A Summing up- and a Decision

HAnkg said:
The 5d is less then 1/2 the price of the 1Ds MKII but certainly not 1/2 the quality image, however photographers who choose the 1Ds are rarely accused of being status seekers or idiots for spending more then twice the price of the 5D.
Click to expand...

The big difference is that the 1Ds MKII is a professional body, environmentally sealed, and tough enough that you can play footie in the mud with it, wipe it clean, and continue shooting, this are features that are very important to some pro photographers.

With the 5D and the M8 you will have to stop shooting as soon as the first drops of rain fall out of the sky, or take a big risk, so for people that finds themselves shooting under adverse conditions the 1Ds Mkii is a necessity, the same cannot be said for the M8 since Leica has decided that environmantal sealing was unnecessary for the camera.

That said I agree that if you want a DRF camera likely to be repairable should it fail, and likely to still be around in a few years time, the M8 is the only game in town, often the M8 buyer is not a status seeker, but someone that really had only one choice.
 
marbrink said:
Is the use of IR filters a must? I'm thinking of buying a M8 now and wait for the two free IR filters, whenever you get them..
Is the magenta issue less now, with the latest firmware?
And lastly, where can I buy some IR filters? Heliopan or B+W.. seems to be impossible to find them.
Filters is not an issue for me becuase I always use UV filters anyway.
Click to expand...
The use is strongly advised. www.foto-huppert.de
 
HAnkg said:
The 5d is less then 1/2 the price of the 1Ds MKII but certainly not 1/2 the quality image, however photographers who choose the 1Ds are rarely accused of being status seekers or idiots for spending more then twice the price of the 5D. Looking at images on the internet won't really tell you anything about any of the cameras quality, although downloading raw files will give you a pretty good idea. If you want to comment on image quality you should have a look at the raw files and make prints to compare to whatever your benchmark for excellence is. Most of what is posted online is crap no matter the camera.
Click to expand...

It is well known that the 1DSM2 IQ is the same as the 5D, just a bit more resolution. People pay for the 1DSM2 because they want that pro body and the extra resolution. The extra cost of the 1DSM2 is worth it to those individuals. I guess you can say that if people really wanted the a DRF, then the extra cost is worth it to them. However, I don't remember the 1DSM2 being as plagued as the M8 when it first came out...
 
fgianni said:
The big difference is that the 1Ds MKII is a professional body, environmentally sealed, and tough enough that you can play footie in the mud with it, wipe it clean, and continue shooting, this are features that are very important to some pro photographers.
Click to expand...


That's just hype.

My 3 week old Mk11 N dragged itself off the flash bracket and from knee height bounced on the floor and split the corner RHS of the top plate. My fault, but I didn't expect a £500 repair bill. Fortunately, insurance covered it.

So don't play football with it. :)
 
Latecomer said:
I traded a Nikon D200, several lenses, flash and other equipment to get me in the hunt to buy the M8. The balance was still a large amount of money. You would have to call the M8's purchase absolute self-indulgence.

And do you know what? ... my pictures haven't improved! What's more without the 80-200mm I no longer have the reach, without the 12-24 I can't go seriously wide, without the 105 micro I can't even go small, without the grip and no spare batteries I can't even shoot all day, without the zooms I even have to walk around. My photography has been seriously restricted.

What has happened is I have faced the fact of my amateur status. With a 28, 35, 50 and 75 on the M8 there remain more photographic challenges than I will ever meet. And my experience so far with the M8 is that the attempt to meet my challenges will be joyful!

The D200 was and is a great camera. I enjoyed using it a lot. But the M8 demands a change in outlook, it is almost, for me, a new way of life.

Finally, when I bought the D200 the internet was a storm of criticism. Microbanding and God knows what else were thought to be issues that would kill the machine. But a lot of good folk are still in the queue to buy one. I suspect that current attacks on the M8 aare just as insecurely based as were those on the D200 In a year they will be history.
Click to expand...

Cameras with multiple operating modes and zoom lenses are inhibiting for people who don't have a strong vision of what they're after photographically. For those that do, the added reach and flexibility is a huge benefit. Although I had an M4 for many years I rarely used it but I switched to Leica M for my travel photography because I couldn't see to focus my small, 60's-vintage SLR any more and didn't care for the bulky plastic blobs that the new ones have evolved into. The lack of TTL image feedback and the narrow range of lenses I still find restrictive. Working around it has been a challenge, but not necessarily a happy or creatively inspiring one. Horses for courses.

