Leica M8: Poor mans M Monochrome?

IEDEI said:
the M8 has very unique B&W capabilities due to its sensitive IR profile. The Nex does not have those characteristics.....the only reason a Nex could be a 'poor man's M8' is because it's easy to adapt Leica lenses for use on them. That's it, really.
Click to expand...


I understand that. I've owned an M8 for almost six years, and owned a Sony NEX 5 briefly.

So let me re-estate what I don't understand: the "Is X the poor man's [Leica's latest rangefinder]?" threads keep on rehashing something that misses the point: there are always cheaper alternatives to anything.

Also, the sensor of the M is very different from the M8. It is also easy to adapt Leica lenses on to the NEX (new NEX + adapter = cheaper than used M8). Both the NEX's sensor and M8's sensor are different from the Leica M "Monochrome" sensor.

Hence, it follows that there are cheaper alternatives to B&W photography that use different sensors from the Leica M Monochrome.

If the question were framed as "is the Leica M8 a cheaper alternative to the M?" then, yes, I completely agree. But since the question is "is the Leica M8 the 'poor man's Leica M?", then, no, I don't think it is. Many people would argue that even the R-D1's files converted to B&W challenge the "feel" of M8's files converted to M8 in general. Although with the use of a proper workflow on the same shots taken with both cameras of the same scene, you can produce far better images from the M8 than from the R-D1. But that is a completely different subject.
 
wish i had a monochrom to compare... but these are M8 OOC jpegs:

L1000002.jpg


L1000007.jpg


i usually shoot RAW, but on that particular day i wanted to see how good the jpeg quality is
 
At first, I used my M8 as B&W only with the out-of-camera jpeg files. Periodically I'd get curious about what a shot would look like in color, so I'd process the DNG to see. Often the color was subtle... I found that I almost always preferred the color version. This was instructive in determining that I'm really a color shooter after all. So I can relax knowing that I won't be an M Monochrom customer. :)

The below were among my early M8 shots, and stick in my mind as an example of preferring the color...

attachment.php


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 080112-27.jpg
    080112-27.jpg
    70.5 KB · Views: 0
  • 080112-27new.jpg
    080112-27new.jpg
    99.2 KB · Views: 0
Chris: fine exposures. That shot in the dunes reminds me of the cover photo from a Dr Paul Wolf book titled something along the lines of Sun and Sand

Ron: a delicious shot of the cobbled street. Perfectly exposed. Loved the composition.

Dan
 
M8 vs M Monochrome: M8 wins? Maybe!

M8 vs M Monochrome: M8 wins? Maybe!

I had a chance to test the M Monochrome at Photo Plus yesterday and what astounded me is the tonal qualities of my M8 were clearly better than what I could see from the monochrome. Yes, I know the mono does better high ISO, but could it be the M8 generates better looking files at ISO 640 and below? One thing is certain, what crippled the M8 in the beginning with the IR issue could be the long term blessing of what still is a wonderful tool for black and white photography. I believe the M8 could well be a black and white classic digital Leica that may be sought after in the years to come. I print on 17" x 27" custom cut Exhibition Fiber on my Epson 3800 and the prints are remarkable. Does this mean the monochrome is not great? Hardly, as we can see from the monochrome threads on this forum. I just feel as I tested the monochome with the lighting conditions at the Photo Plus Expo, the M8 generated better files, especially with a Zeiss 50mm f1.5 that I tried out (FANTASTIC LENS WOW!! Better than my not so old Summicron!). I also looked at the new M and I hate to say it but I was disappointed to some degree. I was more impressed with the Fuji X PRO 1 and the X-E1. The EVF on the X-E1 blew away the M for live view. The LCD on the X Pro-1 blew away the M LCD, especially with my Noctilux in live view. For me, I will stick with my M8's for the rangefinder experience, and I will get the Fuji X Pro-1 if I want live view with M lenses. I may indulge i that wonderful 35mm f1.4 Fujinon as well! If Fuji decides to go full frame, that will be really something!

