samuelphoto
Established
No only would I, I just did. I had tried the m4/3 thing and was completely dissatisfied. Hopefully, tomorrow I will take delivery of an absolutely mint condition M8.2 which cost me less than half the price of a M9. I'll need to change out my lenses, basically swapping a 21 and 35 for a 15/18 and a 28. Got a 28 through Sean at Camera West. I'll keep the 50 'lux. Found the filters I needed on the Evilbay. I'm pumped!
Last edited:
LeicaM3
Well-known
My answer is No.
Had the M8 for a short while. Leica's greatest failure to date.
M8.2 was better.
M9 is a success and I am considering buying one.
Had the M8 for a short while. Leica's greatest failure to date.
M8.2 was better.
M9 is a success and I am considering buying one.
Last edited:
Jeff S
Well-known
There wouldn't be an M9 without the success of the M8, a camera that was supposed to be impossible to build. Jeff
lencap
Established
Thanks for all the replies - very helpful.
I'm still a bit removed from a final decision. The issue is further clouded by my many decades of SLR use. I've used a FM2 with a 28mm f/2.8 lens, along with a 50mm f/1.4. As I consider that combination I am left wondering what I'll gain by stepping into the digital realm. There is little doubt in my mind that despite the very impressive progress of digital cameras over the last few years, the coming few years will leapfrog whatever we have now. I can't begin to know how/why that will happen, but the new Sony Alph line of cameras may be a preview - no more moving mirror - just a pass through to the digital imager. As others refine that thought process the possibility exists that the next big change will be in camera form - not imaging sensors. Imagine a camera with an Apple like interface instead of knobs and dials. Not like you see it used now on deep digital menus, but morphed into intuitive design, with everything under your fingers just where you want it. Think iPad - a revolution to some, but a refinement of several available technologies to others.
My point isn't that I am a "film shooter", but frankly the pace of digital cameras has me confused and uncertain about the "safety" of my digital investment. APC sensors, 4/3s imagers, 1.33/1.5/1.6 crop factors, DX, FX, etc. It's a zoo. (I have a lot of history with pro camcorders - there is a new format and capture device almost monthly. Using Apple Final Cut the number of formats grows by the week. I fear that same technology push will come to digital cameras, and it makes me cling to film).
Anyway, thanks again for the help and comments - I am still considering things, but for now the cost of a used M8/8.2/9 camera, coupled with the inevitable "next big thing" has me leaning to film - maybe even medium format. I've always remembered taking a few shots with a friend's Hasselblad - I took terrible shots, but I remember how amazed I was looking down into that finder and seeing an incredibly large image staring back at me. It has left a permanent impression, and as I age and my eyesight continues to fade, I question my ability to clearly focus any rangefinder with a 0.72 or smaller magnification. And on the rare instance when I want to shoot a 135mm lens, I am very uncertain that my eyes are up to the task.
The conclusion, for ME, seems to be stick with film - don't quite give up the SLR for ease of focus, and maybe try a newer entry level digital camera to see what the format has to offer (Nikon D3100 (?) with a 35mm f/1.8d lens - $850 or so - less than the cost of a used Leica lens).
The one thing that I've not had a lot of feedback about is the learning curve for digital processing. When shooting video the amount of time spent editing is not insignificant, and the skills needed to do it right require intense effort and time.
Lightroom/Aperture takes me into the darkroom and away from shooting - just like video editing. I'm not sure that I want to take that step, but at least with your comments I've begun to think through the entire workflow, not just pulling the shutter release. At least with film I can outsource "production" to a competent lab. Yep, it's more expensive, but my time is worth something too.
Thanks again to all. I'm still working on it.
I'm still a bit removed from a final decision. The issue is further clouded by my many decades of SLR use. I've used a FM2 with a 28mm f/2.8 lens, along with a 50mm f/1.4. As I consider that combination I am left wondering what I'll gain by stepping into the digital realm. There is little doubt in my mind that despite the very impressive progress of digital cameras over the last few years, the coming few years will leapfrog whatever we have now. I can't begin to know how/why that will happen, but the new Sony Alph line of cameras may be a preview - no more moving mirror - just a pass through to the digital imager. As others refine that thought process the possibility exists that the next big change will be in camera form - not imaging sensors. Imagine a camera with an Apple like interface instead of knobs and dials. Not like you see it used now on deep digital menus, but morphed into intuitive design, with everything under your fingers just where you want it. Think iPad - a revolution to some, but a refinement of several available technologies to others.
My point isn't that I am a "film shooter", but frankly the pace of digital cameras has me confused and uncertain about the "safety" of my digital investment. APC sensors, 4/3s imagers, 1.33/1.5/1.6 crop factors, DX, FX, etc. It's a zoo. (I have a lot of history with pro camcorders - there is a new format and capture device almost monthly. Using Apple Final Cut the number of formats grows by the week. I fear that same technology push will come to digital cameras, and it makes me cling to film).
Anyway, thanks again for the help and comments - I am still considering things, but for now the cost of a used M8/8.2/9 camera, coupled with the inevitable "next big thing" has me leaning to film - maybe even medium format. I've always remembered taking a few shots with a friend's Hasselblad - I took terrible shots, but I remember how amazed I was looking down into that finder and seeing an incredibly large image staring back at me. It has left a permanent impression, and as I age and my eyesight continues to fade, I question my ability to clearly focus any rangefinder with a 0.72 or smaller magnification. And on the rare instance when I want to shoot a 135mm lens, I am very uncertain that my eyes are up to the task.
The conclusion, for ME, seems to be stick with film - don't quite give up the SLR for ease of focus, and maybe try a newer entry level digital camera to see what the format has to offer (Nikon D3100 (?) with a 35mm f/1.8d lens - $850 or so - less than the cost of a used Leica lens).
The one thing that I've not had a lot of feedback about is the learning curve for digital processing. When shooting video the amount of time spent editing is not insignificant, and the skills needed to do it right require intense effort and time.
Lightroom/Aperture takes me into the darkroom and away from shooting - just like video editing. I'm not sure that I want to take that step, but at least with your comments I've begun to think through the entire workflow, not just pulling the shutter release. At least with film I can outsource "production" to a competent lab. Yep, it's more expensive, but my time is worth something too.
Thanks again to all. I'm still working on it.
Last edited:
Yes, I've had two for a couple years and more and more I've come to appreciate its qualities now that it's a "mature" product, issues settled. For instance... I'm ok with the IR cut filter, which is indeed more effective than the M9 in eliminating unwanted IR contamination. And the M8 is now an economical choice.
Jeff S
Well-known
lencap, I think you're right to think about workflow. It's a critical decision. I did, too, but my path differed from yours.
I never outsourced my b/w work for over 25 years and 4 darkrooms, and rarely shot color. Until the digital M came into being, and until processing software, papers, inks and so forth improved (especially for b/w), I had no urge to go digital. For me, it's always been about the print, and I could always do it better than any lab could do it for me.
But, then I moved 2 years ago and had to consider whether to build my 5th darkroom. I somewhat reluctantly converted to digital...both front and back end. Frankly, I dreaded the learning curve, and never had a great love for computers.
Instead, I now find myself far more productive and efficient, but no less disciplined, than in my film and darkroom days. Yes, the learning took time, but it was more than worth it. The more I learned, the more I realized that I didn't need to get every new digital everything. Just like in the old days, it's all about learning to get the best from your tools. (As I posted above, I chose another M8.2 even though I could have afforded a couple of M9s.)
And, the bonus is that I'm now enjoying color work in addition to b/w, which was never part of my plan. Shooting is still as much fun as ever. I don't miss my darkrooms a bit.
Jeff
PS If you opt to stay with film, and like big viewfinders, get yourself a large format camera and really see the world in a big way.
I never outsourced my b/w work for over 25 years and 4 darkrooms, and rarely shot color. Until the digital M came into being, and until processing software, papers, inks and so forth improved (especially for b/w), I had no urge to go digital. For me, it's always been about the print, and I could always do it better than any lab could do it for me.
But, then I moved 2 years ago and had to consider whether to build my 5th darkroom. I somewhat reluctantly converted to digital...both front and back end. Frankly, I dreaded the learning curve, and never had a great love for computers.
Instead, I now find myself far more productive and efficient, but no less disciplined, than in my film and darkroom days. Yes, the learning took time, but it was more than worth it. The more I learned, the more I realized that I didn't need to get every new digital everything. Just like in the old days, it's all about learning to get the best from your tools. (As I posted above, I chose another M8.2 even though I could have afforded a couple of M9s.)
And, the bonus is that I'm now enjoying color work in addition to b/w, which was never part of my plan. Shooting is still as much fun as ever. I don't miss my darkrooms a bit.
Jeff
PS If you opt to stay with film, and like big viewfinders, get yourself a large format camera and really see the world in a big way.
emraphoto
Veteran
no. it would be very difficult to convince me to put my money into a new Leica anything. my experience dealing with the company after buying a defective product (new m8) was so unsavory that i will never rely on them again.
LeicaM3
Well-known
Jeff
Commercial success != good camera
I am certainly most thankful to everybody who bought an M8 too keep Leica afloat and make the M9 possible.
BTW, I am on of those. But a direct donation would have saved me a lot of time and frustration.
Keyne
Established
Yes I would buy one again... mainly because I returned the first used one I bought because of the vertical line issue.... sigh. Still searching for a good used one now that the holidays are over.
You mention you might be interested in a Nikon D3100... Personally I have gone the exact opposite direction. I started with an Olympus 8080WZ several years ago (it was a big point and shoot digital camera with lots of ability to adjust manually) and last year bought a Panasonic G1 M4/3 camera. I never liked the ergonomics on the Oly but I LOVED using the M4/3's camera over the past year. It is small, light, great for travel, and for me I took the best pictures I have ever taken... However, especially after using legacy lenses on it (old Canon FD's purchased from KEH) I found myself longing for more control and better ergonomics. Now I found myself really frustrated by the dial scrolling to adjust shutter speed, aperture (when not using legacy lenses), and the manual focusing is hard and clunky (buttons to press for manual focusing zooming).
In the mean time I borrowed my Dad's old Voigtlander Vitomatic and took some great photos with it... it was like a revelation. I loved the rangerfinder for manual focus, the simple ergonomics... but my workflow is all digital... therefore the M8. M8 is affordable with great ergonomics. I am concerned about the cost of repair and trying to find a good used copy with a warranty (even if only 60-90 days) but I am real excited about the simplicity. Anyway, long winded point coming... if you like film, manual cameras, etc... modern DSLR's may be a problem for you. Definitely try them out, rent or borrow etc to get a feel for how they work. For me anyway, once I gravitated beyond the auto everything to wanting manual control the current crop of DSLR's were a real pain to use. Just my two sense and good luck.
Cheers,
K
You mention you might be interested in a Nikon D3100... Personally I have gone the exact opposite direction. I started with an Olympus 8080WZ several years ago (it was a big point and shoot digital camera with lots of ability to adjust manually) and last year bought a Panasonic G1 M4/3 camera. I never liked the ergonomics on the Oly but I LOVED using the M4/3's camera over the past year. It is small, light, great for travel, and for me I took the best pictures I have ever taken... However, especially after using legacy lenses on it (old Canon FD's purchased from KEH) I found myself longing for more control and better ergonomics. Now I found myself really frustrated by the dial scrolling to adjust shutter speed, aperture (when not using legacy lenses), and the manual focusing is hard and clunky (buttons to press for manual focusing zooming).
In the mean time I borrowed my Dad's old Voigtlander Vitomatic and took some great photos with it... it was like a revelation. I loved the rangerfinder for manual focus, the simple ergonomics... but my workflow is all digital... therefore the M8. M8 is affordable with great ergonomics. I am concerned about the cost of repair and trying to find a good used copy with a warranty (even if only 60-90 days) but I am real excited about the simplicity. Anyway, long winded point coming... if you like film, manual cameras, etc... modern DSLR's may be a problem for you. Definitely try them out, rent or borrow etc to get a feel for how they work. For me anyway, once I gravitated beyond the auto everything to wanting manual control the current crop of DSLR's were a real pain to use. Just my two sense and good luck.
Cheers,
K
Haonavy
Photojournalist
Absolutely. I actually did, recently, and have loved it. And the rest of my cameras are pro-body Nikon DSLR's with all the new capabilities - 100,000 ISO and such.
Yes, the M9 is better at some things. But to have the M8 in hand NOW and be shooting, completely worth it. I use mine for strictly b&w, too - I mean, it IS a rangefinder - and haven't felt anything too "lacking"...
I hope purists don't give me hell, but the high ISO grain really is very "film-like"... going so far as to say the 2500 ISO in B&W is kin to Delta3200 or so. Maybe... even prettier...?
Oh, and never shoot in JPG... whatever you do. Never.
Yes, the M9 is better at some things. But to have the M8 in hand NOW and be shooting, completely worth it. I use mine for strictly b&w, too - I mean, it IS a rangefinder
- and haven't felt anything too "lacking"...I hope purists don't give me hell, but the high ISO grain really is very "film-like"... going so far as to say the 2500 ISO in B&W is kin to Delta3200 or so. Maybe... even prettier...?
Oh, and never shoot in JPG... whatever you do. Never.
Jeff S
Well-known
Not just commercial success, but technical, once issues sorted. Even the M9 has issues to be sorted. Ok, so it didn't meet your needs. That's fine. But, failure to meet your needs doesn't equate to a failed product in general. The M8.2 worked so well for me that I bought a second one. And the market for used M8s (including upgraded ones) and M8.2s is still robust.
Jeff
user237428934
User deletion pending
Never shoot DNG at 2500 is my recommendation. DNG at 2500 has some weird "artifacts" in shadows that don't go away when you convert to JPG. Shooting directly jpg at 2500 does not show these artifacts.
LeicaM3
Well-known
Here we disagree. The M8 was not a technical success taking into Leica's standards.
BTW, I have two relatives working for Leica (part of a long family tradition) and that is not how they see it internally either - the M8 being a technical success.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
I had two gripes with the M8 and since they would not ever be solved, I sold my M8.
I hated screwing the filters on and off, since I also used my lenses with an M3 and usually carried both.
Some other filter-related issue that I never hear anybody about but for me was a biggy: the IR filters bounce A LOT of light off them. When carrying the camera in bright daylight, I could see the purple filter reflection dance 5 to 10 mtrs away from me and occasionally it would blind people. So much for stealth shooting :bang:
I hated screwing the filters on and off, since I also used my lenses with an M3 and usually carried both.
Some other filter-related issue that I never hear anybody about but for me was a biggy: the IR filters bounce A LOT of light off them. When carrying the camera in bright daylight, I could see the purple filter reflection dance 5 to 10 mtrs away from me and occasionally it would blind people. So much for stealth shooting :bang:
Last edited:
samuelphoto
Established
Jeff S
Well-known
Must be fake photos since, according to LeicaM3, the M8 was a technical failure.
Jeff
LeicaM3
Well-known
Must be fake photos since, according to LeicaM3, the M8 was a technical failure.
Jeff
Speaks for itself.
LeicaM3
Well-known
Jeff S
Well-known
QDIEM4SC
Newbie
No, the M8 is a waste of time ...
No, the M8 is a waste of time...
Look at all of the awful photos I took with it...
I always laugh when I read responses bad-mouthing the M8. The camera is brilliant and the M9 (which I now own) is an incremental improvement, that's all.
If you want to see more with the M8, look at my 2009 gallery here: http://qdiem4sc.zenfolio.com/p991668821/hc491ba7#hc491ba7
Peter | QDIEM4SC
www.zenfolio.com/qdiem4sc
...No, the M8 is a waste of time
...Look at all of the awful
photos I took with it...I always laugh when I read responses bad-mouthing the M8. The camera is brilliant and the M9 (which I now own) is an incremental improvement, that's all.
If you want to see more with the M8, look at my 2009 gallery here: http://qdiem4sc.zenfolio.com/p991668821/hc491ba7#hc491ba7
Peter | QDIEM4SC
www.zenfolio.com/qdiem4sc