"Attacks" on the M8 are based on fact, otherwise Leica would not be recalling them, issuing multiple firmware upgrades, and giving away filters and discounting lenses. The only thing that has a possibility of being "history" in a year is the M8 in its current design vis-a-vis the IR. It's not a possibility if you listen to the chorus of praisers, but once past the initial backlog, the sales figures will direct Leica's future actions.
 
marbrink said:
But do they have them in stock? I have found the filters on a lot of websites but not in stock. I don't want to buy filters for all my lenses if I'll get two for free later on.
Click to expand...

If you want to be sure call Mr. Huppert. A thoroughly nice guy. I got filters from stock from him. If anybody has them, it is he.
 
If I am now convinced that I want an M8, how do I go about getting one? They are out of stock everywhere it seems.
 
Ben Z said:
Cameras with multiple operating modes and zoom lenses are inhibiting for people who don't have a strong vision of what they're after photographically.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty broad statement. I can assure you that there are plenty of current photographers with strong visions whose work commands high prices and is widely published whose main lenses are not zooms. I use a Canon 1Ds and my main lenses are the 35/1.4, 135/2 and 90/TSE. -not because I'm intimidated by the range of choice that a zoom offers -I just find the results and the ergonomics of these lenses to be outstanding. I've nothing against zooms and I'm considering picking up the 24-105/4 L for certain types of work. But you might want to survey the top 100 photo books of the last decade, you might be surprised by the number of images made with prime lenses.
 
You are infering that I said anyone who chooses fixed focal lenth lenses is inhibited by zooms. That is clearly not what I said. I said that zooms are inhibiting for those without a clear vision of what they're after. Perhaps a better word than inhibiting would've been "overwhelming". Just like "expert mode" can be overwhelming to someone who isn't an expert.
 
HAnkg said:
... But you might want to survey the top 100 photo books of the last decade, you might be surprised by the number of images made with prime lenses.
Click to expand...

I know I'd be extremely surprised to see what lens or camera was used at all for any of these "top 100 photo books" images. I'd be hard pressed to find such attributions in my library (Yes, I do have my share of such books, although I've no idea what the "top 100" such books would be. No idea.)

All that counts is the image. Not the camera. Not the lens. Just the image. Whatever works for you or for a particular job is the best tool...at the time.
 
I am Nikon enthusiast. I have a Nikon D70. I shoot D-SLR, but was thinking of shooting with a Leica. I just didn't want to have to use film. I would prefer to use a digital Leica. The price seems quite steep for the digital, but I have read a great review from a few online places like Illuminous Landscape, (I think that's the name). This guy raves about the M8. I have never owned a Leica. I tried a Bessa R a few times. I am not used to a rangefinder style cmaera, having shot with SLRs. Is the Leica just as professional a camera as Nikon and Canon? What would you use the Leica for besides street photography or news/documentary styles? Is it more of a cult thing? I am just trying to justify the expense of the camera system. I was thinking of buying into a medium format system, but I don't want to shoot film anymore, and can't afford the digital backs, so that's out.

Also, can you open these files in Adobe? What are the requirements of DNG?
 
Good thoughts- but do yourself a favour: buy a Zorki or any other RF and find out if you like using such a camera, before you shell out 5000$. It is really different from (D)SLR photography. I use mine for general photography and landscape and would not use anything else - but that is me. And yes- the M8 files are out there with the best that any pro camera can offer.
The files can be opened in a number of programs, including Lightroom, but best results are with C1 (supplied with the camera)
 
shadowfox said:
Okay, let's have a look:
- Case A: My $700 Olympus E-300 is now sold at $400 after only 2 years.

- Case B: A new OM-4 retails at $600 (street price is about $400, but for the sake of the argument, let's use $600) in '85, now it's traded on eBoy for around 200-400 depending on condition

So we see the same decrease in price after ... let's see... 2 years for digital and 20 years for film!! THAT's what I mean by "healthy". And this cases are only for Olympus, I'm sure we can easily come up with the same cases Canons Nikons and Pentaxes and soon... thanks to M8, for Leicas also.

As for the size of the market, it's irrelevant, I said healthy, not humongous :) but I maintain that used digital cameras won't even have that small market 20 years from now.
Click to expand...
But if you want to think economically (not really sensible for hobby camera's imo but relevant for pro's) The digital camera will have saved you its price several times over in film and developing not used....
 
lainer said:
I am Nikon enthusiast. I have a Nikon D70. I shoot D-SLR, but was thinking of shooting with a Leica. I just didn't want to have to use film. I would prefer to use a digital Leica. The price seems quite steep for the digital, but I have read a great review from a few online places like Illuminous Landscape, (I think that's the name). This guy raves about the M8. I have never owned a Leica. I tried a Bessa R a few times. I am not used to a rangefinder style cmaera, having shot with SLRs. Is the Leica just as professional a camera as Nikon and Canon? What would you use the Leica for besides street photography or news/documentary styles? Is it more of a cult thing? I am just trying to justify the expense of the camera system. I was thinking of buying into a medium format system, but I don't want to shoot film anymore, and can't afford the digital backs, so that's out.

Also, can you open these files in Adobe? What are the requirements of DNG?
Click to expand...

As jaapv stated, that it is a different style of shooting than SLR.

Is the Leica just as professional a camera as Nikon and Canon?

I own a Canon EOS Mk II 1ds which imho is built more reliably than the M8, but not more reliably than the film based M's. The only meaningful difference being the environmentally sealed construction for the Canon and the lack thereof for the Leica. Arguably the Leica M lenses are as good (likely better) as anything available for my Canon.

What would you use the Leica for besides street photography or news/documentary styles?

I have found myself reaching for my Leica RF's for low light and/or wide to normal lens applications. You might add landscape, groups of folks, indoor events ... etc. I reach for my Canon for some portraiture (135 2.0 lens rocks) and zoom/telephoto apps. I also expect to continue to use my 14mm EF lens for some wide angle architectural tasks when I am not looking for spontaneity.

The longer the focal length of the lens, the smaller area within the viewfinder one has to compose and focus for the shot. In addition, longer lenses exhibit shorter depth of field with the result of less reliable use of range focus.

Having said that, my M8 is due to arrive next Thursday.
 
jaapv said:
OK. So where is the rangefinder window on a 5D? And what does the camel cost you need to carry your medium format back and lenses? You totally miss the point. This is a RF camera with a IQ in the same range as any top-end camera, of which the cheapest is the 5D, with lenses that are not as good and far more bulk, to a DMR and R9 body, with lenses and pictorial quality about the same and more bulk, at about double the price af a M8. Or a 1DSII, at also nearly double the price and double the size. And we are comparing a Hummer to a Porsche.
Click to expand...

You are so wrong here. Lenses better and hummer to a porsche. You just gave yourself away having little real experience and a serious bias. Do some of you really know what you're talking about or is this something someone said on another forum or is this leica propaganda. I'm not trying to be disrespectful of you but you are wrong. Canon L glass is superb with few exceptions. Larger yes but the M8 isn't auto focus, auto aperture (not needed but esential in the slr) , smaller sensor, fewer modes, fewer pixels, slower motor and very limited lens selection. Above all the camera has far fewer problems if any. Leica lenses are simply not better and I say this as a professional shooting leica for almost forty years and canon for almost 4. I have a darn good concept of what a great digital file looks like having shot a few hundred thousand frames with top end digital equipment including 4x5 scanning backs and I see nothing that wows me about the M8. I think, and this is just my opinion, that most of the wow's are coming form digital virgins. By this I mean folks that have little experience with anything other than a point and shoot digicam and having only average or less skills in photography. No disrespect here and not truing to flame but just an observation. From what i've seen most people with M8 are the classic weekend shooter that takes baby pix, family gatherings and vacation pictures. No problem with that and this is what the camera is really designed for. I would hardly call the M8 a pro tool. For me as a pro any camera has to pull it's own weight and the M8 just won't do that with all the issues and the price tag. It just too limited in performance with 10mp, 1.3 crop and marginal image quality with issues like the magenta and banding not to mention flare (yes I said that). I've shot my 1DsII bodies under conditions like rain that the M8 would have died early in the shoot. You'll certainly find a few pros using them but leica isn't threatning canon or nikon or even olympus at this moment.

I'm glad everyone loves the M8 and hope you make some award winning images but think before you make statements like leica glass is better than someone elses. Think about these statements first before you look foolish. Those of us that have the knowledge and experience will only have a good laugh because we know better. Given a choice between a 20D and L glass and the M8 there's no question I would take the 20D.
 
Last edited:
You don't have to believe me- after all, I'm not a professional (in your field) but I think that nearly forty years of Leica M use might give me a perspective. And I don't think that four years Canon DSLR make me a digital virgin. Yes - the Canon is a great tool for you - in your line of work. But first define what a pro tool is,before you call me foolish. Because, as an outsider - I see a number of respected pro's making far more rash statements on the M8 than I do. Have a peek at LUF for instance. If you read my posts, the only thing I ever stated was that the M8 files are in the same class as other top-end 135 camera's, but that they seem to print as clean as mid-format film. Yes, I took somebodies word for that (although I have a 60x40 hanging in front of me that bears that out - but it probably wouldn't wash with you being amateur or weekend shooter work) namely David Adamson's, whom, as a pro you may have heard of. Other highly regarded photographers have stated the same. If you don't get the same results you might try copying their workflow. Anyway, your last line shows that you totally missed the point of my post: The m8 is a rangefinder, the best there is right now and pretty good to boot, so there is absolutely no sense in comparing it to any DSLR, as that is apples to oranges (or Porsches to Hummers, as I put it to your seeming displeasure.) I don't really care if you prefer a 20D, or a 1DSII or a cellphone for that matter. We are discussing rangefinders here.
 
Last edited:
Looking back at your statement it certainly looks like you're comparing the M8 to the 5D and 1DsII and canon vs leica glass. I might be wrong here but it certainly reads that way to me.

I have a good friend that's a very fine studio portrait photogapher that I introduced to digital. His previous work was all hasselblad work on color neg. He makes stunning images up to 40x50 inches. He started shooting with a 20D and his 30x40 inch prints were comperable to the same size in MF. One thing I've learned about digital is some subjects with limited detail in the subject can be enlarged very well like a portrait. Now a subject with very fine detail like a scenic with folliage will just not enlarge well. Another thing I've learned is there is no substitute for pixels as there is no substitute for square inches of film. In my area of photography, commercial, I find digital running out of steam quickly. 10mp is not sufficient for much in the commercial world other than 1/2 page reproductions and some full page. I have and know folks that have stretched our old D1 nikons (2.75mp) and our nikon D1x (5.7mp) cameras but when compared to images with pixels behind them there's no comparison. Enlarging can be done but there is a real limit to how much information there is in a given MP file. I'll even go so far to say in recent months I've had calls from art directors requesting work form LA and other areas around the country and the statement is "you do shoot digital don't you?" and "does your camera have 12 or more MP's?". I had one say no less than 10mp but whaere does the M8 stand here?

Jaapv, you brought up the subject of canon dslr's and lenses not me, there is a direct comparison between the M8 and other digital capture devices because they all compete in the pro digital world. Lenses have to be compared and so do the files whether a scanning back, MF 39MP back, 1DsII or M8. Clients don't spot you points because you shoot RF vs DSLR's. In the end it's all one big happy family.

When I read some of the statements here I only laugh and see someone that believes the hype or is trying to justify the expense of a less than stellar camera. It's your choice how you spend your money but I just can't sit back and let statements like some I've read here go uncallenged.
 
David Adamson (see: http://www.adamsoneditions.com/ http://www.dpandi.com/adamson/index.html) is digital printer for Robert Frank, Annie Liebovitz, Lee Friedlander, William Christenberry, Bruce Weber, Chuck Close to name a few. David says he is blown away by the quality of the M8 files printed at 30x40 and David has scanned and printed thousands of exhibition prints from every film and digital source going back to the beginning of digital printing. Here is a link to the discussion on the Leica forum:

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/9022-30-x-40-inch-m8-prints-9.html?highlight=30+40+print+epson#post99480

Heres is an anecdote he relates:
“Here is a picture from this morning of the photographer William Christenberry and artist Yankel Ginzberg at the studio, both after looking at my 30x40 M8 prints. Bill is a famous user of everything from brownies to 8x10 view cameras and his new book published by aperture was voted one of the four most important books of the year by Time. I asked him what he thought of the prints and his quote was " I thought I was looking at prints from an 8x10 neg" his next question was can I get one of these camera's now? “

Now before everyone freaks out and claims that he is saying that the M8 = 8x10 quality he was just relating an off the cuff remark from Christenberry about the quality of the print.

I have some experience in digital myself having worked on all the first production drum scanners, the first commercially available paint system (think ½ the functionality of photoshop for $1,000,000.). I owned one of the first prepress-retouching studios in NY to actually be profitable with a 100% digital workflow and counted L'oreal, Revlon, Cartier and Mercedes-Benz among my clients. My first DSLR was a Kodak/Canon monstrosity that cost $16,000 and produced 1.5MP files. I used Leica M's when I was working for a newspaper in the 70's and today I use Canon 1Ds and L lens for commercial work which is about 20% of my billing (design is the rest), it's been 5 years since I owned a Leica. So I have no ax to grind.

Yes the L lenses are great, the 135/2 is as good in its results as any lens that I have used in any format but Leica does make great glass and in some cases has an edge (wide, all the 50mm lenses) on Canon. I won't go in to value, whether filters are acceptable or not, or SLR versus RF, as what is value and ergonomic heaven for one is a nightmare for someone else. But as to image quality, I have had a look at the raw files and I have to agree with Adamson, Leica has produced a machine capable of producing first class images (assuming you have the fixes and the filters). That doesn't mean you should run out and buy it, but it's good enough that I'll be using a Leica again in the not to distant future for the first time in years. As to reproduction in web printed CMYK publications -by the time you screen it at 133 or 150 line screen a correctly prepared file (if the designer has not cropped out 1/2 the file) from an M8 would make a spectactular 2 page spread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom