Leica M8 Field test, Iraq

NB23 said:
Ah yes, the "L" primes. What a load of silly marketing gimmick.
Click to expand...

Everything you have ever bought has been marketed in some way shape or form. It's not my fault that the 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2 and 135 f2 are probably the best autofocus prime lenses available today, and it's not my fault that they're marketed as "L primes". From what I know, the "L" designation is there to separate them from their normal consumer range of 24 f2.8s and 35 f2s - of which are both lackluster in comparison to their "L" equivalents. The "L" lenses are also better built and have better autofocus.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I fail to see your point. Is suspect you're just trying to start an elitist argument.
 
newsgrunt said:
Maybe my laptop is way off but the Leica shot is too green for my taste. He's using fast glass to isolate the subjects with shallow depth of field and it works. In this case, the Leica has lots of it, my eyes wander around to the stone/mortar wall in the first photo as a result.

I'm not a Canon user but the saturation in the Canon photo is much better and realistic to my eyes.
Click to expand...

I agree - On my calibrated monitor the Leica shot is very green and the overall image is very flat. The canon lens/camera seemed to render the colors, tones and depth of field much more pleasantly.
 
I'm sorry, but this guy did have an axe to grind, every flaw he pointed out in the m8, I have found in ma lil ladies 5d and mkIII, and I mean every single flaw. The flaw that he didn't bring up which suprised the hell out of me was the fact that the battery life is so terrible in comparison to his so called "better" canon...I mean, seriously, the one flawless quality of my wifes mkIII is that the battery just goes and goes and goes and goes (well the autofocus goes and goes too, always searching for focus confirmation...3 times it's been back to canon, still doesn't work right.)
The fact is, every single camera has flaws that come into fruition when put under severe distress such as combat photography, however he was just parroting every single freaking flaw everyone has known about since the freaking camera came out...speaking of which, he obviously is too inept to upgrade the firmware since he was still complaining about white balance issues.
I've put the m8 through it's paces myself, it's been soaked in bleach, covered in volcanic ash, and dropped in a pile of dog $hit, and the only problem I've seen with it was the stupid on/off switch going to self timer land.
Handled correctly iso 2500 is perfectly usable...in fact i just received today 25 13x19's shot at 2500 for a gallery showing this summer, now...they ain't as nice as the D3's high iso files, but then again the D3 just came out, and they are only marginally worse than the 5d's high iso files.
 
Last edited:
NB23 said:
As far as I know, Leica doesn't qualify its lenses by "glow". There is no Leica Summilux Glow 50mm f1.4 written on lenses...
Click to expand...

No.. there isn't - doesn't mean that people don't refer to said "glow" on a regular basis or perhaps the strange ethereal quality that Leica lenses have.. again.. not necessarily Leica's own hype but if people talk about those things enough they actually start to believe them :D

That said, Leica's hype of late doesn't hold much water. What exactly is the "no compromise quality criteria" that the M8 is supposed to have anyway?

Canon's "L" designation is merely there to denote that they are "pro" lenses - but priced within reason and within range of the "normal" shooter - most of their "L" lenses are quite spectacular in the realm of auto focus SLR lenses. Nikon has similar "pro" glass; most manufacturers do. Can you fault them for marketing to the pro shooter more so than Leica does for their M bodies/lenses??

Dave
 
dcsang said:
No.. there isn't - doesn't mean that people don't refer to said "glow" on a regular basis or perhaps the strange ethereal quality that Leica lenses have.. again.. not necessarily Leica's own hype but if people talk about those things enough they actually start to believe them :D

That said, Leica's hype of late doesn't hold much water. What exactly is the "no compromise quality criteria" that the M8 is supposed to have anyway?

Canon's "L" designation is merely there to denote that they are "pro" lenses - but priced within reason and within range of the "normal" shooter - most of their "L" lenses are quite spectacular in the realm of auto focus SLR lenses. Nikon has similar "pro" glass; most manufacturers do. Can you fault them for marketing to the pro shooter more so than Leica does for their M bodies/lenses??

Dave
Click to expand...

+ 9 billion
 
fdigital said:
Everything you have ever bought has been marketed in some way shape or form. It's not my fault that the 24 1.4, 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2 and 135 f2 are probably the best autofocus prime lenses available today, and it's not my fault that they're marketed as "L primes". From what I know, the "L" designation is there to separate them from their normal consumer range of 24 f2.8s and 35 f2s - of which are both lackluster in comparison to their "L" equivalents. The "L" lenses are also better built and have better autofocus.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I fail to see your point. Is suspect you're just trying to start an elitist argument.
Click to expand...

eLitist argument? Me?
 
Yes, you.

Hey... I'm a nikon shooter - I just know when to appreciate the quality of a good range of autofocus primes.
 
Interesting read ... not this thread I mean ... 'the desert test!' :p

I guess the M8 is after all, marketed for a slightly more genteel environment than the desert. As much as I hate to admit it, it's far more at home in galleries ... cafes ... theatres etc and that's just a fact of life.

I'm not off to Iraq in the near future so I may just keep mine for a while yet! :angel:
 
Last edited:
leicasniper said:
Unfortunately for Leica, it wasn't party cameras that made their reputation. Fortunately for them, though, is that few M8's are used by professional shooters, so the camera's many issues are irrelevant. The sure are purdy, though. ;)
Click to expand...


Ahh ... but they do look grand hanging off the end of a Luigi strap ... silhouetted against a beige shirt! :O
 
Well, I dont know... But I try to handle mine as I did with film Ms - that is, as a tool...

So that will definitely mean a scratch or two! Leaving now for some hours walking with it - hopefully coming back with something worthwile!
 
Come on, this guy takes hours to correct simple Kelvin WB shift, thinks the M8 takes 3 sec to power up (0.7), doesn't know to upgrade firmware, hasn't got the sense to switch his camera to DNG-only when he finds it sluggish....Please. Just because his working desk happens to be in an extremely unpleasant spot.
Oh- and his high-iso shots are rather underexposed - thus noisy...
 
Last edited:
Taking three seconds to power up is not acceptable in this line of work. Keeping the camera on will just chew bateries. You see something happening fast, you turn it on and shoot. Three seconds could mean the difference between bringing home the bacon or not.

As well, if three out of four consecutive shots is grossly overexposed, well that's a serious flaw. Ain't no way to dress that problem up and excuse it.

If previous M's could see daily work in this kind of environment, then the current M's should be able to tough it out too.
 
newsgrunt said:
Taking three seconds to power up is not acceptable in this line of work. Keeping the camera on will just chew bateries. You see something happening fast, you turn it on and shoot. Three seconds could mean the difference between bringing home the bacon or not.

As well, if three out of four consecutive shots is grossly overexposed, well that's a serious flaw. Ain't no way to dress that problem up and excuse it.

If previous M's could see daily work in this kind of environment, then the current M's should be able to tough it out too.
Click to expand...


1. It takes 0.7 seconds to power up. This outright (deliberate?) error in his "review"is taking on its own life already.
Maybe that is too long as well, I can imagine. It appears to be even quicker if one uses auto-shutoff.
2. The camera does NOT overexpose three out of four shots without serious user error. the only uneveness there, together with the wonky AWB was definitely cured with the last firmware, months ago.
 
Last edited:
jaapv said:
Come on, this guy takes hours to correct simple Kelvin WB shift, thinks the M8 takes 3 sec to power up (0.7), doesn't know to upgrade firmware... just because his working desk happens to be in an extremely unpleasant spot.
Click to expand...
Aren't the working conditions exactly the point?

Also, his observation about wanting to compensate for exposure, and having to go within the menu, was one most people picked up within days of getting their hands on the camera.

You can argue that the flaws he points out aren't serious for everyone. But you can't argue they're not flaws.

There was a thread earlier about whether the G9 was better than the M8. I don't really rate the G9, but in terms of ergonomics - more specifically, ISO and exposure compensation - you're much better served with the G9 than the M8.
 
I'm taking him at his word about the start up, but he could also mean that it takes three seconds from turning on to actually being able to fire off a frame. Same thing to me. All I know is, my D3 will fire as quick as I can turn it on. Can anyone with an M8 confirm how long it actually takes to fire off a frame after turning it on ?
 
0.7 seconds By the stopwatch. Switchon -0.7-click.
From switchon through exposing through writing to card to display on the LCD 4 seconds.
Continuos shooting is 3 fps for 10 frames and after that 1 shot per 2.5 seconds, i.e. as each shot is cleared from the buffer it will take another.
Maybe not as fast as some DSLRs, but to call it sluggish is slander.
 
Last edited:
Definitely less than 3 seconds, close to 1.

I agree w/many of Mr. Kamber's criticisms re: the design & ergonomics (ISO setting, self-timer placement, etc.), but it seems to me he's had some very bad luck w/quality control on his bodies, which is an entirely different problem (but also valid) w/Leica.

newsgrunt said:
I'm taking him at his word about the start up, but he could also mean that it takes three seconds from turning on to actually being able to fire off a frame. Same thing to me. All I know is, my D3 will fire as quick as I can turn it on. Can anyone with an M8 confirm how long it actually takes to fire off a frame after turning it on ?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom