M6 vs M8 Not sure which to keep.

don't you dislike the small frame of the 50mm on the M8? The M6's 50mm frame is just right and the 'Cron you have is the best 50 ever (IMO).
 
Have had an M6 for over ten years. Love it. Shot hundreds of rolls of film through it, mostly Black & White. Two lenses, 50mm and 35mm. 35mm on the camera most of the time.

Last Spring I acquired an M8.2. Since then, I've shot probably six rolls through the M6. On the M8.2 I've shot over 10,000 images. (Yeah, the M8.2 will never last as long as the M6, so I figure I'm gonna get good use out of it before its time comes).

Picked up a 25mm lens for the M8.2 so I can get the same FOV as I have with my 35mm on the M6. But for me, I love to shoot. And after thirty six years of developing my own Black & White film, I'm a bit tired of the process. With the M8.2, I shoot, dump the images into Aperture 2, quickly sort the "keepers" from the rest, trash the rest, and "process" the keepers when I get the chance.

If I had to keep only one body, it would be the M8.2. And even though I would miss the M6, for me, I have cameras to shoot, and the M8.2 has me shooting, ALOT.

Best,
-Tim
 
jsrockit said:
M8 hands down. You can buy a cheaper film camera to use, but the M8 is one of 3 digital rangefinders available. The M6 will always be available. It's about workflow and what fits your lifestyle. I keep hearing you say that you don't know where you'll find time. That leads me to believe that your heart says M6 while your brain is telling you M8.
Click to expand...

It's interesting both these bodies are very easy to come by right now with lowest prices I've seen: M6: 1k and the M8s are down to 2k.

The Rd-1s holding at +/- 1300.

A good working M8 is nothing to take for granted. But if film workflow is fine for you, M6 is workhorse.
 
thomasw_ said:
OP,

I agree in large part with what many have said, especially Helen and jsrocket.

In photos, it sounds as though you like the aesthetics of film but just prefer the ease and less timing consuming nature of digital processing.

So with your heart, you prefer film. Yet with your reason, you like digital. Have I characterized your attitude incorrectly? If not, read on.

Buying and owning a Leica is rarely done by one who is motivated by strict rationality and practicality; much of the decision making to own and use a M is based on passion, on emotion or even on spiritual attitudes (i.e., regarding slowing down, being more contemplative and self-disciplined, etc....).

Just trying help you clarify things for yourself. I hope you enjoy the M you choose.
Click to expand...

you have pretty much nailed it. out of convenience, i've decided to sell the m6 and my scanner equipment. later this week, i'll probably put it on the classifieds right here!

overall, its just a tool to make photos. and i think it really does come down to digital vs film. with the way things are going, i just have to be honest with myself, and i think a digital m suits me well. later, when i'm settled in one place, i think i'd be able to enjoy the process of film much more.

i think the m8 is a great camera at low iso, and i think i definitely need to get a uv/ir filter. i just don't get that same feeling when looking at the resulting m8 files, as i did with m6 film scans. it really sucks, but its a price i'm willing to pay. also, i know i should't be too fussy with a 67mm fov, but its just not the same as a 50. i guess eventually the 50 has to go, and i'm considering a 35mm zeiss biogon. but those things are next to impossible to find!!!

i'm slowly starting to get a handle on handling the m8 dng files. what works for me, is to start with the most neutral image possible, and then edit each image from scratch. i find there is no 'universal' profile that works for my m8 images. white balance sometimes is off, even when i use the 'auto' feature. also, dull colors seem to come to life, when i expose to the right, and then use curves to bring back detail in the shadows. but funny enough, i also find that i get good results when i set exposure to -1/3 (as suggested by others on this forum), and then tweak the curves in lightroom.

at this point, i am wondering how much of a difference a uv/ir filter would make, in addition to correcting the magenta issue. how much of a shift in overall color should i expect? because right now, the colors definitely seem off quite a bit (i live in sunny florida, i'm assuming ir issues and color shifts are more noticeable on sunny days?)

thanks everyone for your input though. but i've definitely made up my mind. i'm gonna shoot my last 4 rolls of film on the m6 this weekend, and then its bye bye FOR NOW. i just can't afford to keep both, but i know that one day, i will DEFINITELY be re-purchasing a film M body. I just have to part ways with it temporarily :(
 
enjoy the camera - glad to hear you're pleased with your decision

if you want faithful colors, an ir cut filter will make a difference. some find the out-of-camera color balance interesting, some work solely with B&W file conversion - these folks don't want or need the filter. sounds like you should at least try it.

my experience with the M8's crop factor led me to keep a 50, a 25, and an 18. that FL spacing worked for my needs (50 - nice subject isolation, 25 - street close, 18 - really close). i could have done well with a 50 and either the 25 or 18 for a 2-lens kit. for some reason i never got on with the 35 on the M8. i didn't like it for normal and it sure wasn't wide. just me. shoot the 50 for awhile before your brain convinces you an effective 67mm doesn't work. in practice it may surprise you.

re exposure comp - i agree with you about -1/3. it always gave me better exposures and color balance, go figure.
 
