Do you agree with Sean Reid's assesment of the M8.2?

[sreidvt]

It sounds like Mr Reid photographed his bowl-of-fruit-is-the-color-OK? test with IR filters installed this time.

Kudos.

I'm guessing you haven't seen the article. There are no picture quality tests yet at all. Moreover, I have no reason to believe that the file quality will be different from that of the M8 (when both cameras are using the latest firmware). That's not an area where they've made changes yet.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[sreidvt]

I was a subscriber to Sean Reid's site (my subscription ran out and I haven't yet renewed it) and I found his reviews well-crafted. But in the end, what's significant to him might not necessarily be significant to everybody. And what delights him might not delight everybody.

Yes, that's certainly true and always will be. When I write a review I try to describe "the thing itself" as clearly as I can. My opinions about that thing, then, are secondary and I always expect that the reader will come to his or her own conclusions.

Cheers,

 

[sreidvt]

Isn't the M8 and the M8.2 the same camera with the new M8 upgrades, updated firmware, and a new paintjob? So if one has the M8 there's no point in grabbing an M8.2 when you can just hand it over to solms for $1500.

The only thing on the feature that seems an obvious difference is the framelines.

The upgrades will bring some of the M8.2 features but not all of them.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[photogdave]

Yes, that's certainly true and always will be. When I write a review I try to describe "the thing itself" as clearly as I can. My opinions about that thing, then, are secondary and I always expect that the reader will come to his or her own conclusions.

Cheers,

Please don't be a stranger here Sean!

 

[TJV]

It sounds like Mr Reid photographed his bowl-of-fruit-is-the-color-OK? test with IR filters installed this time.

Kudos.

haha!
I'm surprised he gets so much cred, to be honest. I had not read his first glowing review until after I got my M8 and the first 10 pics I took with it turned out very strange looking indeed. Some more internet searching, after reading his article, and it seemed most people with the camera were seeing what I was. A lot of magenta...

But that's old news and I'm over it. It I could afford an M8.2 now, I'd probably get it.

 

[RIVI1969]

Unfortunately those significant upgrades have nothing to do with image quality... why they don't addressed the sudden dead, the magenta cast and the high iso noise issues intead? I wish we could see soon pictures taken with the new $2000 Sony a900 FF 24mp camera with Carl Zeiss glass on it... how somebody can justified $6500 for a body only?

 

[Eric T]

The M8.2 upgrade is so insignificant that it keeps my M8 relatively current. Current, that is, for digital rangefinders! I have no desire to make this upgrade.
It seems to me that some simple firmware upgrades could significantly and cheaply improve this camera. For example, make changes to ISO, EV, and WB more rapid. Also, reduce the noise. Anything above ISO 320 is just too noisy.

 

[tomasis]

I think that upgrades for M8.2 can be significant enough to lock new eventual buyers (not M8 users which can update instead if they want). I can think me as an eventual buyer because I love all upgrades. Those are enough significant for me not wanting buy used M8 instead Im wanting wait for a used 8.2 (I know Im cheap ******* but hell Im an amateur anyway). The most important upgrade for me is silent shutter (also sapphire glass so I wouldnt worry about scratching, my rd1 cheap plastic cover is already messed up so argument as buying plastic cover is not enough). Vulcanite is hell nice to have when Im used to old time M.

I think that the new accessory made me considering last "push" me into M digital system because I'm enjoying 1:1 vf in Rd1 so I see 1.4x as interesting thing which can convert M8 to digital M3 but a bit better more close to 1:1. Question is it now if I can see 35mm framelines (fov 50mm) with the loupe when I wear eyeglasses.

Maybe I'm single person alone here who wants M8.2 considering how many posts are spilled out about new products here.

 

[rolo]

Has Sean Reid actually had his hands on the M8.2 ?

I do not know the answer, but it seems quite important to me that he should have done for this report.

 

[RIVI1969]

You are right... but in that case Canon offers you a little more bang for the money than a neat crystal LCD...
(I would love to have an M8 though)

 

[padraigm]

I like most of his reviews. However for the M8.2 I think he has greatly overstated how significant or effective the quieter upgraded shutter is. In my opinion it's the motor that is the biggest problem and with that recocking as it is, no matter how quiet the shutter may be, it will still be noisy and noticeable. You won't get the quiet shot like the M's. About the only benefit I see is possibly having a 1/4 stop or so better hand held shots. A grand for that is quite a lot.

 

[shimo-kitasnap]

I swear, if zeiss decided to come out with a digital M tomorrow, now that their partner sony have released that full frame a900; and offered it at the same price as an a900, the folks at leica AG would all wet themselves.

Come on, Canon, Nikon, Sony have gone full frame and at half the price of the M8.2.

 

[J. Borger]

I agree with Sean!
More precise framelines at further distance + quieter less shakey shutter are more important to me than more MP's or less noise at high iso.
Auto iso ... i will never use.
EV dial .... not important to me at all because i use the M8 meter as a spotmeter and prefer to recompose.
Vulcanite cover .. very nice and usefull (less slipery!)
christal LCD ..... not necessary because the curent LCD does not scratch that easy.

I could not care less what Canon or Nikon offer ...... been there dumped their systems...... a full frame M9 would be very nice for me in the end for 1 reason allone: the availability of so many nice 50mm lenses in different flavours (old & new) which i would love to use as 50mm lenses.

 

[jklotz]

There is so much discussion about the M8 not being the megapixels of Canikon's, not having the clean higher iso's, no full frame, etc. One point I almost never hear is what the camera is all about - I ride motorcycles; one can purchase a Ducati. An Italian bike with much cache, great looks and a tradition of racing wins. They are coveted by collectors, desired by those who can't afford them and looked at as an icon of motorcycles. Or one could purchase a Japanese bike (Suzuki, Yahama, etc.). It has more horsepower, gas milage is better, they are readily available and highly discounted. It will almost never break down, parts are cheap and will beat the Ducati in almost any performance test, reliability test or otherwise. (and let's not even get into the cost of maintaining a Ducati! My 6K service was almost $1000!)

So why would anybody buy a Ducati? The same reason somebody will buy a M8 over a 5D. You know, going into it, the lenses are horrendously expensive, you have the use IR/UV filters, higher ISO noise, inaccurate frame lines, etc. Simply put, if the quirks and known problems detract from your ownership experience, and you crave the reliability and better performance of a Japanese camera, the M8 is not for you.

Personally, I have an M8 and a 5D. Horses for courses. But I read post after post berating Leica for not making a Japanese like camera. What's the point? It is what it is. Use it for what it's strengths are or sell it and buy something that will make you happy.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Sean Reid published his first mini-review of the M8.2 on Sunday night. He concludes:

" That said, three of the improvements in the new camera (the frame line masks, shutter and EV control/display) will indeed make the M8 significantly more useful to many professional and serious amateur photographers."

This seems just silly to me. How can anyone take such minor refinements, some of which are arguably useless (the EV control/display), and claim that they are "significantly" more useful?

It's the "ME" culture. If something doesn't fit to a particular person right away, they declare it unfit for everyone.

 

[tomasis]

There is so much discussion about the M8 not being the megapixels of Canikon's, not having the clean higher iso's, no full frame, etc. One point I almost never hear is what the camera is all about - I ride motorcycles; one can purchase a Ducati. An Italian bike with much cache, great looks and a tradition of racing wins. They are coveted by collectors, desired by those who can't afford them and looked at as an icon of motorcycles. Or one could purchase a Japanese bike (Suzuki, Yahama, etc.). It has more horsepower, gas milage is better, they are readily available and highly discounted. It will almost never break down, parts are cheap and will beat the Ducati in almost any performance test, reliability test or otherwise. (and let's not even get into the cost of maintaining a Ducati! My 6K service was almost $1000!)

So why would anybody buy a Ducati? The same reason somebody will buy a M8 over a 5D. You know, going into it, the lenses are horrendously expensive, you have the use IR/UV filters, higher ISO noise, inaccurate frame lines, etc. Simply put, if the quirks and known problems detract from your ownership experience, and you crave the reliability and better performance of a Japanese camera, the M8 is not for you.

Personally, I have an M8 and a 5D. Horses for courses. But I read post after post berating Leica for not making a Japanese like camera. What's the point? It is what it is. Use it for what it's strengths are or sell it and buy something that will make you happy.

good comparison.

BMW R 1200GS Adventure makes me mouthwatering along with HP2, F800GS, G450X. Im more into dirt than asphalt. But BMW is expensive as hell according to Americans, MC reviewers. Almost double price of one japanese in Us market. That comparison can be relevant along with Ducati. I see no problems if very normal people would buy Ducati Monster or Desmosedici RR while having passion for motorcycles.

 

[sreidvt]

Has Sean Reid actually had his hands on the M8.2 ?

I do not know the answer, but it seems quite important to me that he should have done for this report.

Yes, indeed. It's sitting here next to me as I write.

Cheers,

 

[sreidvt]

I like most of his reviews. However for the M8.2 I think he has greatly overstated how significant or effective the quieter upgraded shutter is. In my opinion it's the motor that is the biggest problem and with that recocking as it is, no matter how quiet the shutter may be, it will still be noisy and noticeable. You won't get the quiet shot like the M's. About the only benefit I see is possibly having a 1/4 stop or so better hand held shots. A grand for that is quite a lot.

Have you tried it yet?

Cheers,

 

[Olsen]

I swear, if zeiss decided to come out with a digital M tomorrow, now that their partner sony have released that full frame a900; and offered it at the same price as an a900, the folks at leica AG would all wet themselves.

Come on, Canon, Nikon, Sony have gone full frame and at half the price of the M8.2.

If it was possible to make a rangefinder camera - with this steep angle of light hitting the sensor, with a Full Frame Sensor, Leica - or others, would have done that long ago.

If you put in a Full Frame Sensor from, say, a 1Ds III into a Leica the corners would hardly not get light. At all. That is easy to calculate. On a 1Ds III the light fall off from the senter to the corners could be as much as 4 aparture stops, depending on the lense. Imagine then the light fall off in a camera constuction of a rangefinder.

it just might be possible to make a Full Frame Sensor for a rangefinder camera. One day. It had to trade off the full frame for high ISO/low noice (it takes somewhat more explaining to do to explain why). So, the producer of a future rangefinder camera have to choose, either Low Noice or Full Frame.

What would you prefer...?

Then add the economy of scale. The sensor Leica - or others, need for a rangefinder could hit the sales of max 30.000 units. Most likely less. Behind the development of the CCD/CMOS sensors for the major DSLR producers run up to the ten-folds of that. Imagine what that would do to the price.

What price are you willing to pay? If it is only $5,000 then don't expect too much. Actually, don't expect a new digital rangefinder to surface at all...

 

[Roger Hicks]

If it was possible to make a rangefinder camera - with this steep angle of light hitting the sensor, with a Full Frame Sensor, Leica - or others, would have done that long ago.

If you put in a Full Frame Sensor from, say, a 1Ds III into a Leica the corners would hardly not get light. At all. That is easy to calculate. On a 1Ds III the light fall off from the senter to the corners could be as much as 4 aparture stops, depending on the lense. Imagine then the light fall off in a camera constuction of a rangefinder.

it just might be possible to make a Full Frame Sensor for a rangefinder camera. One day. It had to trade off the full frame for high ISO/low noice (it takes somewhat more explaining to do to explain why). So, the producer of a future rangefinder camera have to choose, either Low Noice or Full Frame.

What would you prefer...?

Then add the economy of scale. The sensor Leica - or others, need for a rangefinder could hit the sales of max 30.000 units. Most likely less. Behind the development of the CCD/CMOS sensors for the major DSLR producers run up to the ten-folds of that. Imagine what that would do to the price.

What price are you willing to pay? If it is only $5,000 then don't expect too much. Actually, don't expect a new digital rangefinder to surface at all...

Dear Olsen,

Be fair!

What do physics, economics and commons sense have to do with threads like this?

The composition is:

85-90% "I hate Leicas, and I hope they go out of business soon. I want a Chinese full-frame at under $1000"

10% "Leica can do no wrong"

Remainder: "The M8/M8.2 isn't perfect, not least because of physics, economics and common sense, but it's the only game in town and it's worth the money to me, at least until the M9 comes out (which Leica themselves have said they believe it will, just not in the next year or two or three)."

Cheers,

R.