Leica M8 Showoff at National Camera, MN

[erikhaugsby]

This did happen yesterday, but I haven't gotten a chance to get on a computer since.

So, the National Camera shop in Golden Valley, MN somehow arranged with Leica's Chicago rep. to have a Leica showoff day on the 15th. Naturally, he brought with him all the great digi-wonder D-Luxs and such, but he also had (one of three in the US, he claimed) a real functioning useable shootable M8.

It's pretty damn sweet (for a digital camera).

As I only have an M2 to compare, size and heft comparisons might vary for those of you who have M6s or 7s.

The body is noticeably thicker, and feels strange on first pick-up, but I quickly got used to the size and it felt just at home very soon after I started shooting. It feels extremely solid and robust, though it has very little mass. It is well balanced with the current model 35 'lux ASPH.

The VF is of a small magnification (.68x), and is impossible to use with both eyes open. The RF patch seems shorter, but longer, than the one in my M2. The VF is very very bright, and has the newer Ms blueish tint. The shutter speed display in the VF, present only for AE is very annoying as the speed has a bad habit of bouncing around sparatically and is displayed in decimal form (accurate to the hundreths), e.g. 1.53 seconds.

The shutter is ridiculously loud. I'm going to compare the sound effect (as opposed to the actual sound pattern itself) to a DSLR with the mirror slap, though there is an (obviously) difference in the actual sound. It seems to take an extremely long time between exposures, as the shutter needs to reset for the next shot; this is where the noise factor of the moving steel blades really became unbearable. There seemed to be no variation in sound between 1/60th second and the top speed of 1/8000th second. I would hesitate to use it in any form of wedding or like ceremony based solely on the shutter noise.

The LCD displayed images with an extremely blue tint. NB: I went through all the White Balance presets, none of them seemed to rectify the situation; I, however, did not get to play around with manually setting the Kelvin temperatures.

The ISO range is from 160-2500, which the Leica rep claimed was an "extremely useful range, (ISO) 2500 is equally useful for avaliable light shots." I'm not completely sold on the narrowness of the range (give me 125, 400, and 3200 any day) and the minimal number of odd-increment steps inbetween (160, 320, 640, 1200, 2500). I was told that this is the final production ISO range for the M8, though that is not to say that the M9, M10, etc. will not have a further expansion.

Price is ~$4700, Black (Paint! I was told) finishes are expected to be in much shorter supply than Chrome. I was told that if I pre-ordered now I would have a camera in hand by Thanksgiving.

There was not a new Tri-Elmar for demo, as apparently there are zero present in the US at this time. "Expect them to be delivered after the New Year," I was told.


So, I don't have the money for one. Even if I did, I would hesitate to pay for it. This, however, isn't to stop you from buying what is an extremely solid Leica.

 

[Ben Z]

The shutter is ridiculously loud. I'm going to compare the sound effect (as opposed to the actual sound pattern itself) to a DSLR with the mirror slap, though there is an (obviously) difference in the actual sound. It seems to take an extremely long time between exposures, as the shutter needs to reset for the next shot; this is where the noise factor of the moving steel blades really became unbearable. There seemed to be no variation in sound between 1/60th second and the top speed of 1/8000th second. I would hesitate to use it in any form of wedding or like ceremony based solely on the shutter noise.

I handled one briefly and know many people who have handled them for as long as several weeks. Shutter sound is similar to a Hexar RF or Contax G2 except softer (muffled) because the camera is more "solid" than "hollow" and doesn't have a film transport geartrain. The sound is different to a film M but definitely not "ridiculously loud". If there is an argument for the M8 being "ridiculously" anything, it might be "ridiculously expensive" but it's not loud. And at a wedding ceremony with only the clergyman speaking, the sound of a film M camera going "cluck" turns heads, at least locally...been there done that.

The ISO range is from 160-2500, which the Leica rep claimed was an "extremely useful range, (ISO) 2500 is equally useful for avaliable light shots." I'm not completely sold on the narrowness of the range (give me 125, 400, and 3200 any day) and the minimal number of odd-increment steps inbetween (160, 320, 640, 1200, 2500).

I didn't notice that! Can someone else corroborate? If true it's inexcusable for a camera that expensive aimed at people who understand the fundamentals of photography, not to have ISO at least in half stops.

Price is ~$4700, Black (Paint! I was told) finishes are expected to be in much shorter supply than Chrome.

From a friend who was at the factory recently, there are no black paint M8s in progress, only black chrome, and it looked to him like they were at least even in number to the chromes. It's possible the blacks are more spoken for by people on wait lists.

 

[JohnL]

...
The RF patch seems shorter, but longer, than the one in my M2.
...

I wonder if you could clarify that ... please? Lost me there!

 

[egpj]

From a friend who was at the factory recently, there are no black paint M8s in progress, only black chrome, and it looked to him like they were at least even in number to the chromes. It's possible the blacks are more spoken for by people on wait lists.

All the pictures we have seen show a distinctly Black Paint finish. Am I missing something?

 

[jaapv]

The ones I saw were black chrome and bright chrome., the click is hardly louder, a bit more metallic and it rewinds, and I never saw film in half ISO stops, so why digital?

 

[JohnL]

...
If true it's inexcusable for a camera that expensive aimed at people who understand the fundamentals of photography, not to have ISO at least in half stops.
...

I'd guess most of the digitals out there have ISO in full stops. Canon switched to fractional stops for ISO only fairly recently, and I've heard (not sure if it's true), that it's done by negative EC from the next higher stop. In other words, if you switch to an ISO intermediate between (say) 200 and 400, you get the same noise as you would at 400.
This may matter more to some people. Personally I used to find full-stop increments of ISO not to be an issue (when the camera I had was still thus limited) and even now almost invariabloy ignore the intermediate settings.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Hey Erick: I reported it here too on Saturday, but nobody gave a hoot, so I deleted it. Glad you reported it here; I want to know what other people's hands-on thoughts are.

I liked it a lot.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

All the pictures we have seen show a distinctly Black Paint finish. Am I missing something?

It's not black paint, it is black chrome, the one and the same as before on other black chrome bodies.

The heft of the body is probably about the same as an M6, M7.

Edit: btw, the "vulcanite" covering is just like an MP's

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I wonder if you could clarify that ... please? Lost me there!

Yeah, I don't know what he means by that, but I can tell you that the viewfinder is as big as that found on an M7; there is an LED at the bottom. When you set it to Aperture Priority mode, it displays the corresponding shutter speed.

I also am a little on the fence on the 160 as minimum ISO, but then I think about it as having Fuji NPS 160 loaded. It's 2/3rds of a stop faster than ISO 100.

I tried the highest ISO, and thought the noise was ok (examining 100% crop of a given image); if you shoot RAW and process with Adobe RAW (which I do most of the time), it could certainly be taken care of. Then again, I forgot to bring a memory card with me :bang: so my assessment is nothing; I really wish I had brought some sample pictures. :bang: :bang:

 

[erikhaugsby]

I wonder if you could clarify that ... please? Lost me there!

I had meant that the physical size of the RF patch in the M8 viewfinder appeared different than the physical size of the RF patch in my M2, relative to the area covered by the entire VF. See my attempt at visualizing this in the attachments (First one is the "M2" viewfinder with brightline and RF patch in blue, second is the "M8" viewfinder with patch in blue)

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I had meant that the physical size of the RF patch in the M8 viewfinder appeared different than the physical size of the RF patch in my M2, relative to the area covered by the entire VF. See my attempt at visualizing this in the attachments (First one is the "M2" viewfinder with brightline and RF patch in blue, second is the "M8" viewfinder with patch in blue)

OK, there you go. Hmm, didn't notice that. The whole thing felt natural to me, after getting over the lack of a winding lever.

It was also a great opportunity to try the 35 Summilux ASPH; I'm glad I didn't go down that road, though; who knows, one day I'll get used to the idea of something with a hood that big. The 50 Summilux ASPH, now that was a beauty to handle.

 

[newyorkone]

That seems very exaggerated to me. From most reports and from the screen shots on most sites that I've seen, the RF patch is the same size as that on the current M7 and the previous M6.