How many of you will buy the M8 or Digital M

How many of you will buy the M8 or Digital M

  • I have my unit pre-ordered already.

    Votes: 122 15.1%

  • Need more cash

    Votes: 141 17.5%

  • Will buy it for sure sooner or later

    Votes: 234 29.0%

  • Not interested or have no plans to get one.

    Votes: 311 38.5%
  • Total voters
    808
If you're like me, the R-D1 was a revelation. My Leica glass had stood unused for several years after I stopped using film, and the ability to see the results of using it again immediately simply confirmed to me that if this is what the R-D1 can do, how special is the M8 is going to be?

The R-D1 is very Leica-like in use, a few rough edges to be sure, and I'm really hoping the M8 moves the game on significantly.
 
pfogle said:
Well, I'll be up for an M8. But not till the R-D1 dies.

It's no coincidence that so many RF lovers are suspicious of digital
Click to expand...

I actually got into rangefinders thru film. Back a few years ago I decided to stay with film via the use of a scanner. In other words, at that time I thought I would never be able to get a "proper" print darkroom together and thought that film was superior to digital (and it was). I was perfectly capable of developing my own B&W and of course color slide emulsions where wtill easy to get.

I say the then new Voightlander range of film rangefinders and was excited about the concept. So for a few years I was content to scan my film and ink jet my prints. However, scanning gets old pretty fast.

So about a year ago I bought a Canon 20D to elimenate the scanning step. That worked pretty well but I knew I was missing something and it was more the rangefinder than it was the film. That's when I decided to go for the RD1

Ironically, my obsession with the RD1 caused me to get interested in film again. Thats because in following the trials and tribulations of an average RD1 owner, I was introduced to the RF forum, and discovered all the film guys.

But still I hated scanning so I bite the bullet and set up a print darkroom. I had the space and I used a small Durst 606 enlarger with capacity up to 11x14 to keep everything modest. I had a darkroom in the late 50's thru 1972 so I knew what I was doing and I knew not to go overboard. I can actually store my entire darkroom in a medium size box and it is totally functional.

That being said, digital is a lot easier. And the media is NOT inferior, it is just different. I love both, but frankly, if I had to depend on others for my film processing, and had too scan to get prints, I don't know if I'd do it.
 
Took a quick look at the message, and did not see this mentioned.

I shot M2 and later M4.... why, because I got a Leicavit and later the motor drive.

The R-D1s missed the boat.... why need to manually advance the shutter! This is retro. The rangefinder is ideal for the auto film advance/drive .... not so mcuh to catch an active moving subject.... but to keep an eye on the subject without the motion of the camera while "re-winding".

I still have a large collection of Leitz Summicron waiting to be used for journalism work, but unless the auto advanced feature is incorporated, this will remain the Volvo of the camera world.

I spoke to Epson about this, but they feel retro is the game in town, Leica people had no idea what was in the works. Comment?
 
The R-D1 was not a clean-sheet design, it's based on the Voigtlander Bessa camera which is a conventional film rangefinder camera. As such, it inherits that camera's shutter and rangefinder with the electronics and battery shoe-horned in where the film and film transport used to go, and across the back.

My own experience of the R-D1 is that it is pleasantly familiar to use after a film M but of course the Bessa is not equipped for a motor drive or winder anyway so it was always going to have a wind on lever. Epson's take on the situation - retro is in - is just a marketing position established around the product they have to sell.

The M8, on the other hand, is a complete mechanical redesign incorporating the R9 metal shutter and is motor driven - you can use a much smaller, quieter motor to drive the shutter compared to one which needs to move film. Seems likely the viewfinder/rangerfinder is carried over from the M7, modified only for crop factor, and we're expecting a camera which is strikingly similar to the M7 to look at. The thumbs down response to the M5 still hurts 35 years on...
 
Last edited:
Mark Norton said:
The R-D1 was not a clean-sheet design, it's based on the Voigtlander Bessa camera which is a conventional film rangefinder camera. As such, it inherits that camera's shutter and rangefinder with the electronics and battery shoe-horned in where the film and film transport used to go, and across the back.

My own experience of the R-D1 is that it is pleasantly familiar to use after a film M but of course the Bessa is not equipped for a motor drive or winder anyway so it was always going to have a wind on lever. Epson's take on the situation - retro is in - is just a marketing position established around the product they have to sell.

The M8, on the other hand, is a complete mechanical redesign incorporating the R9 metal shutter and is motor driven - you can use a much smaller, quieter motor to drive the shutter compared to one which needs to move film. Seems likely the viewfinder/rangerfinder is carried over from the M7, modified only for crop factor, and we're expecting a camera which is strikingly similar to the M7 to look at. The thumbs down response to the M5 still hurts 35 years on...
Click to expand...
I have a funny feeling that the closest analog (pun intended) to the M8 might be Konica's Hexar RF: pretty much the same size as a Leica M7, but incorporating motorized film advance and rewind, along with a vertical-traveling shutter with relatively high (1/125) flash sync speed. (In other words: yes, It Can Be Done.) The only minor issue with the Hexar has been the noise of the film-wind motor; obviously, Leica doesn't have that issue with the M8, so doing away with manual advance is a non-issue: this is a contemporary, digital M camera, which needn't mimic its film siblings "just because". It's an M to (hopefully) be taken seriously on its own merits, although a certain surface familiarity doesn't hurt. 🙂

And how it pains me to know there was, indeed, a prototype digital HRF...


- Barrett
 
baudec said:
The R-D1s missed the boat.... why need to manually advance the shutter! This is retro. The rangefinder is ideal for the auto film advance/drive .... not so mcuh to catch an active moving subject.... but to keep an eye on the subject without the motion of the camera while "re-winding".

I still have a large collection of Leitz Summicron waiting to be used for journalism work, but unless the auto advanced feature is incorporated, this will remain the Volvo of the camera world.

I spoke to Epson about this, but they feel retro is the game in town, Leica people had no idea what was in the works. Comment?
Click to expand...

I am still - even now - utterly confused and surprised over many of the design decisions in the R-D1. The faux advance lever and the gaudy gages ontop are - in MY opinion - some of the tackiest designs I've ever seen in a product aimed at an audience older than 12 years old. I could not take myself even semi-serious if I had to use a 'film advance lever' on a digital camera. I am however happy that there are people out there that seem to like it. Diversity is good.
 
ghost said:
what does it take to get to see camera prototypes? i've got a pretty good fox mulder impression.
Click to expand...

Mulder: Scully Can't you see ... they don't want us to see the real M8.
The information you have of the M8 has been placed there to make you think its one thing... but its really something different

Scully: Its just a camera Mulder why would anyone want to hide any information about that?

Mulder: Thats exactly the question we need to answer...

Enter creepy music

and... commericial
 
i'm a sucker for new gadgets. I'll probably jump on the M8 as soon as it comes out. I just hope the sensor is better than the RD-1. I find my RD-1 to be alittle soft on the sharpness factor, and i always end up going with my Canon 5D instead, if i'm looking for real sharp pictures. the RD-1 is a great 'social' camera as its small enough to be carried around in social environments without it being too obtrusive. but honestly, even the RD-1 feels too bulky for me if i compare it to my M6 ttl. If leica can make a digital rangfinder that feels as good as my M6 and can make as sharp an image as my 5D. I'll definately bite.
 
Rich Silfver said:
I am still - even now - utterly confused and surprised over many of the design decisions in the R-D1. The faux advance lever and the gaudy gages ontop are - in MY opinion - some of the tackiest designs I've ever seen in a product aimed at an audience older than 12 years old. I could not take myself even semi-serious if I had to use a 'film advance lever' on a digital camera. I am however happy that there are people out there that seem to like it. Diversity is good.
Click to expand...

Rich

Your hurting my feelings ! 🙁 I luuuv the cute dial and faux advance lever!

And about being no older than 12 years old, I dare you to cross this line!!

Rex
not semi-serious
in Berkeley, where we don't wear socks with our shoes
 
rvaubel said:
Rich

Your hurting my feelings ! 🙁 I luuuv the cute dial and faux advance lever!
And about being no older than 12 years old, I dare you to cross this line!!

Rex
not semi-serious
in Berkeley, where we don't wear socks with our shoes
Click to expand...

Sorry Rex - but as I said it's a good thing taste is so diverse (and that 12 year olds have deep pockets these days) 😉
 
rvaubel said:
[...]That being said, digital is a lot easier. And the media is NOT inferior, it is just different. I love both, but frankly, if I had to depend on others for my film processing, and had too scan to get prints, I don't know if I'd do it.
Click to expand...

After moving to a flat, I find it unpractical to set up a temporary darkroom (I have tried/done that in the past) and having invested a lot of money into a computer to do B&W printing, I am now working with digital post-processing.

It is a more expensive way of doing it compared to a darkroom, but the good side is that I can print a little at a time when I find some time. I do not need to set aside hours and I also have much better control with Photoshop compared to what I have managed to get my darkroom skills to. So I guess I would prefer to hang onto digital in the future.

On the other hand, as you say, neither is better, they are different.

But, I do not buy the commonly heard argument that if you do digital post processing, you have to use digital cameras. Yes, scanning is a pain, but paying for a DRF is a much more severe pain, and I prefer to have a physical film (not only computer files). I can even scan MF and get some 800MB of data from each picture.

It is also something relaxing of using a mechanical camera, or a camera that runs a year on a set of batteries, rather than hunting for a place to recharge the battery pack all the time (I have been there and I do not like it).

I guess the bottom line is that as long as the digital camera makers insists on thinking that (big) DSLRs, extremely expensive DRFs or digicams (with too much automation) is what I need, they can keep their stuff. (The only digital camera I have is a very tiny one that is way smaller than any normal film camera.)

Why not make a small digital RF with fixed lens suitable for available light that fits easily into the pocket? Top it with traditional controls and it would sell quite well I think. Then also make a B&W and IR model of it..😎

Having said all this, I do hope the M8 becomes a reaonable success. I say reasonable, because I would hate if it was a huge success as it would mean that camera makers can take whatever steep prices they want, as people have too much money and/or are too deperate...😱

/Håkan
 
I'd say that Leica's long term health demands that the M8 is not reasonably successful but extremely so, not only in terms of high sales but also of increased lens sales and low support and warranty costs.

Sadly, Leica has been a loss-making business for a little while and but for new investors would have failed last year. With new far-sighted management and a streamlined business operation, Leica is in better shape but needs at some point to return to profit. The success of the M8 is key to its future.
 
I'll probably get one

I'll probably get one

I'll likely be getting one after a little while. I'll probably let others work on the first bugs. Film will always be part of my rangefinder usage, but digital can only enhance it. My SLR useage is now 95% digital, and while that percentage is unlikely to apply to my rangefinder useage, it could hit 60% easily.

The price is high, but considering what other photo stuff I've bought over the years, it's not that big a fraction. I've certainly got a lot more invested in lenses that fit.

I don't shoot 35mm colour negative anymore; digital has completely supplanted that. I used to shoot lots of 35mm transparency on trips, but that is gone mostly due to airline procedures. So 35mm at this time means mostly B&W, and that's what I mostly shoot in rangefinders. Larger formats, panoramas, etc still get fed with colour negative material at times.

I used a pre-production RD-1 for a bit, and disliked enough things that I never bought one, but hoped for an evolutionary model. Kobayashi-san isn't really interested, and will wait until he sees how the M8 flies, so we never got a better RD-1.

I have enough lenses in M or LTM mount to let me shoot in pretty much the same style I can with the (uncropped) film bodies, except there is no 35/1.4 equivalent, and I do get to shoot with a 100mm/1.4 and 66mm/1 equivalents. I just hope the CV 12 will work properly, and better than on the RD-1.

I wouldn't hold out much hope that the shutter/wind is quieter than that of the Hexar RF; the shutter has a higher top speed and the motor wind noise on the Hexar is mostly from winding the shutter. It'll be a different sound than the Hexar, but it won't be like an M7 or earlier.

The determining features will center around the viewfinder (and rangefinder that stays in reasonable alignment), clean control layout, responsiveness, sufficient buffer size, and of course, image quality with the lenses that I want to use most. Which lenses those will be will have to be decided after I try the camera for a bit. If it feels enough larger than an M6TTL, a 35/1.4 ASPH might feel better on it than a pre-ASPH 35/2 for example. Maybe the 75/1.4 is unworkable, but a 90 T-E is just fine. Maybe the 12/5.6 CV is just great but the 15/4.5 sucks on the M8 just as it did on the RD-1.

We'll find out shortly.

Henning
 
I have been a sufferer of Leica Acquisition Syndrome for some time now, and I have too many Leica items that I simply don't use. So it is time to put them on eBay and raise the cash for my M8. I have already placed my order and secured it with a substantial deposit.

I am pleased with the M8 specification and also (surprisingly) happy about the price. It isn't a bargain - for that you need to conside the Epson R-D1(s) - but it is reasonable compared with the M7, of which I (used to) own two. My future outfit will be an M8, an M7 and a user M3 and five lenses from 15mm (CV) to 90mm.
 
I am, or is that was, considering getting an Ikon, M7 or MP + a fast 50 but could be easily tempted into getting the M8 + a fast 35 for the extra £££. If had the space for my own dark room I wouldn't consider the M8 at all but taking into account ongoing d&p costs (and pitfalls) and the price of a decent scanner the M8 looks good value.
😱 What did I just say??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom