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.
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.
Last edited:
Pavel+
Established
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
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
Look here if you want to see the quality of images made with the non-AA filter Kodaks.
http://www.slrclub.com/bbs/zboard.php?id=kodak_forum
http://www.slrclub.com/bbs/zboard.php?id=kodak_forum
MCTuomey
Veteran
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?
msbel
Member
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 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.
tkmeister
Newbie
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.
Mephiloco
Well-known
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.
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.
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Absolutely.
M8s aren't very good investments, but fortunately they have secondary uses such as taking photographs.
Mephiloco
Well-known
Absolutely.
M8s aren't very good investments, but fortunately they have secondary uses such as taking photographs.
in that case, a canon p&s could be in order, for $2000+ less
gdi
Veteran
Yes, of course they do.
bullshark
Member
Happiness is priceless.
The question should be, do you like to shoot RF? Do you love wide angel? Life is short, take your shot.
The question should be, do you like to shoot RF? Do you love wide angel? Life is short, take your shot.
peterm1
Veteran
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!
I still want one though!
MCTuomey
Veteran
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.
gdi
Veteran
Have you determined which camera to use for inspiring photos? I think I need to try one.
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Ha ha! Yeah, bad workman and all that.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
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.
jky
Well-known
Of course it makes sense to buy a used M8 (one with a spare battery, 2 filters and the shutter upgrade).... especially next week.....
Olsen
Well-known
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.