why the 8.2 over the 8?..
I chose the M8.2 for several reasons, but others of course differ. Different strokes.
First, as a general principle, I tend to avoid first generation products that incorporate new technologies, preferring to wait for the second iteration, which often proves more reliable. My 2 M8.2s have remained problem free, and I haven't heard of many contrary experiences from others, unlike early adopters of the M8 or M9. I also follow this approach for cars, appliances and other goods, not just cameras.
Some of the differences between the M8 and M8.2 speak to these reliability issues. The improved shutter is one example, and the removal of 1/8000 shutter speed (as in the M9) provides more conservative action. Of course if the higher speed is essential for one's work, that's a different consideration. For me, it's unnecessary.
Second, the sapphire screen is more robust. Of course one can choose to use an inexpensive screen cover, but I prefer that the camera itself, without adornments, be more structurally sound.
The more significant issue for me is the improved frame lines, at least for distances I shoot. Having owned various film Ms for several decades, the 2m lines of the M8.2 are the best I've ever used. I believe Leica erred by not incorporating them into the M9.
Others may argue about the differences in black paint (M8.2) or black chrome (M8). I don't feel strongly either way. Both my chrome and black M8.2s still look great despite regular use. (I do, however, like the black dot that comes stock on the black M8.2.
🙂) I also prefer the grippier vulcanite covering on the M8.2.
One could argue that pics are unaffected by these issues (although frame lines and shutter speed may come into play for some). But, I think the M8.2 is just a better sorted camera, and I also think that it will retain a premium value over M8s, so that if I ever sell, I'm likely to get the premium back. There will always be fewer M8.2s than either M8s or M9s.
Jeff
