How many of you will buy the M8 or Digital M

[PeterL]

I agree with everything you say... except the part about the "huge and heavy SLRs."

Hi Carl,

Of course, you are right. I was comparing to the cliche of professional DSLRs with big zooms. Personally, if I'd buy a current DSLR, I'd go for the Olympus E-410 with the 25/1.4 prime from Leica and probably a wide angle zoom + a short tele-macro. For the M8, I'd probably get a similar setup, except there would be no zoom and no macro. You're correct that the m8 setup would be the heavier of the two.


Peter.

 

[rvaubel]

Peter,

I agree with everything you say... except the part about the "huge and heavy SLRs." Huge some of them may be, but an M8 actually weighs more than many of the newer DSLRs, like a Nikon D80. ....... I actually would prefer an M8 myself, but not for any supposed size/weight advantage.

While it's true that the M8 body isn't partically light, it is particularly small. One thing that I do all the time is carry my M8, in the palm of my hand, with a CV25mm F4 pancake (tiny) mounted , Try that with a 30D and any of their lenses even the smallest prime. Then slip a CV 15mm and a 40mm F1.4 in a pocket, and I am set for the day. This kind of kit is just impossible with a DSLR.

That's the main thing for me. The highest quality in something that is far more portable and unobstrusive than any DSLR kit can every be.


Rex

 

[sircarl]

Rex,

I agree entirely. But then, a number of DSLR manufacturers these days are managing to produce much smaller bodies than before. The M8 may not retain its size advantage -- or enough of an advantage to matter to most photographers -- for much longer.

 

[jaapv]

Rex,

I agree entirely. But then, a number of DSLR manufacturers these days are managing to produce much smaller bodies than before. The M8 may not retain its size advantage -- or enough of an advantage to matter to most photographers -- for much longer.

Bodies - yes, maybe. But lenses in this quality range? SLR manufactures never managed to beat RF lenses on the score - not even close.

 

[rvaubel]

Rex,

I agree entirely. But then, a number of DSLR manufacturers these days are managing to produce much smaller bodies than before. The M8 may not retain its size advantage -- or enough of an advantage to matter to most photographers -- for much longer.

Yes, there are a few DSLR bodies that are almost as compact(and actually lighter) than the M8 but it is the body/lens combination that matters. Even the smallest Canon 35mm prime in combination with the very light 400 body is still a much bigger package than the M8 with a very tiny VC 35mm C. It is impossible for an autofocus DSLR lens to come anywhere close to the small size possible with a non-retrofocus rangefinder design.

Rex

 

[cme4brain]

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 ! ...

I own an M8 with all voigtlander lenses, and some DSLR's. The above comment is to be taken with a grain of salt. The M8 produces images far superior to any DSLR due to the quality of the lenses. The Canon 5D has a superior chip at higher ISO than 800, but you are saddled with the Canon lenses! Even the "L" lenses are not as sharp as my voigtlander or leica lenses. My brother is a professional wedding photog heavily into canon DLSR's and we exchange 100% crops of corners all the time. There is not an "L" lens made that can approach Leica glass or even Zeiss or Voigt for edge to edge sharpness and contrast. That is not to say they aren't good lenses, but they cannot match Leica/Zeiss/Voigt. It is this superior lens line coupled to a great chip that makes the M8 the superior 35mm pseudo-format image machine. It is a lot of bucks, but IMHO worth it. If you cannot appreciate it, it AINT FOR YOU. If you are used to eating McDonalds then filet mignon is wasted on you. Drive a Kia and are happy with it? Why would anyone spend the bucks on a Benz? See the thinking? My M8 is my favorite.

 

[HAnkg]

Try to tell apart the same image taken with a M8 and summicron from one taken with a much lighter and cheaper Canon 350d and plastic 50/1.8.

Try to tell apart the same image taken with a much lighter and cheaper Canon 350d and plastic 50/1.8 and a Canon 5D, 1Ds MKII or Nikon D2X with a $1000+ zoom. If we are comparing say 5x7 prints you could even throw in a $30,000. medium format digital back with a lens that costs about the price of an M8.

And your point is?

 

[etrigan63]

Don't recall how I voted here but I am now in the "Saving up cash for it" category. Will be getting an M8 + 35mm 'lux coded (hopefully) by the end of September (maybe sooner if providence is kind).

 

[nrb]

Try to tell apart the same image taken with a much lighter and cheaper Canon 350d and plastic 50/1.8 and a Canon 5D, 1Ds MKII or Nikon D2X with a $1000+ zoom. If we are comparing say 5x7 prints you could even throw in a $30,000. medium format digital back with a lens that costs about the price of an M8.

And your point is?

My criteria for judging any camera system is the results it produces. That together with the convenience of use it provides. The M8 produces results not unlike other cameras, has a crop factor that limits the usefulness of its prime lenses only feature, and costs dear for the convenience it doesn't offer.

 

[HAnkg]

My criteria for judging any camera system is the results it produces. That together with the convenience of use it provides. The M8 produces results not unlike other cameras, has a crop factor that limits the usefulness of its prime lenses only feature, and costs dear for the convenience it doesn't offer.

All $1,000+ digital cameras produce results not unlike other $1,000+ digital cameras. There are differences but in print they are small. I can only speak from my own experience and owning and using a 1Ds and a M8, I much prefer the output of the M8 (not to take anything away from the Canon which is excellent). True the 1Ds has many more "features and conveniences" but to me they are mostly impediments not aids, so I prefer the simpler M8 on that count as well. The prime lenses I use on the M8 perform even better on the cropped sensor then they do when using the edge of their image circle on 24x36. The cost of the M8 body is the cheapest of the alternatives I might consider (Canon 1Ds MKII, medium format digital).

 

[flyingoko]

From Warsaw, Poland, I greet.

No, I'm not buying an M8. I view it as an experiment, something to read about but not invest in.

I'm back into photography BIG TIME after buying my first digital camera - a Nikon D80. I'm knocking out 600-1,000 photos a month. This would cost me the zloty equivalent of 400 bucks on buying the film, developing and burning CDs.

I love the D80 with its 18-200mm (27-300mm equiv) lens with vibration reduction. Truly a universal tool. (My photoblog here: http://jeziorki.blogspot.com). However, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool rangefinder man. My first serious camera, bought in 1980, was a Leica IIIb; I traded this up for an M2 in 1982, bought several Ms throughout the 80s and 90s, of which I still have the M2, the M3 and M6. I also have (being located in Central Europe), vast numbers of Soviet rangefinders plus a pre-war Contax and some Jap RFs.

But all sit largely unused thanks to the wonder of the digital age.

Yet I miss the rangefinder's unobtrusiveness; I'm self-conscious about raising the Nikon to my eye; it's like taking aim with a Kalashnikov.

I've read the few threads here about digital backs for the Leica M series.

Can anyone tell me why no enterprising company in the Far East has made a digital back and base for the M series?

(I know why Leica hasn't - corporate inertia)

I'm not going to through away shed loads of money on an M8 only to see it go the way of the Nikon D100 or D70. Worth less today than a decent Nikon F or F2.

But a digital back'n'base for a Leica... it gets superceded - buy a new one. Less than a third of the price of a Leica M8 body, I'll be bound.

It doesn't need a LCD panel, nor complex automation - just a 36x24mm sensor and the trusty manual/mechanical way of releasing the shutter and selecting aperture and shutter speed. The base would contain battery and memory card slot.

There must be hundreds of thousands of well-loved Leica rangefinders out there, sitting unused in desks or gathering dust on shelves.

They'd get a new lease of life, and their (weakening) resale value would pick up

Whaddya think, guys?

 

[HAnkg]

Can anyone tell me why no enterprising company in the Far East has made a digital back and base for the M series?

(I know why Leica hasn't - corporate inertia)

- just a 36x24mm sensor and the trusty manual/mechanical way of releasing the shutter and selecting aperture and shutter speed. The base would contain battery and memory card slot.

Because it can't be done with any technology likely to be available any time soon. Sure everyone would buy one just like everyone would buy a car that got Porsche performance, 100 miles to the gallon and cost $3,000. You might as well wish for flying pink ponies.

 

[flyingoko]

The CCD sensor that's sitting in a Canon EOS 1D Mk II? That's full-size, is it not?

A few nights ago I pulled out a ten year-old digital photography supplement to the British magazine 'Amateur Photographer'. The best 'prosumer' (though the term had yet to be coined) camera then cost over 800 GBP (around 1,200 bucks in 1997 money) and had a mere 575,000 pixels.

The technology's just around the corner.

Flying pink ponies will take a little longer (genetic engineering).

The 3,000 buck Porsche you can forget about.

Michael

 

[HAnkg]

The CCD sensor that's sitting in a Canon EOS 1 Mk II? That's full-size, is it not?

The lens to sensor distance in a DSLR is much greater then an M, making larger sensors much less of a challenge. Even so among the mass market DSLR manufacturers only Canon has managed a 24x36 sensor. The M is a very digital un-friendly design making it a much more difficult engineering problem then a DSLR. Add to that the tiny size of the RF market making the R&D resources and potential returns small and you may see that flying pink pony before a cheap full frame M mount DRF without the limitations of the M8.

 

[nrb]

Isn't Sony coming up with a full frame sensor shortly too?

 

[Bike Tourist]

As an A100 DSLR owner I can report the scuttlebut is either:

a. 1.3X

b. 1.1X

or

c. FF

Speculation relates to their announcement of two new models above the A100 and their function as supplier of sensors to Nikon for their DSLRs.

 

[HAnkg]

There are plenty of 24x36 sensors. They have been around for quite awhile. They where used in earlier generation medium format backs before the 1Ds came out. Getting them to work with wide angle lenses even in a DSLR is easier said then done. Pentax and Contax tried and failed. Which is why Canon has so far had no competition for it's full frame DSLR's. We may be getting close to the point where there will be more then just Canon with 24x36 DSLR's but RF will require a much more advanced system of microlenses then is needed for any DSLR.

So a few more 24x36 DSLR's on the market doesn't make a full frame M mount DRF any more likely. Now if someone wanted to produce a DRF that had the same mount as a Canon or a similar film to flange register as an SLR and used retrofocus wides then you could use the existing DSLR technology. But I can't see anyone doing it. The RF market is synonymous with the M mount and M compatible lenses.

 

[rvaubel]

Yes, one of the most important features of the rangefinder format is it's compact size and the use of the M mount and lenses. If getting a full frame camera means giving up any either of those, forget it. The 1.3 format is fine with me especially if it means that even more compact fast wides can be designed that only cover the reduced format.

Rex

 

[Ben Z]

There was a long time I lusted for a full-frame digital, and while waiting to score a 5D <$2000 (never happened) I bought a 12-24mm and an Olympus eyepiece magnifyer for my 20D which cancels the two objections I had to the crop-sensor bodies. Thanks to the crop I can use lighter lenses as my long telephotos and the crop also trims off much of the deficiencies of the less-expensive lenses (plus a little help from DxO). The crop factor to me is even less of an issue on a DRF because the viewfinder looks the same as the FF film version. I'd love to use the crop factor as a rationale for not buying an M8 but I can't, I'll have to admit it's because I'm choking at the cost

 

[rvaubel]

There was a long time I lusted for a full-frame digital, and while waiting to score a 5D <$2000 (never happened) I bought a 12-24mm and an Olympus eyepiece magnifyer for my 20D which cancels the two objections I had to the crop-sensor bodies. Thanks to the crop I can use lighter lenses as my long telephotos and the crop also trims off much of the deficiencies of the less-expensive lenses (plus a little help from DxO). The crop factor to me is even less of an issue on a DRF because the viewfinder looks the same as the FF film version. I'd love to use the crop factor as a rationale for not buying an M8 but I can't, I'll have to admit it's because I'm choking at the cost

Ya, the crop factor is starting to die down a little bit as the reason for not buying the M8. I am getting very comfortable with the concept of a 35mm lens being a more or less "normal" lens. It is a little absurd to suggest that by some sort of manifest destiny that a 35mm lens is naturally wide angle. It doesn't take that long to get use to a new convension. Jeesh we all did it with medium format work. But there still is a gap in the wide, fast lens lineup which the DSLR universe has filled.

Rex