Leica M8 ---> Not Happy!

Ara Ghajanian said:
Listen to me clearly: I did not say the camera would instantly make me a better photographer than you. I stated that it was unacceptably poor at high ISO's.

There is no need to be insulting to the individual who makes this claim. If anything, my concern is that we deserve a better camera than what is offered. If Leica reads these forums then maybe they will put more R&D into their offerings before charging such high prices. We should expect more for our dollars (or Euros).
Click to expand...

You sound like Magus!!!

Garbage don't sell for $5000!

Kiu
 
The M8's high-ISO performance is mediocre, something made worse by the absence of 1/3 ISO steps. To say it's garbage is an exaggeration. It is capable of very sharp results due to its weak AA filter, and is much more compact than any DSLR setup other than Olympus E410/420. The noise issue is well-documented, why did you plop $5000 for it without researching the purchase?

The issue that bothers me much more about the M8 is the shoddy quality control. I had to reject three defective copies before settling on my current M8 (the first one had a defective sensor and misaligned rangefinder, the second's rangefinder was completely off, the third's was not aligned at infinity). I can understand Leica not mastering electronics or noise removal algorithms, but surely by now they should know how to adjust rangefinders?
 
Dear moderator
Is it possible to provide a separate forum for those interested in using m8's and trading useful tips and also a separate "the leica m8 does not work etc. forum". That way we can all be happy. As things stand i think you risk loosing genuine m8 users (who are clearly happy in their state of ignorance)

Richard
 
HAnkg said:
Those were limited runs of film cameras for which they had all the dies and components.
Click to expand...


As already pointed out, completely untrue. The S3-2000 and SP-2005 were labors of love on the part of Nikon. I doubt that Canon will re-issue the VI-L, or that Leica will start manufacturing the M3 again. the MP is close, but the viewfinder is not as good.

and as far as High ISO and noise, no one threw out rolls of Tri-X because they got grainy when pushed to ASA 1600.
 
FWIW, my $0.02....

How did Leica get to be Leica?

Sure, marketing played a role. But:

They had a history of significant innovation in photography
- 35mm small format cameras
- Fast lenses in the 30's
- The Barnack
- Then the M



Since the 50's
- little to no innovation...
- lived off their name, though they still make great lenses and film cameras...

Instead of asking the question -

How do we make the best lens? How do we make the very best camera? How do we innovate? What can we innovate?

Now they're asking, "How do we survive?" How can we exploit the population with expensive Leica glass in the digital age?

Leica isn't "asking the right questions" and answering them. And hasn't for a loooong time... Hence the M8. Leica should have been "Adobe". Leica should have been the first out with a DSLR. Leica and the red dot should have been everywhere... They should have partnered more...

Leica stopped innovating. And when you're an innovator and you stop innovating your time has come. The M8. To me - don't own one, never will but it's nothing special. It's a very, very expensive camera that allows you to use Leica glass. "Digital camera" and "Rangefinder" - to me, is like a baloney and whipped cream sandwich. Doesn't go together.

If you have a lot of Leica glass, and insist on "going digital", and insist on shooting a RF. That is, you want your cake and eat it too... Well, there's the M8. And you'll pay an enormous premium for that piece of cake with little to nothing in the way of improvement in image quality over a DSLR like a Nikon D40 that costs 500 bucks.
|
 
Last edited:
NickTrop said:
FWIW, my $0.02....

How did Leica get to be Leica?

Sure, marketing played a role. But:

They had a history of significant innovation in photography
- 35mm small format cameras
- Fast lenses in the 30's
- The Barnack
- Then the M



Since the 50's
- little to no innovation...
- lived off their name, though they still make great lenses and film cameras...

Instead of asking the question -

How do we make the best lens? How do we make the very best camera? How do we innovate? What can we innovate?

Now they're asking, "How do we survive?" How can we exploit the population with expensive Leica glass in the digital age?

Leica isn't "asking the right questions" and answering them. And hasn't for a loooong time... Hence the M8. Leica should have been "Adobe". Leica should have been the first out with a DSLR. Leica and the red dot should have been everywhere... They should have partnered more...

Leica stopped innovating. And when you're an innovator and you stop innovating your time has come. The M8. To me - don't own one, never will but it's nothing special. It's a very, very expensive camera that allows you to use Leica glass. "Digital camera" and "Rangefinder" - to me, is like a baloney and whipped cream sandwich. Doesn't go together.

If you have a lot of Leica glass, and insist on "going digital", and insist on shooting a RF. That is, you want your cake and eat it too... Well, there's the M8. And you'll pay an enormous premium for that piece of cake with little to nothing in the way of improvement in image quality over a DSLR like a Nikon D40 that costs 500 bucks.
|
Click to expand...


quote["Digital and rangefinder don't go together!"]

😕😕😕😕😕

... more reasons for this 'theory' would be useful! 🙂
 
Keith said:
quote["Digital and rangefinder don't go together!"]

😕😕😕😕😕

... more reasons for this 'theory' would be useful! 🙂
Click to expand...

"Sorta" like "form follows function" argument. RF is a method of solving the focusing problem pre-autofocus using a separate taking lens in the days prior to AF. To ME (imo, imho - etc.) this is a suitable solution for a film camera and it has distinct advantages over a reflex mirror solution (though that has advantages too) and certainly over scale focus or TLR focus and even modern autofocus solutions. A digital RF is like trying to fit a square into a circle. You're trying to make a camera fit a certain mold that doesn't make sense. A digital RF curtails some of the chief advantages of digitals (small sensor, optical zoom capabilities), while introducing digital drawbacks (it's not film).

RF is a tool for traditional film photography TO ME. Digital is a different animal all together - almost the opposite of RF-style photography. The only market I can see for a digital RF is you want the best of both worlds but the hybrid doesn't seem to be suited to this. And/or, you want to use your expensive Leica lens collection on a digital camera. Again, you'll pay for that premium. But if you're looking for $5000 worth of improvement in image quality over even an entry level DSLR, ain't gonna happen. The sensor/firmware combo will produce whatever it will produce and it might be different that the other sensors but not better.

I -BET- the firmware sw engineers at Leica wracked their brains trying to come up with a way to make image quality seem "better" than cheap consumer DSLRs - perceived quality. But the sensor will produce what the sensor produces and it ain't gonna be a helluva lot different than whatever Nikon or Canon's sensors produce.

Just my opinion - FWIW, you're welcome to disagree.
|
 
Last edited:
NickTrop said:
Leica stopped innovating.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. I think that you make the mistake of assuming that innovation is only confirmed by broad market success. That may well be the prime motivation for companies to innovate, but certainly not the only one.

Innovations drive small (and even tiny) markets as well. Take Tim Issac's Thumbs Up accessory for the M8. No one would argue that Tim was not innovative, and yet there was never any pretense that his design would become a major money maker, etc.

The M8, in spite of all of its flaws, is innovative. It is the best digital rangefinder built to date (and is very good in many respects), and is certain to be refined further. It also allows the use of certain lenses which draw in ways which DSLR glass cannot.

Finally, almost all of the most vocal critics of the M8 confuse the issues by bringing up its retail cost. The issue of cost is really only relevant in terms of whether Leica can make the product work from a business standpoint. There are many, many products which most people do not buy because of price. But whether one is talking about an M8, a high-end watch, or automobile, etc., as long as there is a market to support the production, then it obviously isn't "too expensive".
 
Last edited:
NickTrop said:
RF is a tool for traditional film photography TO ME. Digital is a different animal all together - almost the opposite of RF-style photography.
|
Click to expand...

For me photography is about seeing and the most important component on a camera is the finder not the sensor. The sensor won't change the way I shoot. Seeing with an RF is just very different then seeing with a narrow DOF reflex finder. Of course this only applies to a narrow range of wide to normal lenses but in the niche an M finder works well in, it is worth it's weight in gold to me (with Leica pricing that's not a figure of speech).

True on the sensor side the narrow flange to sensor distance and the Biogon style wide angles of RF cameras were an advantage where as in digital they are a big minus. The lack of mirror slap has been made up for by IS and VR in camera or in lens.

So all that is left is the finder and the compact size. All the other advantages in IQ and handling that RF had in the film days are gone. But the finder and the compact size are still huge factors for some.
 
"I don't agree. I think that you make the mistake of assuming that innovation is only confirmed by broad market success. That may well be the prime motivation for companies to innovate, but certainly not the only one."

Great. Innovative and extinct. You have to make $$$ to survive.
 
These sub threads that we get within threads are fascinating to me and one of the reasons I like this place. People who abandon the forum because they feel it is degenerating into repeatative sh*t fights over the same issues constantly ... are missing something IMO. A thread can start off with someone calling the M8 'garbage' then progress to some pretty interesting opinions on the original object of derision ... seldom dull!

I find Nick's posts in particular always create a challenge ... well he always tends to throw one up and I've noticed he never ducks! 🙂

OT at this stage ... but just my two cents as we say!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom