Does it make sense to buy a used Leica M8?

If you want a full frame "Leica sensor" experience with even greater technical quality and "sharpness/resolution" than an M8, go to eBay and get a used Kodak DCS 14n or Kodak DCS SLR/n.

These cameras have a full frame sensor that doesn't have an AA filter, like the M8. The highest usable ISO is about 320 for the 14n and 640 for the SLR/n, but you will get stunning images with detail unmatched even by the Nikon D700. It blows away the Leica.

You can mount any Nikon SLR lens, or anything with a Nikon mount, some of which can be purchased for a pittance. You can buy these cameras for around $700 or less, and you can probably recover all your money when you sell it.

Demand is stratospheric in Korea, China and Japan, where the Kodaks have achieved uber-cult status.

manhattan.jpg


d3dr0006.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nikon does make some of their own chips but more importantly they design the electronics behind the chip which makes as much or more difference that the silicone.

I've had most of the high end Canons and Nikons both. I have often favored the Nikon look over the canon files (with the noteworthy exception of the original 1D) because they are crisper. Per-pixel sharper I guess is the phrase.
The files out of the 5D are quite good as well in that same way.

Over "there" at many other forums the engineer turned gearhead dreaming of being a semi-pro often talk about IQ. They talk about baby butt smooth files as the end all and be all. Not to be too harsh but I suspect that a good percentage of them can only distinquish and thus argue about, on their web size shots, the level of noise. So it has become defacto limited. Great noise, the conventional wisdon, spells a great camera.

I'm not knocking my D700 files one bit here. I consider them to be very, very good, and not in just the noise. Everyone has somewhat different ideas about what works for them and I like texture. Very fine gradations and texture that you can feel - when possible. At iso 160 and 320 both I find that while the D700 has a quality that the M8 is lacking, so does the M8 files (from limited first impressions) have an aspect that the D700 files don't have. They are crisper. They are also simply different enough, and I mean different from the mainstream in a way that sets them apart far from the "me too" aspect of all the slrs that to be honest ..... I value the M8 files more and would, if I had to make those silly categorical statements, say, that I think the M8 files are "better" than the D700 files.

They simply give me more of what I'm looking for and do it splendidly. Only a MF back gives more of that same quality - and they are hard to rent, and hard to live with.

I find flaws. The green lines in a few shots on mine. (hopefully that will be fixed). But to those who appreciate the special qualities that the M8 has can, think justifiably claim that the image quality the others have is lacking.

But lets not talk about iso 2500 😀
 
the price of the kodak d/SLRs is music to the ears of digi bottom-feeders like myself. oscar, do the new zeiss nikon-mount lenses mate to the kodak?
 
The M8 perfectly complements the D300. M8 blows the D300 away for sheer quality of glass and IQ via Raw. The D300 crushes the M8 on ease of use, AF is you want it, 100% frame coverage, better continuous shooting, and IQ still better than 90% of anything out there if used with good Nikkor glass.

I love BOTH for digital, and use them both regularly.

Far as the Kodak discussion, slap a 2002 Kodak DCS Pro Back 645 on a Mamiya 645 AFD. Blows both of these into oblivion....really.
 
I loved my D300 but loved my M8 so much more and eventually sold all my nikon gear. My only wish for the M8 is just slightly better high ISO performance.
 
The way I see it is this:

Current Nikon/Canon higher end bodies are superior to the m8/m8.2. The main flaw with these bodies, however, is that they are not M mount, and I think that's what it boils down to for everyone. Most of the complains stated about the d700 etc are due to Nikon lenses, while being very good in most cases, are not Leica, the same goes for Canon.

Personally I think an m8/m8.2 is a bad investment, even though it has held it's price fairly well since it's initial release, the sensor and electronics are over 3 years old. I see a film Leica as a much better investment as the technology in those had been 'perfected' by the time they were released.

It's kind of like how a Canon XSi/450D at 800 iso has less noise than a 10d or 20d at iso 100. Sensor technology is progressing at a great pace, and to spend several thousand for a camera with several year old technology as opposed to one that is at the cusp of development seems silly, unless I have a significant catalog of lenses for one or the other.
 
Oscar Levant said:
If you want a full frame "Leica sensor" experience with even greater technical quality and "sharpness/resolution" than an M8, go to eBay and get a used Kodak DCS 14n or Kodak DCS SLR/n.

These cameras have a full frame sensor that doesn't have an AA filter, like the M8. The highest usable ISO is about 320 for the 14n and 640 for the SLR/n, but you will get stunning images with detail unmatched even by the Nikon D700. It blows away the Leica.

You can mount any Nikon SLR lens, or anything with a Nikon mount, some of which can be purchased for a pittance. You can buy these cameras for around $700 or less, and you can probably recover all your money when you sell it.

Demand is stratospheric in Korea, China and Japan, where the Kodaks have achieved uber-cult status.
Click to expand...
Hummm...

What about the version in Canon mount - similar performance with it?
 
gdi said:
Hummm...

What about the version in Canon mount - similar performance with it?
Click to expand...

It's the same sensor, but the body on the Canon mount version was made by Sigma rather than Nikon. Much rarer.
 
There is no doubt that I would love an M8 but when I look at most photos on Flickr etc I don't see a lot of photos that are truly inspiring. Maybe its because rangefinders attract a certain type of photographer. You know, the ones who love the camera (or the image that they think owning it gives to them) more than they love the image-making. Or who can only think in terms of "Street Photography" when the think "Leica" so they all end up trying to emulate Cartier Bresson and take much the same kind of photos as each other - black and white snatched shots of people walking down a street or chatting or drinking coffee or whatever. Maybe this is just me and I should not blame the camera. But its easier to justify the big outlay when one looks at images that are truly wonderous - and sadly, I am not seeing them.

I still want one though!
 
good point, peter. as everyone says, the camera won't make you a better photographer. i got one for the digi workflow which helps to deal with my lack of leisure time. i'm able to take, process, post, print more photos. sadly they're not better, just more frequent.
 
peterm1 said:
There is no doubt that I would love an M8 but when I look at most photos on Flickr etc I don't see a lot of photos that are truly inspiring. Maybe its because rangefinders attract a certain type of photographer. You know, the ones who love the camera (or the image that they think owning it gives to them) more than they love the image-making. Or who can only think in terms of "Street Photography" when the think "Leica" so they all end up trying to emulate Cartier Bresson and take much the same kind of photos as each other - black and white snatched shots of people walking down a street or chatting or drinking coffee or whatever. Maybe this is just me and I should not blame the camera. But its easier to justify the big outlay when one looks at images that are truly wonderous - and sadly, I am not seeing them.

I still want one though!
Click to expand...

Have you determined which camera to use for inspiring photos? I think I need to try one. 🙄
 
Mephiloco said:
The way I see it is this:

Current Nikon/Canon higher end bodies are superior to the m8/m8.2. The main flaw with these bodies, however, is that they are not M mount, and I think that's what it boils down to for everyone. Most of the complains stated about the d700 etc are due to Nikon lenses, while being very good in most cases, are not Leica, the same goes for Canon.

Personally I think an m8/m8.2 is a bad investment, even though it has held it's price fairly well since it's initial release, the sensor and electronics are over 3 years old. I see a film Leica as a much better investment as the technology in those had been 'perfected' by the time they were released.
Click to expand...
Anybody who regards a digital camera -or indeed apart from the collectors circuit any camera - as an investment has a couple of financial wires crossed imo. On the other hand, all digital cameras have held their value better than the stock market over the last year.
 
Frank Petronio said:
gdi - I don't pay attention enough to know whether Nikon or Pentax use the same chip, but since they don't make chips either, they are at the mercy of the chip makers. And just like PC processors and AMD versus Intel, the competition keeps them comparable.
Click to expand...

With our without IR/UV filters? What Nikon & Pentax glass do you find comparable to Leica's...? Neither Pentax nor Nikon uses Kodak sensors, to my knowledge. - That was the sensor part of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Roastchestnuts
whats your thoughts on a leica 24mm f2.8 asph?
Replies
8
Views
2K
Rayt
Rayt
J
  • Article Article
A Leica Lover’s Guide to Acquiring a Digital M:
2
Replies
26
Views
6K
ranger9
R
Rob-F
AI is helping me decide whether to buy a Leica M10!
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
2K
Rob-F
Rob-F
LeicaFoReVer
Departing with my Contax G2
Replies
1
Views
450
Godfrey
Godfrey
Roastchestnuts
lens decisions?
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
Roastchestnuts
Roastchestnuts
Back
Top Bottom