lencap
Established
I am considering a M8, largely based on price and lack of experience with digital cameras. I've read about the problems with the M8 cameras, but the local dealer has a newer M8 for sale with a warranty. I assume that the initial issues have been corrected (green tint/some initial finder issues) and that the remaining issue revolves around the "tint" issue with deep black.
Two questions: 1) for those of you who have experienced this issue, do you find that the M8 is usable, or are the problems too much for you to accept; 2) if I want to shoot primarily in B&W is there any advantage to having the high IR capture of the M8? Some have told me that there are some benefits to the camera if used solely for B&W photography.
I don't know enough to make an informed decision - what is your experience?
Thanks
Two questions: 1) for those of you who have experienced this issue, do you find that the M8 is usable, or are the problems too much for you to accept; 2) if I want to shoot primarily in B&W is there any advantage to having the high IR capture of the M8? Some have told me that there are some benefits to the camera if used solely for B&W photography.
I don't know enough to make an informed decision - what is your experience?
Thanks
porktaco
Well-known
nope. the IR cut filter thing is offputting. i'm waiting till the m9 gets knocked down to $3k or so.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Having owned one for three years ... no!
The IR problem and the crop factor never go away ... or the poor high ISO performance for that matter.
The IR problem and the crop factor never go away ... or the poor high ISO performance for that matter.
Tipton
Tipton Photo
I had mine for a week before getting rid of it, never regretted that decision for a minute.
nex100
Established
the high level of detail captured by the M8's out dated sensor is better than the latest sensor in my Sony nex-3. Yes I have bought and will still continue to use it for years to come until the price of the M9 is within my means
Livesteamer
Well-known
For the money involved I'd rather have a full frame Nikon dslr. Having said that, I want to keep shooting film in my Leica's, both M and LTM, as long as I can. Joe
Stephen G
Well-known
Depends on your needs and current lens collection.
I as buying back into the Leica system after giving up RF and trying to make due with micro4/3 (that lasted 5 months..)
Buying all my lenses with the 1.3x factor in mind, and budgeting an extra $50 for UV-IR filters, it was inconsequential to me.
I shoot a 15, 35 and 50 on mine.
What do you have now? What focal lengths/lenses do you like on film?
Also coming from micro4/3 and previously Epson RD1, the lack of good low-noise, high ISO mode was not a big deal either.
Certainly no worse than high ISO film ever was. This is coming from a former user of HP5+, Neopan 1600, Delta3200.
Given that you plan to shoot B&W, IR becomes less of an issue.
At current pricing, there was nothing else that fit the bill for me.
Given that you can buy 3 M8s for the price of an M9 these days, they are quite the bargain.
I as buying back into the Leica system after giving up RF and trying to make due with micro4/3 (that lasted 5 months..)
Buying all my lenses with the 1.3x factor in mind, and budgeting an extra $50 for UV-IR filters, it was inconsequential to me.
I shoot a 15, 35 and 50 on mine.
What do you have now? What focal lengths/lenses do you like on film?
Also coming from micro4/3 and previously Epson RD1, the lack of good low-noise, high ISO mode was not a big deal either.
Certainly no worse than high ISO film ever was. This is coming from a former user of HP5+, Neopan 1600, Delta3200.
Given that you plan to shoot B&W, IR becomes less of an issue.
At current pricing, there was nothing else that fit the bill for me.
Given that you can buy 3 M8s for the price of an M9 these days, they are quite the bargain.
Stephen G
Well-known
That is more or less my strategy.
Was a film user when Epson RD1 came out for $3000 in 2004.
I continued using film for 3 years.
I bought the Epson RD1 in 2007 when the price had gone down to $1500 or so. (When M8 was $5000?)
Used that for 3 years. Sold it for about what I paid.
Briefly flirted with micro4/3.
Then got an M8 at current $2xxx pricing (While M9 is $7000).
Seems these cameras go down 50% within 3 years, so maybe we will see some $3xxx M9s come late 2012/early 2013. This of course depends on an M10 being announced and people selling their current M9s..
Was a film user when Epson RD1 came out for $3000 in 2004.
I continued using film for 3 years.
I bought the Epson RD1 in 2007 when the price had gone down to $1500 or so. (When M8 was $5000?)
Used that for 3 years. Sold it for about what I paid.
Briefly flirted with micro4/3.
Then got an M8 at current $2xxx pricing (While M9 is $7000).
Seems these cameras go down 50% within 3 years, so maybe we will see some $3xxx M9s come late 2012/early 2013. This of course depends on an M10 being announced and people selling their current M9s..
sprokitt
Established
Tough call. I agree with Stephen G. The M8 price to performance ratio is about as good as you can get if you want a digital M body. But even the recent auction for a user without box or any accessories brought $5k. I have shot, and would love to own an M9. Unfortunately, until the price of a body comes down to the low $4k range I'll just have to stick with the M8.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
Without question, I would buy again.
And this is despite the fact that mine is now in Germany being repaired.
My first one was among the initial batch that came into the US when the camera was first introduced. I've shot thousands and thousands of images with that M8, and now my M8.2.
Yes, the high ISO performance is not what I would have expected from a Leica. But I can live with it.
In the end, it's still - in my opinion - the most cost effective option for shooting digital with my M-mount lenses.
And this is despite the fact that mine is now in Germany being repaired.
My first one was among the initial batch that came into the US when the camera was first introduced. I've shot thousands and thousands of images with that M8, and now my M8.2.
Yes, the high ISO performance is not what I would have expected from a Leica. But I can live with it.
In the end, it's still - in my opinion - the most cost effective option for shooting digital with my M-mount lenses.
Lss
Well-known
Knowing what I know now about M8 I would absolutely buy it again and again and again. I however do not recommend it to you, if you just want something digital to experiment with. There are more affordable options that let you experiment with digital and offer more features to play with (such as video recording).
menos
Veteran
Yes I would.
The M8.2 is still (since I have it) my most used camera.
All other cameras are fun to use for a specific purpose or mood, but the M8.2 is my always with me camera.
I don't care about the "IR issue", as I do mostly BW with the M8.2.
I would pay much attention to the mentioned issues and rule them out when buying a M8 (I did the same and I am very confident, my sample will hold up for a while).
I had no issues so far with my M8.2, except one screw slightly loos, resulting in a small top deck squeek, which I could fix myself after proper education.
I don't mention RF setting, as this is a given with a Leica M and should be thought about.
The M8.2 is still (since I have it) my most used camera.
All other cameras are fun to use for a specific purpose or mood, but the M8.2 is my always with me camera.
I don't care about the "IR issue", as I do mostly BW with the M8.2.
I would pay much attention to the mentioned issues and rule them out when buying a M8 (I did the same and I am very confident, my sample will hold up for a while).
I had no issues so far with my M8.2, except one screw slightly loos, resulting in a small top deck squeek, which I could fix myself after proper education.
I don't mention RF setting, as this is a given with a Leica M and should be thought about.
FrankHarries
Well-known
No, wouldn't buy one - there would be about 25 other cameras which I would prefer buying if I had the funds
noimmunity
scratch my niche
Yes, I would.
It's only one of three choices in the digital realm of rangefinders.
The main drawback of the use of IR filters is the increased likelihood of flare. Not a show stopper.
The best thing about the M8 is the lack of an AA filter, which gives the M8 files a look straight out of the camera that few other digital cameras have.
But for exclusively black and white photography, I would and do stick to film. I use the M8 mostly for color.
It's only one of three choices in the digital realm of rangefinders.
The main drawback of the use of IR filters is the increased likelihood of flare. Not a show stopper.
The best thing about the M8 is the lack of an AA filter, which gives the M8 files a look straight out of the camera that few other digital cameras have.
But for exclusively black and white photography, I would and do stick to film. I use the M8 mostly for color.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes. The M9 is of course EVEN NICER, but twice the price.
I much preferred the M8.2 to the M8, though (quieter, generally improved).
Cheers,
R.
I much preferred the M8.2 to the M8, though (quieter, generally improved).
Cheers,
R.
zoz63
Established
Yes I would buy M8 ...to little time to develop film...
Frank Petronio
Well-known
As long as you are OK with the fact that a tiny Sony NEX or several other inexpensive pocket cameras can out-perform it, then go ahead.
But for my money, I think I rather have a nice film M set, a scanner, film, a trip, and maybe a small digital for back-up....
But for my money, I think I rather have a nice film M set, a scanner, film, a trip, and maybe a small digital for back-up....
usayit
Well-known
Responses will be split.... just like the previous threads discussing whether or not the M9 is a big enough improvement over the M8.
I would. My M8 still serves as a backup for my M9 and produces fine results. It did suffer the dreaded vertical line issue but Leica NJ repaired it fairly quickly. The crop wasn't a big deal most of the time. No more than it was on the R-D1 and my Canon. It was a big deal with my Noctilux as it just wasn't the same on the M8. The IR filter was a bit of an annoyance. If I were in that position again the R-D1 would be a major contender, I sold it recently to fund the M9 and the fact that the M8 was a better match (same batteries, similar handling) but I do kinda miss it... It was a very very fun and fullfillling camera.
There's really no other choice if digital rangefinder is what you seek. Yes... there are other options such as m43 and other DSLRs but shooting with those brings a completely different experience. Its not just about the resultant photo at the end.
I would. My M8 still serves as a backup for my M9 and produces fine results. It did suffer the dreaded vertical line issue but Leica NJ repaired it fairly quickly. The crop wasn't a big deal most of the time. No more than it was on the R-D1 and my Canon. It was a big deal with my Noctilux as it just wasn't the same on the M8. The IR filter was a bit of an annoyance. If I were in that position again the R-D1 would be a major contender, I sold it recently to fund the M9 and the fact that the M8 was a better match (same batteries, similar handling) but I do kinda miss it... It was a very very fun and fullfillling camera.
There's really no other choice if digital rangefinder is what you seek. Yes... there are other options such as m43 and other DSLRs but shooting with those brings a completely different experience. Its not just about the resultant photo at the end.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I use an M8.2 and have no issues. It is a wonderful camera. Having to use IR cut filters is kind of lame, but not a big deal really. I had a M8, sold it for a Nikon D700... regretted my decision, sold the D700, and then bought a M8.2. Been happy ever since.