Also, what is it with those black and white prints at the Leica stand at the Photo Plus Expo? They were just ok. All of them way to contrasty with limited tonal range. Not that great to show off the monochrome in my opinion!
 
delusional is the word that comes to mind...

from what i have seen here on rff i would say you are clutching at straws...
 
so a colleague's personal observations based on using both tools are called 'delussional', by other colleagues looking at pictures on the web? or by colleagues who've also personally worked with both tools?

in either event, similar comments have been made in many different places, including a couple of different threads here all based on the m8's lack of IR filter, all with the significant high iso proviso. in such a situation, name calling seems unnecessary.
 
Depending of what your aims are: M8 is perfectly OK for web images ( Flickr etc.) but if you are after Exhibition images, M8 will not deliver. I had a chance to shoot withM-M in photokina and have the images on my own card and then process them in Photoshop at home.
No comparison ...
 
I think even comparing Pan-F and Astia would be more apt, at least the image format is granny apples to fuji apples, even if when it comes to color response it's bananas to watermelons.
 
rbelyell said:
so a colleague's personal observations based on using both tools are called 'delussional', by other colleagues looking at pictures on the web? or by colleagues who've also personally worked with both tools?

in either event, similar comments have been made in many different places, including a couple of different threads here all based on the m8's lack of IR filter, all with the significant high iso proviso. in such a situation, name calling seems unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Agree why backhand the OP?
 
i found the premise absurd...and i never called anyone a name...i said the word came to mind...are we getting too sensitive around here?
 
M8 will not deliver exhibition quality? NUTS!!

M8 will not deliver exhibition quality? NUTS!!

I have an exhibition up right now with 27" wide prints from my M8 and everyone is blown away by the image quality!

Another point: The Image quality from the M8 blows away my M6 with film and is more like shooting with my Fuji GSW 690. We are getting spoiled by pixel peeping these days. I have been using film since the 1980's and have an MFA in photography from Pratt Institute. The M8 was my first digital camera and I feel the M9 was too close in performance to upgrade. For me,
I shoot for the final print and I am very happy with what the M8 can deliver. I tested the M9 3 times and printed 17" x 22" and I thought the M8 delivered crisper files.

The M looks like a nice camera, and so does the MM, but I like many do not have 8K lying around and feel from a cost/perfomance perspective, The M8 combined with the X Pro 1 makes more sense for me and others.
 
eleskin said:
I just feel as I tested the monochome with the lighting conditions at the Photo Plus Expo, the M8 generated better files
Click to expand...



Thanks for sharing by telling. If you have a way to share by showing, it would be even more interesting.

One thing I have not seen discussed: is there an IR filter on the M Monochrom sensor? If yes, why? If not, why? Somebody at Leica must surely know, and one can bet it was a decision that was consciously taken.

BTW, I think you might be very pleased to try the Sigma DP2 Merrill for black and white. I actually took both the DP2 and the M8 out shooting today, but the M8 battery died suddenly in the cold, frustrating my attempts to compare. Preliminary results are that the DP2M has much better tonality and grain, but I haven't been able to print out yet. I'm such an amateur I doubt I'd ever dare post a comparison here, lest I be shredded into hamburger, but maybe I'll share it with you.
 
I don't think it's at all an absurd idea, to some degree. With good processing it would be impossible to tell the difference between an 8x12 print made with an M8 at iso 320 and one of the same size made with the MM. The MM will definitely distance itself at larger print sizes (like the 17x27 mentioned by OP) and higher iso, but the MM is not so much better on the computer screen that those with no experience can make definitive judgements to the contrary of the OP opinion...perhaps putting a bit too much faith in the opinions of those who dropped $8k on the MM
 
I am not here to debate a comparison of the M8 and MM (hope I got he designation correct on the latter one).

I do kindly :) take issue with the comment that the M8 would not deliver exhibition quality images as suggested by Rangefinderfreak. That becomes very subjective, and I would guess there are others on this forum who have produced beautiful prints with their M8 cameras. Similarly, using film, Medium and Large format deliver higher resolution, and expanded tonality, yet the 35mm does just fine for exhibition depending upon the application.
David
 
i never said the m8 was a poor performer.

can it compare to a newer camera? i doubt it.

i love the rd1...but can it compare to a newer camera with a new sensor and better processing engines? i doubt it.

i think i'll just stick to moderating and not bother trying to interact...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom