pepeguitarra
Well-known
Actually, at ISO320 with -3, I got the perfect shot. I have to increase exposure at LR and comes up nicely.
jamin-b
Well-known
Kind of works for me, but by bringing the exposure back up by 2 stops in LR and I am definitely seeing some grain and ugly shadow details. Am I missing something?
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
No, it isn't. I bought mine new and still have it. The files converted to B&W are awesome --if you know what you're doing, of course, they don't automagically convert themselves.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
- Pick up a high quality IR filter
- Use raw and never exceed ISO 640 [1,2]
- Enjoy
[1] The M8 ISO electronic amplification changes above ISO 640.
[2] When the light level requires ISO 640, it will be important to maximize exposure. This means you intentionally overexpose unimportant highlights. This improves the IQ in shadow regions. The slower the shutter time and, or the wider the aperture (at IS0 640), the better the shadow regions will look. Should the rendered image looks too dark just increase the global brightness (exposure slider). In low light, when exposure is not maximized (at ISO 640) the symptom is banding in shadow regions. When exposure is maximized, people report you can push IS0 640 raw files by one stop. When all the highlight regions are important, it still pays to maximize exposure. But pushing the brightness during rendering could result in visible banding in shadow regions.
I agree with all of this, except the "never exceed ISO 640" part. Doing basically what you've typed when I've shot using ISO 1250; it's not for the faint of heart, and you have to know exactly when not to use it. Shadow detail is pretty much a goner at that sensitivity, but if you treat it like a Tungsten-balanced Ektachrome slide that you'll be pushing at that speed, you get a pretty usable file with LR.
MIkhail
-
When I sent my M9 for sensor replacement (3 months), I bought another M8.u. Which I still have and will not sell. Wonderful camera. Here with the Elmar 90/4 rigid.
Esomeliae by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
I mean no disrespect... I am just curious: how is this image demonstrates the advantage of M8 over any digital point and shoot, let alone Canon-Nikon?
I was contemplating getting an M8.2 (there is no way I can afford anything above that until my second graduates from college) and decided against it. The reason is simple: same situation as with Konica Hexar AF. Fantastic camera, maybe one of the best. No repair if broken. Or, can be repaired at cost exceeding the initial price. And so forth...
Sorry, that's my 2 cents - I would not buy it.
Lord Lucan
Member
Shutter noise??
Shutter noise??
I dont have M8 but It cant be louder than Sony A7R I have! I think M240 is also loud but Sony is like a heavy hammer.
Shutter noise??
I dont have M8 but It cant be louder than Sony A7R I have! I think M240 is also loud but Sony is like a heavy hammer.
Lord Lucan
Member
Yes, No comparisons with point and shoot.
A point and shoot would not have coped with tricky lighting like in the photo.
Also if you want to just compare them at low maginification,then they may look same. Its just like a 35mm shot at 4X6 print size and compare it with medium format photo at same print size. They may look almost similar and may not show any advantage in investing in medium format gear.
I know the topic is also trick just like the lighting in the said photo.
user237428934
User deletion pending
The M240 is very silent compared to the M8 or M9 shutter
pepeguitarra
Well-known
I do not know, why do you ask? I am just sharing a photo I like taken with that camera.
............. I do not care if you buy it or not. The OP wanted to hear opinions on what we thought about it, and I gave my thought.
Get a life please!
Chubberino
Well-known
No need to be rude.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Where on this planet is this a rude answer? It's a normal answer to a rather unfriendly comment..
Chubberino
Well-known
Get a life is a rude remark. I'm not here to argue that with anyone as there is no argument to be had with facts. It was a rude remark. His picture is unremarkable and quite poor as an example. Simple enough question really to wonder why he posted it as an example to showcase the M8's capabilities. The childish "please" at the end doesn't alleviate that petty comment from being rude.
Lss
Well-known
No, it's not crap. It's like the M9 you have used, only the files are smaller. Your call whether that is a problem.
willie_901
Veteran
I understand. With experience and skill raw files at ISO 1250 are practical.
I can't find the data I saw, but years ago somewhere, someone measured the M8 read noise vs ISO. For a given shutter time and aperture (exposure), the raw data signal-to-noise ratio noise was lower above ISO 640.
This doesn't mean one can't get a "usable file". It just means a raw file at ISO 640 pushed by one stop during post production will likely have better shadow region rendering than a raw file at ISO 1250. How much better depends on a number of variables. For all I know there are situations where ISO 1250 has no disadvantage whatsoever.
Other brands from the M8 era behave similarly (use two stage signal amplification to assure the signal level well-suits the ADC design characteristics).
Lord Lucan
Member
True. I meant Sony A7R is louder than some DSLRs,and its a mirroless.
Nevertheless, M8 will still be a good camera if you already have some lenses to go with.
MIkhail
-
+1 on both accounts ;-)
BLKRCAT
75% Film
To answer your question properly. I'll post some samples that show some degree (though limited!) of composition, processing and thought. Then reflect on the advantages if any.
So what are the advantages of the M8 over canon/nikon/PNS/DSLR? If you are a Leica user who's invested into M mount glass and enjoy the process and user input of a classic rangefinder this would be the distinct advantage. If you are looking to get into Leica and M glass then I would say this isn't as much of an advantage as there are many cheaper offerings out there.
However the usage of the camera is a huge attractor for me. I've tried PNS cameras, I've used DSLRs for work but the convoluted menu systems, the requirement for the camera to be on to change exposure settings, the sometimes dodgy focussing. The M8 is very much stripped down and I think harkens back to a time when we didn't have so many useless features to navigate through.
It's funny to play the "classic uninterrupted photography" card for a digital camera but in 2016 I believe this is more the case with the M8.
Imagewise the sensor is sharp if the lens is sharp. Resolution lacks compared to todays offerings so that could be a downfall.
I hope this gives a little insight into the M8. I'm not sure if others feel the same but this is what I've noticed as I have reflected on my M8 ownership in the past 9 months.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I've had money for M8 twice this year, but spend on Leica M film and lenses instead. Canadian heritage took over digital convenience 
I also spend hours and evenings looking at M8 pictures and other digital cameras pictures.
Where is one exception which M8 will do as no other cameras will do - straight, no mods, IR. Colors, it seems to have less DR, bw is good, but where are less expensive new cameras with same quality of bw. I could say it after looking at thousands of pictures.
On top of it is crazy repair cost for shutters which seems to have higher tendency to fail and no spare LCD left, while "coffee stain" issue is reported.
Despite all of these, I'm still more interested in buying M8 as any other digicam. Why? Because it is Leica Rangefinder. And here is only one digital Leica RF camera for 1.1-1.5K USD price. M8.
I also spend hours and evenings looking at M8 pictures and other digital cameras pictures.
Where is one exception which M8 will do as no other cameras will do - straight, no mods, IR. Colors, it seems to have less DR, bw is good, but where are less expensive new cameras with same quality of bw. I could say it after looking at thousands of pictures.
On top of it is crazy repair cost for shutters which seems to have higher tendency to fail and no spare LCD left, while "coffee stain" issue is reported.
Despite all of these, I'm still more interested in buying M8 as any other digicam. Why? Because it is Leica Rangefinder. And here is only one digital Leica RF camera for 1.1-1.5K USD price. M8.
pepeguitarra
Well-known
My apologies
My apologies
Mikhail:
My apologies for my out of kindness response. There is no excuse to respond in such way.
I agree the photo is not the best example of what the M8 can do. It is rather a reflection on the still-under-development photographic skills of the photographer, and in this particular case of a newly acquired lens, that does not seem to produce anything sharp. I do have other photos with better quality, but publishing them now is out of question. I stand by my opinion that the M8.u is particularly special. The problem with the digital cameras is that they end up being obsolete in few years because of the digital advances. Instead of moving on with the M240 or others, I chose to buy the real best quality Leica cameras, the M3 and the M5.
My apologies
Mikhail:
My apologies for my out of kindness response. There is no excuse to respond in such way.
I agree the photo is not the best example of what the M8 can do. It is rather a reflection on the still-under-development photographic skills of the photographer, and in this particular case of a newly acquired lens, that does not seem to produce anything sharp. I do have other photos with better quality, but publishing them now is out of question. I stand by my opinion that the M8.u is particularly special. The problem with the digital cameras is that they end up being obsolete in few years because of the digital advances. Instead of moving on with the M240 or others, I chose to buy the real best quality Leica cameras, the M3 and the M5.
Kent
Finally at home...
Also having a Fuji X-T1 and X-E2 as well as a Nikon Df and D7000, my M8 still sees regular use. Although all those other cams are "better" by objective measures, I love the M8 the way it is. And I see no reason whatsoever to upgrade to an M9 or any newer model.
For "fulllframe" M photography I use my m6 anyway.
I use the M8 for colour shots up until ISO 320 (and underexpose if necessary), but mainly shoot in b&w up to ISO 640 and I love that "grainy" noise.
I dare to say that the M8 is (next to the Nikon Df) one of my cams I will never part with.
For "fulllframe" M photography I use my m6 anyway.
I use the M8 for colour shots up until ISO 320 (and underexpose if necessary), but mainly shoot in b&w up to ISO 640 and I love that "grainy" noise.
I dare to say that the M8 is (next to the Nikon Df) one of my cams I will never part with.