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

Look, the damn thing will take amazing photographs, no one is arguing that. BUT - It's foolhardy to try and convince the OP that it is god's gift to photography.
 
QDIEM4SC said:
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
Click to expand...
Dear Peter,

BIG increment, though!

(Like you, I have both. Lots of examples on the web-site.)

Cheers,

R.
 
I have the M8 and have had it since it came out. I have never had any problems with and have shot color & B/W and have never used a filter of any kind and my results have always been outstanding. I will keep it and hope it lasts as long as my M3 which I have owned since 1958 and the lenses I used then I am still using with great results on my M8.
 
Roger Hicks said:
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).
Click to expand...

An M9 is three times the price I paid for my M8 in November. I'd buy the M8 all over again. For one thing, I'd have had to wait a lot longer to afford an M9 (or even an M8.2). It's a great camera. Not a perfect camera, but then again, no camera is perfect.

I'm perplexed by the no filter person above. Here's my own experience with a 15mm Voigtlander. First shot is where I forgot the IR filter, second is with it. (Not from exactly the same position as I didn't chimp right away, but...)

web.jpg

web.jpg
 
Last edited:
I recently bought a used one and am very happy with it.
Yes I wish it had a full frame sensor but Can't afford it. Meantime I am very happy with it!

Know what, you can alway's get a 2nd body for the same lenses and shoot some film.
A M2, 3 or 4 doesn't cost the world. Investment in both is still way less than an M9,,
 
Patman said:
I have the M8 and have had it since it came out. I have never had any problems with and have shot color & B/W and have never used a filter of any kind and my results have always been outstanding. I will keep it and hope it lasts as long as my M3 which I have owned since 1958 and the lenses I used then I am still using with great results on my M8.
Click to expand...

I really would like to see some color stuff you shot without a filter. I tried one lens without filter and colors looked weird. Not only the blacks were completely off but also the whole picture didn't look right.
 
buzzardkid said:
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:
Click to expand...

Never heard of that filter problem before but you can easily get reflection of light-sources on your photo from light bouncing between filter and front element of the lens. Had it a few times on my evening walks in the city.
 
I resisted the IR cut filters at first. A few months after I got the M8 I took it on a 3 week trip to Malta, Sicily, and Canary Islands, without filters. It was mostly ok. Some pics might have a bit of IR effect on grey/black fabric or yellowing of foliage, but it didn't smack me between the eyes like the jungle pic above. But one interior of a tungsten-lit restaurant with heat-lamp buffet was just disastrous. And sometimes the fabric issue was too obvious. Examining the results closely later I concluded IR Cut filters were necessary, and I just had to deal with the consequences, including the coding, CornerFix, etc. But once that got sorted out, it's a stable predictable working arrangement.

Tom, I have not shot B&W film with the IR Cut filter on, but I don't see how it could be a problem... surely worth a try. :)
 
tom.w.bn said:
I really would like to see some color stuff you shot without a filter. I tried one lens without filter and colors looked weird. Not only the blacks were completely off but also the whole picture didn't look right.
Click to expand...
This was taken with a 35mm Summaron, no filters. If you check my gallerie you'll see lots of photos with no filter. I have one lens with a filter a Zeiss Biogon I bought and it came with the filter. I really don't notice any difference with or without it.
 

Attachments

  • LilBarns2Or541.jpg
    LilBarns2Or541.jpg
    67.2 KB · Views: 0
  • TownFalls2.jpg
    TownFalls2.jpg
    79.3 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Doug said:
I resisted the IR cut filters at first. A few months after I got the M8 I took it on a 3 week trip to Malta, Sicily, and Canary Islands, without filters. It was mostly ok. Some pics might have a bit of IR effect on grey/black fabric or yellowing of foliage, but it didn't smack me between the eyes like the jungle pic above.
Click to expand...

Well, it was kind of worst case scenario, really: it's shade on a hot day, so the heat coming off the plants in the IR range is high without a lot of compensating light. I blew some other photos that I didn't retake.

The filter reflections: well, there's some good photos of this effect in the L-camera forum. I've come to think of it as the vampire effect because of the photo linked in post #6.
 
I still use my M8.2 alongside the M9.

tom.w.bn said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've never found myself in any situation in nearly thirty years of shooting that ISO 2500 was needed. Just saying.
 
Last edited:
sepiareverb said:
I still use my M8.2 alongside the M9.



I've never found myself in any situation in nearly thirty years of shooting that ISO 2500 was needed. Just saying.
Click to expand...

The M8 is fine when it works, trouble is a lot of them do break down. I work in the used dept of a major camera store and we send a lot of them to Leica. I myself have experienced freeze ups, red banding and other bizare errors first hand on a number of units.

If they were reliable I would still want one, but it's too much money to invest in a wild card.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sepiareverb said:
I still use my M8.2 alongside the M9.

I've never found myself in any situation in nearly thirty years of shooting that ISO 2500 was needed. Just saying.
Click to expand...

As you can see from sep-rev's quote, he didn't suggest there is no use for high ISO categorically. He said he'd found no use for it in his own shooting. So, why the sarcasm?

So much for holiday cheer ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shot at 2500 today with the M9, just because I could. Small amt. of noise reduction in the DNG converter, but after hearing all the noise about how lousy Leicas are at high ISO I was surprised how little noise there was to start.
L1002594.jpg
 
I just bought mine a few months ago and even though its in Germany at the moment yes I would buy one again, I can't justify buying an M9 at the moment as I don't use it for work. I use the M8 as a camera I can carry all day with 28mm summicron and don't even notice. I've never found a compact that I like and ever day of the week I carry Canon 1ds and 5ds and dont want to do that when I'm not working.
Crop factor doesn't bother me as Im used to it with the canons, My canon lenses are all 2.8 so the Summicron being a stop faster helps with ISO problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom