How much are you willing to pay for a M8?

[rxmd]

A 2.hand camera will always be without warranty.

Er, no. If you buy a Leica new here in Germany, the camera has 24 months warranty attached to it that is transferable to the next owner. If you don't get that in Norway, you get screwed over.

Technically it's not warranty, but "Gewährleistung", i.e. after 6 months they could reserve the right to refuse service because you'd have to prove it's their fault; in practice hardly any large company does this because the cost of a lawsuit would be larger than that of the service.

 

[JohnTF]

Er, no. If you buy a Leica new here in Germany, the camera has 24 months warranty attached to it that is transferable to the next owner. If you don't get that in Norway, you get screwed over.

Technically it's not warranty, but "Gewährleistung", i.e. after 6 months they could reserve the right to refuse service because you'd have to prove it's their fault; in practice hardly any large company does this because the cost of a lawsuit would be larger than that of the service.

I sent my M8 for service through my dealer, am not sure he put my name on the shipping invoice.

But I agree it should not matter who owns it.

And, if there proves to be a defect from the original manufacture, some companies will make exceptions, or offer courtesy repairs.

I sent a Contax G2 in to have the manual focus repaired, it came back no charge, and I had bought it used plus I know it was more than a year old.

I do not think much of any outfit that weasels out of a factory defect repair.

Regards, John

 

[Richard Marks]

Hear, hear! I agree with this.

I use my M8 most of the time with my WATE. Worlds flawlessly and exceeds , expectation of field of view - and quality. It is possibly the best Digital Wide Angle Combination on the market. So does my Voigtländer 15 mm Super Wide.

Have you tried the Nikon 14-24? This is causing a major stir. It really is an unusual lens. Its so good its getting put onto Canons apparently. Its a big lump of glass and there is no way of protecting the front element but its pretty amazing in my opinion.

Richard

 

[Frank Petronio]

Since repairing a faulty M8 could cost more than the cost of a used body, it's rather like having a clunker car -- you might as well drive them into the ground until they are broken, and maybe by then the used parts will be worth a few hundred bucks to someone. I used a six-year old D100 the other day and it worked fine, so why couldn't a solid M8 last another 5 years?

Next year maybe I'll buy one for $1000 if I know the history and can test it. It would be a nice camera with a Jupiter-3 for portraits, and maybe a cheap VC wide for walking around. Just like the DSLR market, there will be a lot of three-year old top-of-the-line cameras with less than 10,000 exposures. Gotta love yuppie scum ;-)

 

[docolmo]

I have 2 M8s. Will not sell below us$ 2000. Will keep them till they are
not effectively servicable. Then throw them in the dustbin.

Agree. Potential second-hand buyers do not need charity.

 

[rxmd]

Agree. Potential second-hand buyers do not need charity.

Disagree. Sold my used Bessa R for 99 EUR second-hand to a guy here on RFF who couldn't have afforded one otherwise.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I have 2 M8s. Will not sell below us$ 2000. Will keep them till they are
not effectively servicable. Then throw them in the dustbin.

The instruction book specifically counsels against disposing of these cameras in household waste. It's one of my favourite bits.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Have you tried the Nikon 14-24? This is causing a major stir. It really is an unusual lens. Its so good its getting put onto Canons apparently. Its a big lump of glass and there is no way of protecting the front element but its pretty amazing in my opinion.

Richard

Yep, it's been favourably compared to the Zeiss Distagon 21!

 

[Roger Hicks]

I do not think much of any outfit that weasels out of a factory defect repair.

Dear John,

My 12x15 Gandolfi Universal was defective as supplied in about 1900.

Eddie agreed to repair it, under guarantee, in about 2005.

The drawback was that I'd have to pay shipping both ways (65 lb/ almost 30 kg) in the box...

I made up the part (a brass tab with a 3 BA hole) myself, according to Eddie's instructions, and have had no problems since.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Pablito]

Dear John,

My 12x15 Gandolfi Universal was defective as supplied in about 1900.

Eddie agreed to repair it, under guarantee, in about 2005.

The drawback was that I'd have to pay shipping both ways (65 lb/ almost 30 kg) in the box...

I made up the part (a brass tab with a 3 BA hole) myself, according to Eddie's instructions, and have had no problems since.

Cheers,

R.

Wow 105 year warranty.

 

[Rob-F]

I don't have ANY Leica glass, Sooooo, I'll wait untill it goes down under a grand. I think sooner or later it will.
Kiu

I'd say the reports of the economic demise of the M8 are being greatly exaggerated. It is a more versatile camera than the Epson, and more reliable. Yet the Epson, for the most part, refuses to sink below $1500 or so. The M8, on eBay, is pretty consistently going for $2550 or so--only about a hundred bucks less than before the M9 came out.

 

[Olsen]

Viewing the small Leica community here in Norway, - one of the markets in the world with the strongest purchasing power in the world, the individual purchase of M9 is dependant of the M8 sale. This because the M8 sale is a vital part of the finance. Further; the better price they are getting, the surer the M9 purchase will be. So, Leica should expect that their M9 sales is dependant on how 2.hand M8 sales is going and the prices in this M8 2.hand market.

 

[jaapv]

It appears have a very similar IQ and only one stop of noise reduction, still some residual IR contamination, not to mention it reverts to the 1m frame line calibration and scratchable LCD that the M8.2 (and upgraded M8) no longer suffers from. The full-frame sensor would allow use of the 12mm Heliar to its fullest, but from 15mm (full frame) up every focal length can be covered effectively on the M8. I can't think of anything significant the M9 would do for me that the M8 can't, so I can't see where owning one would "ruin" the M8 for me, except that shooting them together would be a royal PITA, needing to swap IR filters on and off every time I switch lenses between bodies, and having to remember that the framelines are calibrated differently. Still, given that my M8 is worth so little compared to what I paid for it, I'd keep it as a backup once I got an M9. Darned better backup than the DLux3 I'm using now.

The IQ is different, notably in the color area, due to improved Bayer filters, especially in the red channel, always a weak point on the M8. Considering the increase in pixel count the noise improvement can be set at two stops in print - with improvement coming as users develop postprocessing skills (like the M8!) and possibly with a firmware upgrade in that field in the future. I find it very worthwhile. The IR contamination is about the same as any other digital camera out there. I have been using 486 filters on my DMR -and found an improvement - and on a borrowed D700 - and found an improvement. It is just a fact of digital life - As it is the M8 is in the top 30% of cameras for IR blocking. I find the 1m calibration fine - the viewfinder frames behave about the same as they used to do on my M6TTL. The scratchable LCD - Yes I agree - but I never scratched my M8 ones, despite scuffing the bodies, and one can always stick a protector on.
Having said that, I won't be selling my M8. I didn't sell my Digilux2 either, and still use it when so inclined.

 

[Honu-Hugger]

It will be years before I even consider buying an M9 or whatever is being offered at the time. I like Leicas for their ironclad dependability and so far I have not seen that with the M8/8.2, and I am doubtful it exists with the M9. And yet earlier this year I was actually ready to buy an M8, but then I found way too many reliability issues for my liking.

This is no slam against Leica -- I truly applaud their efforts. It's all about the technology and how it evolves. I have a personal analogy with computers that carries over to digital cameras: Years ago I was frustrated with a computer failure and asked my tech what can I buy, cost no object, that will give me the same dependability that you get with, for instance, a good Mercedes automobile -- same long-term value, build quality, etc (or we could just as easily say a Leica M4). He patiently explained to me that there really is no reason to expect that level of quality in a computer because the technology is changing much too fast to ever appreciate any long-term value. And it's true, it was a tough pill to swallow for me because I always like to buy quality, things that will last a lifetime. The lifespan of a computer is more like an insect... I accept that now and have lowered my expectations accordingly. I do the same with digital cameras -- the reliability of the "guts" of all makes of these cameras still seem weak to me.

 

[Ben Z]

The IQ is different, notably in the color area, due to improved Bayer filters, especially in the red channel, always a weak point on the M8. Considering the increase in pixel count the noise improvement can be set at two stops in print - with improvement coming as users develop postprocessing skills (like the M8!) and possibly with a firmware upgrade in that field in the future.

That's very interesting. Actually I never noticed a problem with reds on the M8, and about 75% of what I've shot with my M8 has been @ ISO160 and maybe 20% @ 320. That's a good point about users developing postprocessing skills and upcoming firmware updates. That maturation period should dovetail nicely with the timeline I expect to eventually get an M9 when the demos come along.

The IR contamination is about the same as any other digital camera out there. I have been using 486 filters on my DMR -and found an improvement - and on a borrowed D700 - and found an improvement. It is just a fact of digital life - As it is the M8 is in the top 30% of cameras for IR blocking.

My son's Nikon D70, definitely yes, magenta blacks. Likewise the Epson R-D1 I had. I'm frankly surprised about the D700 but I've not used a recent Nikon. Neither my 20D nor my 5D exhibit the slightest bit of IR contamination that I've ever been able to detect.

I find the 1m calibration fine - the viewfinder frames behave about the same as they used to do on my M6TTL. The scratchable LCD - Yes I agree - but I never scratched my M8 ones, despite scuffing the bodies, and one can always stick a protector on.

I got used to the original M8 calibration, and I never had trouble with the M6 or M7/MP calibration, it's all a matter of getting used to it, then it becomes second nature. But I do find that my M4 and my upgraded M8 require less "thinking outside the box (frames)" at my typical shooting distances. What annoys me a little is that Leica seems to have taken a step backward on two features that were very popular with customers.

Having said that, I won't be selling my M8. I didn't sell my Digilux2 either, and still use it when so inclined.

Me too (the M8, I never had a Digilux). I've kept my 20D despite getting a 5D. I just don't see the point in selling a perfectly good camera for pennies on the dollar. I take it out in bad weather, down to the ocean...stuff I wouldn't do with the 5D. It does seem surreal that in another year or so I'll probably have the same attitude about the M8 😱

 

[jaapv]

That's very interesting. Actually I never noticed a problem with reds on the M8, and about 75% of what I've shot with my M8 has been @ ISO160 and maybe 20% @ 320. That's a good point about users developing postprocessing skills and upcoming firmware updates. That maturation period should dovetail nicely with the timeline I expect to eventually get an M9 when the demos come along.

Problem is far too heavy a word. I didn't see it as such, but I did find myself adjusting the A channel contrast curve quite often in LAB. With the M9 I find I don't need to do that any more.

My son's Nikon D70, definitely yes, magenta blacks. Likewise the Epson R-D1 I had. I'm frankly surprised about the D700 but I've not used a recent Nikon. Neither my 20D nor my 5D exhibit the slightest bit of IR contamination that I've ever been able to detect.

Yes those two were particularly prone to IR. I am talking about cameras that are actually rather good and still benefit from an 486 filter, and it is surprising that that is just about any digital camera. Again, nothing dramatic, but quite subtle.

I got used to the original M8 calibration, and I never had trouble with the M6 or M7/MP calibration, it's all a matter of getting used to it, then it becomes second nature. But I do find that my M4 and my upgraded M8 require less "thinking outside the box (frames)" at my typical shooting distances. What annoys me a little is that Leica seems to have taken a step backward on two features that were very popular with customers.

I agree, it is not a deal breaker anyway. I think with the LCD cover the idea was to keep the price under 7000$ and with the framelines to increase visibility of the 28 lines for use with spectacles.

Me too (the M8, I never had a Digilux). I've kept my 20D despite getting a 5D. I just don't see the point in selling a perfectly good camera for pennies on the dollar. I take it out in bad weather, down to the ocean...stuff I wouldn't do with the 5D. It does seem surreal that in another year or so I'll probably have the same attitude about the M8 😱

I'm not sure about the M8 - it is too nice a camera for that 😉

 

[Ben Z]

I did find myself adjusting the A channel contrast curve quite often in LAB.

I think the fact that I have no idea what that means points to a fundamental difference in the way we approach digital photography. Anything that I need to do after the shutter clicks is excruciating. Might explain why 99% of what I've shot digitally has never made it past uploading to my computer :bang:

 

[NIKON KIU]

I have 2 M8s. Will not sell below us$ 2000. Will keep them till they are
not effectively servicable. Then throw them in the dustbin.

Don't worry, you'll sell them for $2k 😀

Kiu

 

[JNewell]

Problem is far too heavy a word. I didn't see it as such, but I did find myself adjusting the A channel contrast curve quite often in LAB. With the M9 I find I don't need to do that any more. Yes those two were particularly prone to IR. I am talking about cameras that are actually rather good and still benefit from an 486 filter, and it is surprising that that is just about any digital camera. Again, nothing dramatic, but quite subtle.I agree, it is not a deal breaker anyway. I think with the LCD cover the idea was to keep the price under 7000$ and with the framelines to increase visibility of the 28 lines for use with spectacles.I'm not sure about the M8 - it is too nice a camera for that 😉

This part of this thread is really great. It would be worth finding a way to make it more easily found...? I am really benefiting from what you two are writing back and forth! 🙂

 

[tcline]

I picked up my M8 five months ago for $2800, two batteries, thumbs up model 3, 1.5x, as well as complete factory packaging. Now, I would pay up to $2,500 and can see prices eventually leveling out at or around the 2k price range.

Turns out, the camera had only 648 exposures upon delivery so I was more than pleased.

I intend to keep my M8 running for as long as Leica will service it.