Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Last edited:
hub
Crazy French
What didn't work out with the R-D1 ? I forgot.
If only Cosina could deal with Epson and do a R-D2 based on a Sony sensor (like Nikons) possibly full frame. That would be a wet dream (if resonably priced, unlike the Leica)
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
tomasis
Well-known
It is right, we need remember that M8 is very first real digital camera which Leica ever produced. so it is expected that it is not durable as users wanted. So lets hope for more durable M9. But I remember that one guy dissected M8 and showed every single part inside of M8. I did like what I saw and it appeared to be easily repairable, something built like of modular design, not much dependable to other connected parts (many parts soldered in the same place).
I understand that Leica released M8 in hurry without giving time for tests in hard enviroment conditions for reasons which were discussed here.
jky
Well-known
I'm very price sensitive....
But I agree that @ that price point one should expect a little more regarding QC.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
While I would agree (for the most part) that QC should be a priority in all companies and, for Leica, it should have been a top priority if no the top priority, I can only imagine having, maybe, 4-10 employees out of the 451 (in Solms) doing quality control.
We have to remember that it was the Leica user community that "pushed" Leica to produce the digital M rangefinder (along with the fact that Cosina/Epson brought out the R-D1 to prove that, yes, it could be done contrary to Leica's previous statements).
I certainly could be wrong but I think when you combine that pressure from the user community along with a small company like Leica, you're inevitably going to get a disaster at some point in time - this just happens to be "that point in time".
Dave
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Wasn't really a "push". It was a desperate reach for the life vest.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I've just got home from doing a very low light shoot in a gallery. Two hundred and fifty or so shots all at 1/30 or 1/15 sec and some slower .... at 640 ISO! I've just had a quick look through the files and they've turned out a hell of a lot better than I expected. It was so dark it was nearly impossible to read the shutter speed dial most of the time but I was still able to focus on my subjects. In this type of situation this camera kicks arse ... and I don't really like the desert much anyway!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Even with a rangefinder, my aging eyes have trouble focusing manually in very low light. The M3 used to be my goto camera for those situations. Now I put an ST-E2 on my 5D and it will focus perfectly in total darkness. Now, if I just had ISO 20,000 so I could get an exposure in total darkness! I could have a whole series of black cat in coal bin photos.
Ahh ... aging eyes ... aint it a bitch? I must admit it's getting harder and the day of auto focus will come eventually I'm sure!
HenningW
Well-known
I've found my M8 to be completely reliable, but a good friend has gone through a number. My Canon D60 was terrible, and had to be returned numerous times for adjustment/repair.
At present I still have/use a 5D and 40D, and both have been as reliable as the M8.
With respect to the report on the use of the M8 in Iraq, there are a number of stupid items mentioned that detract from the main point; namely, that the camera is a dissapointment to him.
The lack of 21mm framelines complaint is just silly. This sort of stuff is easy to determine before you buy the camera, and then it's a non-issue. If he absolutely must have a wider than 24mm lens on the camera, and doesn't want an external finder, he should not have bought the camera.
Frameline accuracy is exactly the same on all M Leicas, the only difference being that since various lenses now focus closer the discrepancy at infinity is proportionally greater. At closest focus distance the framelines are accurate, the same for M8 or M3.
The bottom cover thing I find annoying as well, but I don't shoot (pictures) when other people are shooting (bullets).
The selftimer setting I find extremely stupid, and have similarly blocked it. I too think that the exposure compensation should be settable by rotating the back wheel. These are the sort of things that are typical 'first model' mistakes, similar to those by other companies.
The low light capability I find not that far off the capability of the 5D. The 5D can't focus well in low light, and I lose a lot of shots that way. I use the 35/1.4 and 24/1.4, and while the former is a good lens, it doesn't compare to the 28 Summicron, so I tend to shoot it at f/2 if possible. The Summicron I shoot wide open with confidence in the performance and in the focus setting. I usually don't go over 640 ISO, whereas I often go to 1600 on the 5D. If I want to get the same image at the same shutter speed, I underexpose the M8. The DNG's respond very well to this, whereas the 5D CR2's don't nearly as well. On the other hand, in bright light highlight recovery works much better on 5D files than M8 files. In any case, the low light performance of the M8 is fairly decent, and I often prefer to use the M8 over the 5D in bad conditions. The caveat is that you shoot DNG's. If you have Lightroom that isn't much of a handicap.
White balance is now better on the M8 than on the 5D.
All in all file quality comparisons between the 5D and the M8 indicate that with good lenses, there isn't much difference. Unfortunately, there are some serious gaps in the lineup of quality lenses for the 5D. There are no top quality lenses below 35mm. On the other hand, if you want a 24mm angle of view at f/1.4, Canon has one and Leica doesn't. If you want to throw the background out of focus at bit with a 24mm angle of view, only Canon can do it, but don't count on the edges or corners being sharp.
With respect to high temperatures I have not direct experience; only secondhand information that seems to indicate that most digital cameras become unreliable when the air temperature is 40°C, and especially when in addtion the sun shines on black cameras. Due as much to mass as anything else, pro format DSLR's will fare better for a while, and they'll definitely fare better than an M8 with respect to fine sand. That's one area where film cameras also have problems; every 36 exposures you have to open your camera and chance getting sand into the film chamber.
With respect to his filter comments, if he gets the filters scratched easily due to sand, etc, he should put a UV filter over the IR cut filter. Yes, it's another layer of glass, but the Leica lenses with IR cut filters have in my experience been fairly flare resistant, and often better than Canon lenses by themselves. The Canon lenses when used in Iraq would also need a UV filter to protect them. Putting an additional UV filter over the Leica lenses would not ever produce vignetting.
The sluggishness he speaks of is in part due to shooting jpegs. Shooting dng's the camera is a lot quicker. Using 2Gb Extreme III cards the camera can shoot 12 pictures before the buffer is full, and will flush completely in 15 seconds. That is hardly competitive with a 1DMkIII, but it generally allows shooting at about the best real rate that you can with a film M. With respect to startup he has a point, but I generally leave my camera on and carry exta batteries.
So in the end the cost and reliability remain as major downsides, and they are considerable. Other reasonable downsides are some of the design/layout issues such as menus, selftimer and bottom cover. Unfortunately pretty much every camera has some of these and only in the more evolved cameras do some of these go away. That has to be weighed against carrying and using a pro Canon body and lenses. The rest of his points are for the most either in the nature of the rangefinder or in the nature of digital photography as it stands today, or how he chooses to use his camera.
This is not so much a camera review as a report on his personal interaction with the camera and how it doesn't do what he wants in the way that he wants it to. That's completely valid, but for him alone.
I will not now give up the M8 (or an evolved version), but neither will I give up an SLR. They're just not interchangeable.
End of ramble.
Henning
At present I still have/use a 5D and 40D, and both have been as reliable as the M8.
With respect to the report on the use of the M8 in Iraq, there are a number of stupid items mentioned that detract from the main point; namely, that the camera is a dissapointment to him.
The lack of 21mm framelines complaint is just silly. This sort of stuff is easy to determine before you buy the camera, and then it's a non-issue. If he absolutely must have a wider than 24mm lens on the camera, and doesn't want an external finder, he should not have bought the camera.
Frameline accuracy is exactly the same on all M Leicas, the only difference being that since various lenses now focus closer the discrepancy at infinity is proportionally greater. At closest focus distance the framelines are accurate, the same for M8 or M3.
The bottom cover thing I find annoying as well, but I don't shoot (pictures) when other people are shooting (bullets).
The selftimer setting I find extremely stupid, and have similarly blocked it. I too think that the exposure compensation should be settable by rotating the back wheel. These are the sort of things that are typical 'first model' mistakes, similar to those by other companies.
The low light capability I find not that far off the capability of the 5D. The 5D can't focus well in low light, and I lose a lot of shots that way. I use the 35/1.4 and 24/1.4, and while the former is a good lens, it doesn't compare to the 28 Summicron, so I tend to shoot it at f/2 if possible. The Summicron I shoot wide open with confidence in the performance and in the focus setting. I usually don't go over 640 ISO, whereas I often go to 1600 on the 5D. If I want to get the same image at the same shutter speed, I underexpose the M8. The DNG's respond very well to this, whereas the 5D CR2's don't nearly as well. On the other hand, in bright light highlight recovery works much better on 5D files than M8 files. In any case, the low light performance of the M8 is fairly decent, and I often prefer to use the M8 over the 5D in bad conditions. The caveat is that you shoot DNG's. If you have Lightroom that isn't much of a handicap.
White balance is now better on the M8 than on the 5D.
All in all file quality comparisons between the 5D and the M8 indicate that with good lenses, there isn't much difference. Unfortunately, there are some serious gaps in the lineup of quality lenses for the 5D. There are no top quality lenses below 35mm. On the other hand, if you want a 24mm angle of view at f/1.4, Canon has one and Leica doesn't. If you want to throw the background out of focus at bit with a 24mm angle of view, only Canon can do it, but don't count on the edges or corners being sharp.
With respect to high temperatures I have not direct experience; only secondhand information that seems to indicate that most digital cameras become unreliable when the air temperature is 40°C, and especially when in addtion the sun shines on black cameras. Due as much to mass as anything else, pro format DSLR's will fare better for a while, and they'll definitely fare better than an M8 with respect to fine sand. That's one area where film cameras also have problems; every 36 exposures you have to open your camera and chance getting sand into the film chamber.
With respect to his filter comments, if he gets the filters scratched easily due to sand, etc, he should put a UV filter over the IR cut filter. Yes, it's another layer of glass, but the Leica lenses with IR cut filters have in my experience been fairly flare resistant, and often better than Canon lenses by themselves. The Canon lenses when used in Iraq would also need a UV filter to protect them. Putting an additional UV filter over the Leica lenses would not ever produce vignetting.
The sluggishness he speaks of is in part due to shooting jpegs. Shooting dng's the camera is a lot quicker. Using 2Gb Extreme III cards the camera can shoot 12 pictures before the buffer is full, and will flush completely in 15 seconds. That is hardly competitive with a 1DMkIII, but it generally allows shooting at about the best real rate that you can with a film M. With respect to startup he has a point, but I generally leave my camera on and carry exta batteries.
So in the end the cost and reliability remain as major downsides, and they are considerable. Other reasonable downsides are some of the design/layout issues such as menus, selftimer and bottom cover. Unfortunately pretty much every camera has some of these and only in the more evolved cameras do some of these go away. That has to be weighed against carrying and using a pro Canon body and lenses. The rest of his points are for the most either in the nature of the rangefinder or in the nature of digital photography as it stands today, or how he chooses to use his camera.
This is not so much a camera review as a report on his personal interaction with the camera and how it doesn't do what he wants in the way that he wants it to. That's completely valid, but for him alone.
I will not now give up the M8 (or an evolved version), but neither will I give up an SLR. They're just not interchangeable.
End of ramble.
Henning
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
That's a nice balanced read ... congratulations.
This person's problems with his M8 are very specificly user based and definitely should not discourage a potential buyer. I must admit having used mine for a year or so now with few problems if they do come up with something slightly better in regard to ergonomics and reliability it will sell very well in spite of the chequered history of the current version.
It's fast becoming a cult camera and one thing that I've noticed about items that gain this status is they don't really need to be perfect! Sometimes it's their imperfections that define them.
Last edited:
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
I knew those grapes were sour!