Leica M8: Poor mans M Monochrome?

[mathomas]

Those that are printing at 17x27", are you doing it by reducing print DPI, or by interpolation? I ask because I have an M8 print at 13x19", and it is just beginning to pixelate. Just curious here since I'd like to print large sometimes.

I think the OP said something like the M8 seems comparable to a Fuji GW in resolution. I actually did some side-by-side testing with an M8 and a GW690, and the M8 held up very well at "normal" sizes. However, I think I could have milked more and more (and more) resolution out of the GW negatives, given the right (super-expensive) scanner.

I sold my M8, but I sometimes miss using it as a B&W camera. May get an M9 someday, since the M8 has been dropped from Leica support :-(.

 

[leicashot]

How about we agree that they will be different? Better is very subjective, and besides that, people will see what they want to see in a way that suits them best.

 

[ChrisN]

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.

I thought you were making a good case right up to last statement. At that point, your argument stopped being about image quality and became an argument based on the cost of a particular camera.

I'd love to see your exhibition prints though - and also see prints made with the same workflow from the MM. I'll bet 99% of the people viewing would be thinking about the images, not what camera was used.

 

[PatrickCheung]

all words no photos... I own an M8, would love to own an MM some day, but probably won't in the near future. I'm a little colour blind so I convert most of my files to B&W unless my girlfriend helps me correct colour. I'm happy with what the M8 gives me. I usually only print as gifts to friends, so print size doesn't matter much for me. The M8 has a certain quality to the images it produces that can't be replaced by the newer digital M's (which I find produce files that are a little too plastic-y).

I don't know if it's better than the MM, but here's what I do with my M8, and I'm happy. I don't think the OP is delusional or absurd.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Pixel-for-pixel, my M8 always made sharper images than my M9 so one might conclude that the Monocrom would fare the same against the M8. With regard to tonality, the monocrom probably has the advantage but the ability to manipulate color channels selectively with the M8 could also give it an edge.

Me, I'm back to film rangefinders.

Phil Forrest

 

[rpsawin]

. here's what I do with my M8, and I'm happy.

Perhaps this is the real point.

Best regards,

Bob

 

[GaryLH]

Perhaps this is the real point.

Best regards,

Bob

+1

In the end that is really all that matters.

Gary

 

[jaapv]

I can get great B&W images from my M8 - always have and personally I think it is slightly better than the M9 in this discipline, but I can assure you they don't even come near to the results I get from my Monochrom. The image count on it is over 3000 now 🙂🙂

 

[jaapv]

(3) For B+W prints, wet-printed film still wipes the floor with digital as far as I am concerned.

Cheers,

R.

I will come back to this one when I get some prints done by the dedicated Monochrome Whitewall-Leica service. I find the print I got from Leica at the introduction of a Sobol shot quite impressive, but his style does not lend itself to technical comparisons.

 

[jsrockit]

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.

Surely the M8 has been used in many an exhibition. Also lesser digital cameras have been too.

 

[steveniphoto]

im sure we all now that the camera only matters to a certain extent. in fact here's the perfect example.. photos shot by Magnum's own Alex Majoli on old Olympus digital p&s cameras

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

the issue here is whether the <2k M8 can produce better files than the 8k MM at lower ISO. i dont care either way but it would be interesting if we could get some comparisons up. they're both great cameras and if you could afford that type of stuff then more power to you.

 

[daveywaugh]

ok, from now...disagreements will no longer be allowed on rff...is that what people want?

It's the way things are sometime said around here. As a moderator you should know this ;-) You make a valid comment, but perhaps just tone down the wording a little. We don't need to put people down even if we violently disagree. Disagreement and debate is great - but being 'smart' isn't.

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

I try to post a few images, keep in mind that they have gone thru the "Flickr mill"
First the M8 image: It shows a nice "grain", I like it, but when viewed in original size, arguably nowhere the quality of the M-M image further down.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40146285@N08/8010123715/in/photostream/lightbox/

Then two M-M images, one full and other, a crop.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40146285@N08/8010116577/in/photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40146285@N08/8010123088/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Also the M-M shows a little camera shake. I am sorry, but maybe you get the idea ?

Hope this proves my point in my first post on this subject. I also agree with Stephen: It is funny when people have opinions, even they haven`t touched the M-M ...

 

[leicashot]

I think the skills between photographers will negate any differences people perceive between the cameras.

 

[FrankS]

Yes of course, it is the photographer that is more important than the gear, but that isn't the question, which is: Does the M8 produce Tecnically superior files/output to the M9. Isn't this somewhat like saying that a 35mm camera produces Tecnically better results than a medium format camera (all other things being equal)? By "Tecnically" I mean sharpness, rich tonality, dynamic range, lack of digital noise, etc.

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

I think the discussion was between M8 and M-Monochrom...??

 

[craygc]

I think the skills between photographers will negate any differences people perceive between the cameras.

+1 ........

 

[FrankS]

That's still previous generation crop sensor vs next generation full frame sensor, right?

 

[cam]

That's still previous generation crop sensor vs next generation full frame sensor, right?

yes. 1.3 crop.

 

[mani]

That's still previous generation crop sensor vs next generation full frame sensor, right?

If you want to find out more about why the M8 may or may not have better black&white tonality than the M9 (and possibly the M-Monochrom - which is what this discussion was originally about), then try to get hold of a copy of LFI November 2010.

The discussion wasn't about 'full-frame' or what you call 'previous generation' sensors. The sensor technology is fundamentally the same in all the discussed cameras - with obvious differences in size, pixel count and Bayer array. The OP was discussing the tonal and detail quality of the M8 images against those of the Monochrom.

As for the "what does it matter - the important thing is the photographer" line of discussion: naturally a great photographer will take vastly superior images on an iPhone than a happy-snapper with a D800e. But that wasn't what this particular thread was about. It was simply about the comparative output of two cameras in black&white. That's all - take it or leave it.