I have had an M8 for the past 7-8 months now and shot around 5000 frames. I am slowly getting frustrated at the poor ISO performance.

I took the day off work to go shooting today and unfortunately it was overcast. I had to bump up the ISO to 640 just so i could get a decent exposure time at f8. On reviewing the files I get really disappointed, the noise is so ugly.

Images shot on 160 look extremely nice, surprises me everytime, it's like there is a piece of glass over the image, and the colours really pop, but as soon as you bump up that ISO, it ruins the files.
 
Jubb Jubb said:
I have had an M8 for the past 7-8 months now and shot around 5000 frames. I am slowly getting frustrated at the poor ISO performance.

I took the day off work to go shooting today and unfortunately it was overcast. I had to bump up the ISO to 640 just so i could get a decent exposure time at f8. On reviewing the files I get really disappointed, the noise is so ugly.

Images shot on 160 look extremely nice, surprises me everytime, it's like there is a piece of glass over the image, and the colours really pop, but as soon as you bump up that ISO, it ruins the files.
Click to expand...

you need to think about how your are processing them
I get excellent 640 photos and usually very good ISO 2500 pictures on the M8
I regularly use 1250 indoors

remember that the Digital Ms have no noise reduction on chip for RAW, unlike Sony sensors for example.

I normally find lightroom does a great job for me. Unless the object of your picture is composed of shadow detail in which case you can't get rid of some grain, although I quite like it. (in the future I would of course welcome better ISO performance for the Ms, shooting at 6400 would be great!).

In terms of film vs digital this is entirely a process thing. If you enjoy the shooting of film and have your own darkroom that is a beautiful process and some people love it.

I completely don't buy the arguments about "Film looks better" or even much the "Film looks different". For me Digital is better 99% of the time and can be processed to almost any look you want. And this is really not much work in lightroom, if you want to apply to every picture for example.

In terms of ISO, 400 film and above is full of grain. The M8 + lightroom is far superior here IMHO

I do know film shooters who don't really get on with computers and don't like fiddling around or learning software. I can understand this, but it is not an argument vis-a-vis film vs digital per se.

I periodically run out to shot a 36 roll for fun, but it just reminds me how much I don't miss film!
 
colonel said:
you need to think about how your are processing them
I get excellent 640 photos and usually very good ISO 2500 pictures on the M8
I regularly use 1250 indoors

remember that the Digital Ms have no noise reduction on chip for RAW, unlike Sony sensors for example.
Click to expand...
Yes, this depends on the processing and also personal preference in the overall look of the files. The NEX-5N is pretty much touted as the compact camera high-ISO king. In practice it gives me a 1-stop advantage in ISO performance over the M8. That's all nice and useful, of course, but the difference is significantly smaller than the forum rants make it appear.
 
i just wanted to ask about an earlier comment along the lines "M8 low-light performance being poor". This is an honest question, because I have not used film much at all - but what would make an M6 better for use in low-light???

Thanks for those links - I'll check 'em out.

My own feelings on using DNGs and the M8 is this - If you're using DNGs, you definitely can't just leave it 'as is', you need to make some edits. Without any edits, it would be like constantly using a film you didn't like the look of. I prefer to set the saturation in camera to a lower setting than standard, this usually looks more realistic to me and I just like the look. I noticed that JPEGs looked much better like this, but I was kind of annoyed that the DNG files looked alot different, the colours were just overkill, way too bright. Then I realised (and felt silly for not realising sooner) than any in-camera adjustments will not apply to the DNG files. DNG is 100% raw data from the sensor. I think maybe that threw me at first because DSLR cameras do adjust the RAW files (although you can always set it back to default in post)? So now I almost always start by reducing saturation to 0.9 in Aperture when I'm processing the DNGs. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that if someone says they don't like the look of a DNG, they're kind of missing the entire point. That's almost like saying that you don't like the look of a film negative because the colours are all wrong and inverted. :p

Another option is that you could set the M8 to however you want (lower/higher saturation, B&W, etc.) then shoot JPEG + DNG. If you don't want to bother with post processing so much, just use the JPEGs. I have done so on occasion and have found them to be perfectly acceptable. Then you still have the DNG to file away, that's just the same as keeping your film negatives.

I have also used up to 1250 ISO for colour shots on the M8, I find that acceptable. I think that ISO 2500 is completely fine for B&W as well. Sometimes I think that people just have unrealistic expectations. Of course it won't look like ISO 160, but the same is true for film as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom