work around the imprecise framelines, I chose the latter. Had a Leica for decades also, just never used it for regular duty until a couple years ago.

Maybe, I think that is highly doubtful. Listening to what ZI has to say and seeing the products of Epson and Leica, I think we are at the limit of what is possible and likely to stay there for quite a while.

Cosina, a film-only company, teamed up with Epson, a digital company with extremely little experience in cameras, yet despite that they managed to concoct a fairly decent product that is hobbled mostly by the light-duty mechanics Cosina recycles throughout its product lineup. In point of fact it is less IR sensitive than the M8 and it was done 3 years ago with technology that existed then. And lets be totally honest: we're taking Leica at their word (and their candor has been underwhelming of late) that they tried a stronger IR sensor coating and decided against it because the quality was not as good. For all we know they discovered the problem too close to Photokina to do anything about it, and have an order in right now to Kodak for different sensors which they'll start using as soon as they sell off all the current ones they already bought. Cynical maybe, but not out of the question.

To Epson the RD-1 always was a redheadded stepchild, in terms of marketing and support, yet despite that it's had a resurgence in demand since the debut of the M8. In my eyes that's a strong indication many people who were waiting to see what Leica would offer were not impressed. Both Epson's and ZI's attitudes are to a large extent based on economics: the high cost of developing and supporting a niche product to which a large chunk of even that is off-limits to them because their goods don't say "Leica".

I think you are totally right to be hesistant about the M8. It really shines when one prints large.

My problem is there isn't a room in our condo large enough to step back and properly look at anything bigger than 11x14. If buying a dozen IR filters just to make use of the M8 gives me hives you can imagine what my thoughts are on having to buy a new house

 

[nrb]

I wonder what all these proud M8 owners will tell us when a full frame M9 steps in the market late next year.

 

[J. Borger]

I wonder what all these proud M8 owners will tell us when a full frame M9 steps in the market late next year.

You should thank them because without M8 owners ............ there never will be an M9 .........
Waiting for the next best thing is just a waist of time .............. live is too short!

 

[jaapv]

I wonder what all these proud M8 owners will tell us when a full frame M9 steps in the market late next year.

"You're late mate, we have been having fun with ours these last ten years!"

 

[rvaubel]

I wonder what all these proud M8 owners will tell us when a full frame M9 steps in the market late next year.

With all the problems that are inherient in designing a 1.33X rangefinder, can you image what would have happened if they had opted to try for a full frame? They orignally said that it was impossible fo design a digital rangefinder because of the angle of incidence problem. Well they have solved most but not all of those problems. In the next few months I have confidence that the remaining issues will be addressed but with filters . If the M9 can be improved to the point that IR filters are no longer required, that would be more than good enough for me. Full frame seems like a quaint unrealistic wish in light of the design difficulties that we have been made aware of only ofter the release of the M8.

Rex

 

[Mark]

M8 Ease of Use

M8 Ease of Use

Thanks for the many good opinions expressed on this forum. I think this is valuable for folks thinking of making a purchase.

While there's been alot of comparison between DSLR's and the M8 mentioned in this forum, I'm surprised that there doesn't seem to be much mention of what strikes me as one of the more compelling reasons to buy an M8 -- relative simplicity.

The DSLR's and many of their analog SLR predecessors are so laden with features, settings, menus and other choices that I personally find them hard to use. For example, last week I was using my Nikon D70 to take pictures for E-Bay listings and the flash unit in the camera was automatically activating. This was causing parts of the image to blow out. I wanted to turn off the flash and couldn't figure out how to do it. After scrolling through the menus for 5 minutes, I just gave up and adopted a low tech solutiion; I used my had to prevent the flash unit from popping up.

The D70 is capable of delivering some great pictures, but to be candid, I don't really enjoy using it. Whether it's Leica or someone else, a rangefinder or a DSLR, I really wish the manufacturers would offer us a camera that's as easy and intuitive to use as the Ipod is for digital music. In other words, please give us better design and usability.