buy an M8 in 2012?

Jeff S said:
Anyone who routinely makes b/w pictures after the fact or as a result of color flaws misses a lot of what b/w photography is about.
Click to expand...

Can't agree more. And unfortunately I'm one of those people. If Leica/Canon/anyone! would allow customizable parameters to be set for their B&W jpegs, I would do it in a heartbeat. But as is, the in-camera monotone images are not to my liking. They look like old 400CN put through a rush-hour Costco minilab. Maybe I'm being too critical. But then, I'm also way critical of my own black and white work.
 
Michael Tyler said:
Can't agree more. And unfortunately I'm one of those people. If Leica/Canon/anyone! would allow customizable parameters to be set for their B&W jpegs, I would do it in a heartbeat. But as is, the in-camera monotone images are not to my liking. They look like old 400CN put through a rush-hour Costco minilab. Maybe I'm being too critical. But then, I'm also way critical of my own black and white work.
Click to expand...

The solution is straightforward, though not plug and play, just as it was never plug and play with film. Exceptional b/w prints (the only output worth the effort) require the optimization of every part of the chain; with digital, this means a lot beyond camera and lens, including print software, printer, papers, custom profiles, inks and more...all coordinated with proper settings and calibration. It was never easy; that's what makes it wonderful when the prints 'sing.' (Of course the most important step is a picture worth printing.)

If your prints don't have that magic, then no offense, but the problem is you, not the M8. The proof is in my prints, and those from other good b/w photographers using the same camera. My recent exhibition of color and b/w prints at a major network TV studio was a great success...and nobody knew what camera I used, or cared (It was an M8.2 except for one image using an M6, but nobody knew that either).

Your first steps should be to shoot DNG, turn off your LCD (except possibly to check the histogram), use an incident meter until you can predict the camera results with ease, and then go about developing a disciplined workflow from camera to print. It takes time and effort...always did and always will.

Jeff
 
the m8 is fantastic...I use it for work all the time. I keep an 85 on my slr and a 28 on my m8 and just cruise around that way when i'm working. I bring a boat load of lights for when it goes dark anyway (i rarely shoot above 640 iso these days) because even the best camera at handling high ISO noise still has miserable dynamic range at those high ISO levels...sure there's no grit to the image...but the DR is still terrible.
 
tmfabian said:
the m8 is fantastic...I use it for work all the time. I keep an 85 on my slr and a 28 on my m8 and just cruise around that way when i'm working. I bring a boat load of lights for when it goes dark anyway (i rarely shoot above 640 iso these days) because even the best camera at handling high ISO noise still has miserable dynamic range at those high ISO levels...sure there's no grit to the image...but the DR is still terrible.
Click to expand...


Interesting that you combine the two camera systems together during a client shooting. I prefer to have two of the same (or at least similar) camera bodies to work with. Makes my life easier I imagine. Nevertheless, you got some nice pictures in your portfolio. But damn, raise your rates mate...😱

cheers 😀
 
Doug said:
+2; not just some fabrics, but foliage and skin tones for example. In a high-IR environment it becomes unmanageable....
Click to expand...

Even on the R-D1, which is much less IR-sensitive than the M8, this can be a problem. Particularly under tungsten lighting, I use IR cut filters on my R-D1. Probably the same is true for the M9, from what I've heard.
 
Matus said:
The performance of M8 seems fine (based on what I have seen), but I would be worried the get one - if major repair will be needed it may cost as much as the camera. I can not afford M9, but even if I could - I would get the longest possible warranty extension from some reputed shop (not sure how much would be possible). Just because the repairs out of warranty are so expensive.
Click to expand...

Warrenty (like backup) is for cowards only 🙂
 
I love my M8. But it took a lot of time and I had to sell it and buy it back to see it. The results with my Zeiss lenses are so sharp and the colors are great. I had a time where I followed the high iso hype and the M8 was not the right tool for that. But thats not what I'm interested in right now.
 
kermaier said:
Even on the R-D1, which is much less IR-sensitive than the M8, this can be a problem. Particularly under tungsten lighting, I use IR cut filters on my R-D1. Probably the same is true for the M9, from what I've heard.
Click to expand...
That's my belief too, that the M9's stronger IR filter is still not as effective as the external IR filter used with the M8... So, I commonly leave the UV/IR filter on a lens when it goes onto the M9. The resulting slight cyan corner shift also seems to reduce the pink-edges overcorrection issue.
 
overtoom said:
Interesting that you combine the two camera systems together during a client shooting. I prefer to have two of the same (or at least similar) camera bodies to work with. Makes my life easier I imagine. Nevertheless, you got some nice pictures in your portfolio. But damn, raise your rates mate...😱

cheers 😀
Click to expand...

I tried rolling double RF or double SLR before...having 2 of the same/similar camera types just seems odd to me. I find SLR better for longer FL's and rangefinder soooo much easier to work with in wider angles (just my way of working i suppose...and why i still dig the m8). haha...i hear ya on rates, unfortunately this is what the market will currently support here, nevertheless, i have quite a comfortable income level...even if i have to work a bit more to make it today.
 
If it works out for you its great! I usually have attached either a 24 or a 35mm lens on the one body, and a 50 or a 85mm on the second one. And I use my 5d IIs for it.

This side of the planet, its also always a fight about money issues (I charge between CHF4100 and 5800.- without Album). Of course it is, swiss folks like to keep it and save it, rather then spend it... Therefore I dont shoot weddings that often, but around 12-18 a year maximum. But those ones are really great and typically in stunning locations. Because these clients know what makes a great wedding day and how much it is worth.

Its always sad to hear, that the clients tell the photographer what to charge. It certainly should be the other way around...
 
Last edited:
Jeff S said:
If your prints don't have that magic, then no offense, but the problem is you, not the M8.

Jeff
Click to expand...

Well, let's leave artistic valuations to the eye of the beholder. I was speaking only of the step at which point color data is mapped into monotone. All other steps in the printing process being equal, I haven't been impressed with how in-camera jpeg engines render a black and white image compared to what can be done manually in PS, Nik, or DXO.

After all, we choose/obsess over the minute differences between Tri-X, HP5, or Neopan, right? I feel that level of attention is better translated into the digital realm with post-production monotone conversion, instead of letting the camera do it's default thing. If some camera manufacturer would give the parameters to edit their jpeg rendering scheme in-camera, I would love it.
 
Michael Tyler said:
I was speaking only of the step at which point color data is mapped into monotone.
Click to expand...

I understood your post. And my response is that the manufacturer can't replace the user...just as always. Even the look of the films you mention can be changed dramatically by exposure/processing times and techniques.

If you don't like default settings, why even bother with JPEG in the first place? I prefer to do my own conversions from DNG, and was making no judgment about your artistic preference; only that you need to be the one to determine and execute that preference, not rely on the manufacturer to do so, especially considering that not all pictures (at least for me) benefit from the same characteristics. The tools are available to get the look YOU want...no excuses.

Jeff
 
Jeff S said:
I prefer to do my own conversions from DNG, and was making no judgment about your artistic preference; only that you need to be the one to determine and execute that preference, not rely on the manufacturer to do so, especially considering that not all pictures (at least for me) benefit from the same characteristics. The tools are available to get the look YOU want...no excuses.
Click to expand...

Well put. I think we may have been trying to say the same thing the whole time. 🙂
 
I just shot a wedding in Marrakech / Guelmim. Wonderful country with lovely people, Morocco!


faris said:
I have had the M8 since it was first released. Shortly afterwards I bought a
second one.

Recently on a trip my D700 broke down. My wife's D-Lux4 called it a day.

1 month trip with only the M8 ( the cron 75 apo, and the cron 28 asph ).

It, imho, is as good as it was when first released.

p437880706.jpg

Marrakesh..an old door.

p.s With all the negatives ascribed to it; even today it can easily hold its own.
Click to expand...
 
I too have been thinking about an M8. I know the M8 will perform as I want it to. ISO is fine. This is more a question of cost and parts (sensor) replacements.

So I have 2 questions:

1) Cost: At this point would I be better off to wait until this fall? As Leica has they're M10 coming, and the mirror less option to sit between the x1 and m10. I wonder if the prices will come down? My feeling is they will hold well, but curious of others thoughts.

2) Parts. I know kodak sold off the CCD division before they started dissolving. But the M8 is also getting old now. At some point camera companies stop supporting old models. How long do you think Leica will support the M8, and keep parts on hand for (and even have parts availability?). Could this be a problem?

I'm okay if it drops $500 in price over a year or so (they've held $2000ish for 2 years now), but new models are coming. I'm more worried about parts/service and resale in a few years. As once a good used M9 comes down in price to the 4K range (helpfully with the m10), I think I'd like to get one.

Thanks.
Nick
 
I don't think Leica has said there's an M10 coming, that's just speculation based on what number comes after 9. 🙂 Some are saying it will be announced later this year, but that's total guesswork too, no info I've heard supports that. Vaporware... worth waiting for, denying yourself the use of a fine camera available now, for an indefinite wait time? Could be years. Perhaps there will be an M9.2 or some such as an intermediate model.

You didn't mention expired warranty, but that's a concern. Yet Leica has been repairing/replacing sensors (and perhaps other parts) at no charge when it appears to be a part defect, not user inflicted damage. Which wouldn't fall under warranty coverage either.

So, I'd say get what you want now and let the future take care of itself. As the song goes, "The future's not ours to see; whatever will be will be..."
 
Nick, I know what I'd do. Since I don't think too well, I don't think too often. I'd just buy the M8. If it made me nervous or I didn't like it, I'd sell it. Then I'd be sure about it.
 
To elaborate, and answer some of your questions.

Ideally I want an M9. I want full frame with no crop factor. I'd also like the better iso performance and not needing ir filters.
I know the M9 coming down in price is a few years away. I'm okay with that.

I'm also okay with loosing some money, I just dont want to see something bad happen to the M8's which could cost me thousands (price drops out, sensors no longer available., etc..). Just thought I'd ask for some opinions prior. Not that opinions are a guarantee, but I thought it a wise question to ask of the community prior.

The M8 is a fine camera, but when you really want an m9 it becomes a stop gap. A beautiful stop gap. But a stop gap none the less. 🙂
 
It's all a compromise, and progress keeps on progressing. Let's start a new Leica rumor about a new model that overshadows the M9 and even a future M10.

As the S2 followed the R9 in the Leica SLR line, suppose in rangefinders an N1 follows the M9. It will have the same 30x45mm sensor size as the S2. "Crop factor" is 0.8. It will be about the size of an M5 only thicker, just as the M8 is thicker than the M7. It will accept S2 lenses by adapter, retaining the electrical interaction, but will optimally need its own line of equally expensive lenses. It will have a big bright viewfinder with superimposed RF spot positioned electrically by signals from the lens. It will feature autofocus as well as traditional manual focusing, like the S2. Body about $23k, same as the S2. It will be the first and only medium format digital RF... Will you hoard your pennies and wait for it? 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom