How many of you will buy the M8 or Digital M

[MP Guy]

Yes,

Another poll. With the digital world becoming the mainstream, I am curious how many woll but this new digital rangefinder camera.

 

[Magnus]

Digital being digital who int their right mind is going to buy an M8 for roughly the price as a full frame Canon ?
As for the "lens-quality" factor, with products like CS-2, Aperture and Lightzone you can basically simulate any lens characteristic you want, even with the cheapest of combo's (within margins obviously)
There simply will be no price quality justification for a 6500$ M8 combo, lifespan of the product (like the M series) is a no go for in 2max years the specs will be obselete, and last but not least name me one (even semi) electronic Leica product which functioned well and didn't have to go back to the factory for some sort of re-adjustment .... and the M8 is going to rely 100% on electronics ! ...

 

[jlw]

I suspect it will be exactly what I need (an R-D 1-like camera with a somewhat higher pixel count and provision for longer lenses) but I won't be able to afford it for many years.

My R-D 1 is by far my most useful and most heavily-used camera, but its purchase stretched my disposable income to the limit. A camera that costs 67% more is simply going to be beyond my means for the foreseeable future.

 

[jlw]

Digital being digital who int their right mind is going to buy an M8 for roughly the price as a full frame Canon ?

People who prefer to use a rangefinder camera...?

People who can't find the part in the Bible where it says, "Thou shalt have no other sensor sizes than 24 x 36 mm"...?

 

[Nikon Bob]

I voted for "Not interested or have no plans to get one." simply because there was no I do not have that kind of disposable income. Couple that with what Magnus has said and that settles it for me for a long while. The sensor size is not a deciding factor for me even if I can't find the part in the Bible on proper sensor size.

Nikon Bob

 

[dexdog]

People who can't find the part in the Bible where it says, "Thou shalt have no other sensor sizes than 24 x 36 mm"...?

Sometimes bigger is better. I can't imagine anyone arguing in favor of a camera that used APS-sized film. I would much rather spend 3K on a Canon 5D than 5K on a Leica digital.

I really think that the issue boils down to choices and preferences. There are lots of choices around for digital SLRs, but few for digital RFs. Leica might be the best choice at the time for a digital RF. Also, because I have no M-mount lenses, I have no vested interest in the M system, so this is not a factor for me. Your results may vary.

 

[Magnus]

jiw .... blablabla,
it's the quality of the image at different formats which in the long run might be important to all sort of camera users or is there anything in the bible that contradicts that ?

As for the "rangefinder" I can see that with film, digital photography however is a totally different issue, making the most of a 36 shot film requires different techniques than being able to shoot 2gigs of 7 megapixel jpegs.....

 

[back alley]

i'm with jlw!

i'd buy it in a heartbeat if i had that kind of money for toys.
and i'd shoot it side by side with my film cameras, all rangefinders.

just because it's digital doesn't mean i want to change and start shooting with a slr again.
i prefer to stay with rf cameras.

joe

 

[Flinor]

Add me to the jlw list. I would really like one but it's gonna be a while of skipping lunches.

Anyone who thinks that RF shooting is just about maximising a 36 frame roll of film is really missing the point.

 

[Magnus]

Joe wrote: just because it's digital doesn't mean i want to change and start shooting with a slr again. i prefer to stay with rf cameras.

I do agree, so would I if I had the choice, but the actual choice itself is not the issue I am trying to get across, it's the price gap between an M8 and an Olympus E1 with 14-54mm for instance (roughly 5500$!) and taking this into account, and still willing to invest leica M8 sort of money A full frame canon or even a midformat would definately be a better choice, if your into the best end-result for your money.

 

[jlw]

jiw .... blablabla,
it's the quality of the image at different formats which in the long run might be important to all sort of camera users or is there anything in the bible that contradicts that ?

I have this sense that we've had this discussion before! What I was satirizing with my Bible crack was the "religious" belief that some people seem to have that a "full frame" (full of what?) must be 24 x 36mm and no smaller.

This was never true even in the film era (to a cinematographer, a "full frame" might be the standard "Academy" format of 18.05 x 24mm... to a reproduction camera operator, it might be the standard double-broadsheet size of 30 x 22-3/4 inches.) And in the digital era it's simply a historical curiosity that some photographers prefer an imager the same size as those of the "35mm" cameras they used to use.

Canon, which has the technology to produce its own sensors rather than having to purchase an OEM sensor as do most other camera makers, is happy to cash in on this prejudice by producing cameras with a 35mm-film-size sensor and then charging extra money for them, even if smaller-sensor cameras with similar pixel counts produce similar image quality.

Of course, some photographers do insist that they can see ineffable virtues in pictures made with sensors that possess this mystical historical attribute of "fullness," just as some photographers insist that they can see an aura of superiority in pictures made with a particular brand of lens. But as I said, I want to avoid getting into a discussion of religious dogma!

As for the "rangefinder" I can see that with film, digital photography however is a totally different issue...

I don't see how the issues of viewing the scene, selecting and interacting with the subject, and focusing the lens are any different when forming the image on a digital sensor than when forming it on a silver-halide sensor.

In fact, seeing and responding to the world in front of the camera is what makes the difference between successful and unsuccessful photography -- not what kind of sensor happens to be behind the lens. If you're more successful and more comfortable making photographs with a film rangefinder camera than a film SLR, you're likely to be similarly more comfortable using a digital rangefinder camera than a digital SLR.

If there isn't something special about using a rangefinder camera, then why do so many people visit RFF?

 

[back alley]

magnus, i think i take better pics with a rf camera than i did with an slr.
in my case i would prefer a rf digital if i were to go digital.
but the point is moot as i can't even afford the rd-1.

joe

 

[J. Borger]

I will buy one for sure.
I will most likely sell my full frame Canon 1Ds Plus assorted L lenses the day the M8 hits the shelfs. I have not used the Canon gear for 1,5 years (since the day i bought the R-D1) anyway
I am not afraid the M8 will be obsolete in a couple of years .... i have gone through all the Canon DSLR cameras and could not care about anything less than about the full frame.
I would not even care if the M8 had the 1,5 cropfactor of the R-D1.

THe M8 will be my last camera for a long time to come. In fact the R-D1 is the first camera where i do not feel a need to "upgrade". My prints up to super A3 are simply stunning.
The reason I want an M8 is because i do not trust my R-D1 .. do not get me wrong i had no issues of any kind with this camera ever ... but i want an M8 to add to my R-D1 to split the risk.

THe higher pixel count will give me some additional cropping latitude .... that's all.
I just hope the B&W files from the M8 are up to the quality of those from the R-D1.

 

[jlw]

A full frame canon or even a midformat would definately be a better choice, if your into the best end-result for your money.

That's my point exactly. I went back to using an RF camera because I get a better end result -- i.e., picture -- when shooting with an RF camera than I do when shooting with an SLR.

Sure, I could buy a DSLR with more megapixels for the same money -- but I don't observe, react and respond as well to subject matter when using an SLR. And in my personal work, good photography is more about good observation, reaction and response than it is about pixel count.

Of course, that isn't true of everybody's style of photography, so don't feel I'm attacking anyone else's viewpoint.*

However, to me, saying "You're a fool to buy this camera when that camera gives you more megapixels for less money" makes no more sense than saying, "You're a fool to buy this book of poetry when that telephone directory gives you more words for less money."





*It may sound as if I'm trying to glorify the reaction-intensive style of photography vs. a more contemplative approach, but that's not the case. For example, reaction and response matter very little in the type of photography I shoot at work, which is mostly of food. Food just lies on the plate until the stylist has painstakingly organized it -- texture and detail count for a lot more than the "decisive moment" (except when you're shooting ice cream or drippy sauces!) I happen to do this type of photography with a DSLR, but it hardly matters because once the shot is set up I seldom look through the camera at all!

 

[sf]

I won't buy a digital camera with a crop factor. No way. There are optical and financial reasons not to.

When the M9 or M10 comes out, with a full frame sensor, I'll maybe have the money to sink into a digital M and a nice selection of classic lenses.

No D-M lenses for me.

 

[anaanda]

In reality it is a very expensive toy. I don't think its moraly wrong to buy it but its more like buying a Ferrari or Maserati. I paid $800 (which is still a lot of money for some people) for a Mamiya 6 and a 75 lens. I really enjoy the whole process of film from shooting to developing to printing. I like the wait to see what I get. I think it adds something. I shoot for a hobby so it may be different for someone who makes a living from photography. I think if a professional had $6000 he/she would probably choose a different system than the M8. This being so, the Digital Leica is definitely geared towards the artist/enthusiast. everything is relative. I still believe film is forever..

 

[wlewisiii]

I chose "will buy it sooner or later" - but my approach to that is that it will be about as old as a "new" M3 is today when I do. Because, that is, simply, about when I'll be able to afford it. <shrug> At least with my collapsible 'Cron I'll actually own a real Leica lens to use on it on that far off day when I am able to buy a M8 body (we won't mention the M9, 10 or + ... 😱 )

...


William

 

[J. Borger]

However, to me, saying "You're a fool to buy this camera when that camera gives you more megapixels for less money" makes no more sense than saying, "You're a fool to buy this book of poetry when that telephone directory gives you more words for less money."

Exactly ........ i will remember this one ... it will not be the last time somebody stating investing in a Canon 5d is more economic.
I get tired of these arguments ... nobody ever said a Canon SLR film camera was a more cost efficient investment than a Leica M6 or M7.

I am with you ....
1) i want digital
2) i want a rangefinder (not an SLR anymore........)

So count my options .. 🙂
Any DSLR (full frame or not) does not fullfil my needs/wants ... economic or not!

 

[Zack]

I voted for no plans to get one. I already have a full darkroom setup, so not only would i have to pay $6500 for a system i would also have to buy a computer that could hadle large file sizes and a printer that was high enough quality to make decdent prints, so it would be in the $10,000 range. thats way to much for anything other than a down payment on a home or car. And who knows what sorts of things will go wrong with it.

 

[Avotius]

not interested, waiting for something that keeps 35mm as 35mm