Knowing what you know now - would you buy a M8?

No, I refused to own one in the first place -- and ticked a lot of people off on here and elsewhere with the reasons why.

Now, the M8.2 is another story. I'd still be using it today if Leica hadn't surprised us with the M9.
 
jaapv said:
which, if it is not a drum scanner, will not even come close to the M8 in image quality....
Click to expand...

Could you please provide a link or URL that provides factual proof not opinion of the above statement.

When comparing M8 ISO 640 DNGs to M6 HP5 ISO 400 XTOL 1-1 Minolta IV 3200 PPI Tiff Scans from a recent shoot There are things I like about both despite the very different results they produce and personally see no clear winner as to which method produces a higher quality image.
 
The M8 is terrific. I have owned one since June 2007. Never had a problem. I highly recommend it especially at today's used prices.
 
lencap said:
I am considering a M8, largely based on price and lack of experience with digital cameras.
Click to expand...

IMHO (former M8, current M9 owner) these cameras would not be my choice for someone lacking experience with digital. More than any DSLR, the M8 really needs to shoot RAW (.dng). You will need a raw converter if you don't have one. New M8's come with free Capture 1, a used one I don't know. The M8 still costs over $2K, plus $50-$100+ each for IR filters which you'll need for every lens. Repairs once it's out of warranty, will be quite costly, and due to the initial outlay, you're likely to pay to repair it rather than consider it disposible.

That said, if you don't have a philosophical aversion to crop factors and IR filters, and you're game for the learning curve, I think you'll find the M8 a rewarding camera just as I did.
 
I never had any particular issues my mine and thought it was a pretty good camera--other that the crop factor and the need for IR filters. It was just that the M9 was a better camera.
 
Mcary said:
Could you please provide a link or URL that provides factual proof not opinion of the above statement.

When comparing M8 ISO 640 DNGs to M6 HP5 ISO 400 XTOL 1-1 Minolta IV 3200 PPI Tiff Scans from a recent shoot There are things I like about both despite the very different results they produce and personally see no clear winner as to which method produces a higher quality image.
Click to expand...
Nor I as it is apples and oranges, I was just pi**ed off with the trollish post that I reacted to...
 
I've photographed with M's for many years and have completed assignments on both film bodies and with the M8. The only problems I could find with the M8 was that the ISO was very limited (compared to my DSLR's) and therefore you must be accurate with your exposure or you will suffer terrible noise, and also the shutter noise. The shutter is not that bad even on the M8 original but it is different. I wound up using strobes quite a bit with the M8 I can tell you that the image quality is OUTSTANDING. Better than any drum scanned 35mm color film. I know people will argue that but honestly digital is way better in terms of detail and the amount of info in an image. The M8 doe not, however, have the "classic M" feel for me and I went back to a film M for my reportage work. Would I buy a M8 now? Sure, but only use it when I needed a clinically perfect image in perfectly controlled light with a perfectly tanned model. For all else the M8 would not be my choice.

But don't forget... That's just my opinion, man.
 
Absolutely. I am still amazed by the files the M8 produces and how some lenses perform. Yes, the IR filters are a pain, but I get to use my Leica glass and don't have to put them on 4/3 bodies.
 
I recently bought a second M8.2 (mint used) rather than an M9. This suits my needs, irrespective of costs, considering my shooting style and desired print sizes. I was happy to also get in the process a sapphire LCD, top display and an even quieter shutter than the M9(marginally)... although none of this of consequence in IQ, of course.

The filters went on once and have never been a concern since (and based on what I've seen, even better blacks in some cases compared to the M9 without filter).

The crop factor has also become a non-issue as I generally use a 28 Summicron Asph on one camera and a 50 Summilux Asph on the other. In my film days (M6s and M7s), I instead preferred using my 35 Summicron Asph and 75 Summicron Asph. All these lenses are wonderful, so no real sacrifice in my choosing either pairings. In fact, I never liked the 75 frame lines, so the M8.2 actually provides better viewing for me than my FF choices.

I also like 'second generation' cameras in general. The kinks have generally been well sorted out, and the prices have been typically less than complete new models. It will be interesting to see if an M9.2 materializes, but even so, I'm still likely better off with my current set-up given my shooting style and preferences.

Others naturally have different needs or wants, and for them the M9 may be clearly superior. To each their own. I welcome choices, and am always open to options if they can better meet my needs.

For the OP, the M8 is good option to gain experience. Once you use it for a while, you'll be better able to determine what, if anything, you're missing based on your needs and preferences. But, if you can find a reasonably priced M8.2, perhaps even better. FWIW (probably not much), it will always be a rarer camera than either the M8 or M9.

Jeff
 
Yes, I would--without a second thought. The crop factor isn't a big deal for me--as my M8 is my first RF. Additionally, the IR filter is a non-factor for me.

Get the M8 for a good price. Use it for a couple years until M9 prices fall dramatically.
 
tbarker13 said:
Without question, I would buy again.

In the end, it's still - in my opinion - the most cost effective option for shooting digital with my M-mount lenses.
Click to expand...

+1

Regarding lens choices and the M8 crop factor, except for needing something in the 15-18mm range for an "ultra" wide, I use the same lenses with my M8 as I do with my film M. Very happy. Would be happiest with an M9, sure, but I'm waiting for the price to drop into my affordability range, just like I did with the M8.
 
Q1. Do you find that the M8 is usable, or are the problems too much for you to accept?

A1. The M8.2 is more than usable. For the last 9 months of owning one, my 5D2 has been collecting dust... only to be dusted off on the odd occasion when I shoot wildlife and require 200-600mm focal lengths (which is to say, very rarely). For most of my regular shooting which involves shooting landscapes in the backcountry, the M8.2 w/ SE18 offers a much sharper and less distorted image than what the 5D2 w/ 16-35/2.8II can offer.

Q2. If I want to shoot primarily in B&W is there any advantage to having the high IR capture of the M8?

A2. For me at least, I actaully find the high IR sensitivity a non-issue for most outdoor shooting since it makes the M8.2 a great IR camera without needing any IR conversion and you can still frame like you normally do. Yes, trees can take on a yellowy cast and dark synthetic materials can take on a purplish tint if you don't use a UV/IR filter but this is actually quite easily fixed in Lightroom if you know what you're doing.

I find the option of shooting in IR actually expands my shooting opportunities. This is because when the light is not desirable for colour shooting (i.e. mid afternoon landscapes or overcast weather), this is actually the perfect time to shoot in IR.

I for one will be hanging on to my M8.2, even long after I eventually pick up an M9 or M10 down the road simply for the IR shooting. As long as it keeps on ticking, it will have a place in my camera bag.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom