Leica M8 Field test, Iraq

Funny how even with all his complaints, at the end of the day it is the tool he chooses to do the job.

Everyone has their own experience and opinions about the machine; all are equally valid.

I love my M8 and my MP both. It has to be said that the M8 sensor blows away film at equivalent ISO. If you don't see that for yourself find articles on topic by Erwin Puts.

As was just posted previously in this thread, two photojournalists in Iraq with opposing views:

bad review:

http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_...aq/Page_1.html

good review:

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4133/extreme-field-test-leica-m8-in-iraq.html
 
Hmmm. Well my Leica M6 worked perfectly in Iraq whereas the Nikon D100 I had then was somewhat less dependable. It didn't seem to like the heat at all and frequently failed to fire after I'd pressed the shutter button and regularly failed to record an image when the shutter did fire (it was fine when I got it back to Europe). If I have to head back to that neck of the woods my plan is to stick to film.
 
jaapv said:
hasn't got the sense to switch his camera to DNG-only when he finds it sluggish....Please.
Click to expand...

He has to shoot DNG+JPEG so he can transmit asap. A lot of PJ's have to count on getting useable jpegs straight out of their camera, so they can meet deadlines. You can't transmit several hundred MB of DNG files to your editor over a satellite phone and more often than not you do not have the luxury of a few hours of PS time to make everything look pretty.
 
Last edited:
It's always interesting to see people rush in to defend a $5000 dollar camera. I sincerely doubt this fellow is a) an idiot and b) has an axe to grind. In his experience the M8 just doesn't cut it. There are lots of people who use M8s and like them. There are plenty on this very forum. That said, ignoring his opinion because it doesn't mesh with yours is a little childish.
 
It may be that Leica was hoping for a lot more than they were able to deliver with the M8 (at least in some minds and to this point in time). All the earlier Leica RFs were so good and reliable that many, understandably, were drawn to the M8. I really don't blame them, I'm one of them.

I found the camera to be ridiculously expensive and then there were the rumors about this or that failing, unreliable service etc. I didn't buy.

I wanted the camera to be as rugged and reliable as my ratty old M2 and M4-P. I want the same value from a camera. Leica needs to go back to the drawing board and rethink the camera and it's future.
 
Harry Lime said:
He has to shoot DNG+JPEG so he can transmit asap. A lot of PJ's have to count on getting useable jpegs straight out of their camera, so they can meet deadlines. You can't ransmit several hundred MB of DNG files to your editor over a satellite phone and more often than not you do not have the luxury of a few hours of PS time to make everything look pretty.
Click to expand...

Exactlly correct. At a local news events (much less Iraq) you generally do not have time to process DNG files so you send your JPEGs.

But seriously, Canon is made for this kind of work. The "L" series lenses are better and, here is the real advantage, they are weather sealed. Canon has had allot of time to work on DSLR's and they are still the main camera for Photojournalist around the world. I just don't know how fair it is to compare the M8 to the 5D and others. I hope eventually Leica will get there but for the time being, the M8 is just not practical, and that is OK. I don't think anyone purchased the M8 thinking that the first digital rangefinder from Leica would be perfect. Right?? Please tell me I am right 😕
 
Keith said:
Interesting read ... not this thread I mean ... 'the desert test!' 😛

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:
Click to expand...

You got the point, it looks like the M8 is no longer a rude environment PJ camera, and this is what he's trying to tell you through this bad review. We don't have to fix ourselves too much on the (although several) problems he had rather on his idea which is, summarizing: "while, in the old film days, a Leica would have successfully sustained a comparison in the field with the strongest SLRs because of its reliability, this can't apply for the latest M8 which has several weak points compared to actual DSLRs, even if old"
I think Leica should care about this review, not because it's "only" negative, rather because it offers a lot of points where to improve their M8. Quite "fun" also the fact he got back a worse camera after having been repaired (images took only half)
I'm thinking to a RF camera for reportage works but I wouldn't definitely get such camera, by reading this review. Rather, I'd shoot with a film one, at worst. Bottom line, size (brand and automatisms) aside, I repute my F6 much more reliable if I had to go on the field... Not to start a flame, by the way: of course they are different cameras, here I'm just pointing on something I can count in.
 
Last edited:
literiter said:
It may be that Leica was hoping for a lot more than they were able to deliver with the M8 (at least in some minds and to this point in time). All the earlier Leica RFs were so good and reliable that many, understandably, were drawn to the M8. I really don't blame them, I'm one of them.

I found the camera to be ridiculously expensive and then there were the rumors about this or that failing, unreliable service etc. I didn't buy.

I wanted the camera to be as rugged and reliable as my ratty old M2 and M4-P. I want the same value from a camera. Leica needs to go back to the drawing board and rethink the camera and it's future.
Click to expand...

Amen.

I'll wait for the M9 and if they screw that up the M10.
 
Harry Lime said:
He has to shoot DNG+JPEG so he can transmit asap. A lot of PJ's have to count on getting useable jpegs straight out of their camera, so they can meet deadlines. You can't transmit several hundred MB of DNG files to your editor over a satellite phone and more often than not you do not have the luxury of a few hours of PS time to make everything look pretty.
Click to expand...

I can tell you from being a working PJ/Documentary photographer, that I shoot DNG only, and with my MKIII and MKII I shoot raw. With todays computers and low prices on servers (Just picked up 10 terabytes of raid5 storage for $3k) it is not only simple to store but DNG goes super fast through lightroom. I have personally shot events, got into my car when it was done, plugged in my card reader and uploaded all files to my server on my way to the office. For news YOU HAVE TO EDIT THE PICTURES ANYWAY, when was the last time you saw an image in the paper in 35mm crop? JPEG is reaching an end to it's usefulness as a file format.
 
Harry Lime said:
He has to shoot DNG+JPEG so he can transmit asap. A lot of PJ's have to count on getting useable jpegs straight out of their camera, so they can meet deadlines. You can't transmit several hundred MB of DNG files to your editor over a satellite phone and more often than not you do not have the luxury of a few hours of PS time to make everything look pretty.
Click to expand...

But you do not have to wait for the camera to stop writing to take your next shot. So start up the camera, start shooting well within a second, and keep on shooitng. Only if you hit the buffer you will have a problem if you shoot Jpeg+DNG. I cannot see the problem here, nor the alleged sluggishness.
 
tmfabian said:
I can tell you from being a working PJ/Documentary photographer, that I shoot DNG only, and with my MKIII and MKII I shoot raw. With todays computers and low prices on servers (Just picked up 10 terabytes of raid5 storage for $3k) it is not only simple to store but DNG goes super fast through lightroom. I have personally shot events, got into my car when it was done, plugged in my card reader and uploaded all files to etc .
Click to expand...


I think the main point here is that the M8 should be able to shoot DNG+JPEG in a speedy fashion.
 
Only if you hit the buffer you will have a problem if you shoot Jpeg+DNG.

Did you read the review you are complaining about? From the reivew: "Buffer and sluggishness: I have never once run out the buffer on my Canon 1Ds that I purchased in 2002. I will make this point here again; the M8 cannot match technology from half a decade ago. The buffer on the M8 is filled after about 9 frames on the M8’s that I have used. After that you must wait about seven seconds for the buffer to clear enough to get off another frame. In any breaking news situation, seven seconds is an eternity. To fully clear the buffer, assuming you are shooting JPG and RAW, you have to wait a full minute. Even on the JPG setting, it takes about 35 seconds to fully clear the buffers on the M8’s I have used."
 
tmfabian said:
I can tell you from being a working PJ/Documentary photographer, that I shoot DNG only, and with my MKIII and MKII I shoot raw. With todays computers and low prices on servers (Just picked up 10 terabytes of raid5 storage for $3k) it is not only simple to store but DNG goes super fast through lightroom. I have personally shot events, got into my car when it was done, plugged in my card reader and uploaded all files to my server on my way to the office. For news YOU HAVE TO EDIT THE PICTURES ANYWAY, when was the last time you saw an image in the paper in 35mm crop? JPEG is reaching an end to it's usefulness as a file format.
Click to expand...

Good point, I guess there are several different styles of doing this. Speed is generally the goal and even with a fast turn around in lightroom the photog shooting jpeg and raw will have you beat every time if he just shoots the jpeg to his editor as it is. Also, generally you edit to a certain extent but unless you really screwed up your shot it should be ready to go pretty much as it is. I think that is the only point being made there. Don't get me wrong, I think it is awesome that you shoot RAW only!

Now, if the publications crops your photo that is another story.....:bang:
 
I guess that laptops are pretty fast now to be able convert DNG to jpeg so shooting only jpeg is not issue now. It is really funny that one actually can get DNG files faster than smaller processed files but it is somewhat logical if Leica skips fast processor in M8 due maybe energy draining.
 
pachuco said:
Good point, I guess there are several different styles of doing this. Speed is generally the goal and even with a fast turn around in lightroom the photog shooting jpeg and raw will have you beat every time if he just shoots the jpeg to his editor as it is. Also, generally you edit to a certain extent but unless you really screwed up your shot it should be ready to go pretty much as it is. I think that is the only point being made there. Don't get me wrong, I think it is awesome that you shoot RAW only!

Now, if the publications crops your photo that is another story.....:bang:
Click to expand...

See, you'd think that jpeg would be faster, but you have to keyword and add a wee bit of metadata to each file anyway, most pj folk use photomechanic, and don't get me wrong I'm not trying to be an anus about the raw thing especially since I used to be the guy that shot only in jpeg and laughed at the raw shooters. But, with all the keywording and clip lines that need to be added to any picture being sent to an editor for publication, there is literally negligible difference in time (i'm talking a matter of seconds with todays computers). Now, back a few years ago the difference was insane, lightroom didn't exist and your only option was to send the files and call up the office and dictate a clip line, back then, few serious journalists shot in raw as it usually meant losing the job to someone else.

Here's the real problem the dude missed...THE FREAKING CHARGER IS GIGANTIC. I can't tell you the number of times i've had issues with that stupid thing taking up space on my power strip or watching airport security wonder why a charger was as big as the camera.

Also...I love my M8 but the dude got the whole quiet thing backwards on this thing. The new D3/D300 is just as quiet, I would expect any serious review based on combat journalism to mention the loudness and the size of the charger.

edit: One more thing, that whole LCD coming on telling me noise reduction is taking place needs to go away...Every other manufacturer has either a proximity detector so it stays off or an option to do away with the lcd turning on when it happens.
 
Last edited:
tmfabian said:
Here's the real problem the dude missed...THE FREAKING CHARGER IS GIGANTIC. I can't tell you the number of times i've had issues with that stupid thing taking up space on my power strip or watching airport security wonder why a charger was as big as the camera.
Click to expand...

Ya.. I've commented on that item in the past - as soon as I saw the charger I knew who was making the batteries and chargers for the M8 - Ansmann - a German company (of course) 😀 http://www.ansmann.de/cms/consumroot/batteries.html

Most, if not all, their chargers are huge ( http://www.ansmann.de/cms/consumroot/charging-technology/standard-chargers.html ) but you'd think they could have scaled down the one for the M8 because it's a proprietary battery but I guess not.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom