M8 (and RD1) niche untouched

I think it's the onslaught of new digitals that actually caused me to go and buy an RD-1 ... I could have made the stretch to an M9 and was very close to doing so but reneged at the last moment when a cheap Epson appeared in the classifieds.

In hindsight it's one of the smarter purchasing decisions I've made ... I think the RD-1 is a brilliant camera and anytime they want to up the megapixels with an upgraded sensor they can count me in! I'm fine with the crop factor.
 
An M8.3 would be nice, with an updated sensor, even at 1.3 crop.

Logically, it would have to be lower pixel count than the M9 and not exceed the M9's ISO performance level and that would mean a CCD, not CMOS.

This means it would have significantly lower performance than the X-Pro1.

More than likely it would cost significantly more, say perhaps $3k for the body.

Alternatively, when the M10 is announced, keep the M9 in the lineup as a lower priced body, although I doubt they could get it down to $3k.

However since they just announced the M9-M at $8k, they wouldn't make very many 'first on the block' M9-M buyers happy by dropping the price a couple of months after it ships, so this is highly unlikely, IMHO. Unless they drop the price before it actually ships, which I also find highly unlikely.

Thoughts?
 
M8.3 -- I'd be happy at $3500.
Keep the same type of sensor even, just increase resolution. Fix some of the bugs/issues. Update firmware to allow manual lens selection (like M9). Figure out a way to keep 1/8000 max shutter speed (they should do that for the M10 too!)

M9 -- $4500-$5000

MM -- SAME PRICE as M9!

M10 -- $6500

Then release more ridiculous special limited editions to make up for losses above. LOL!


Of course, it won't happen. And I fear we're likely to see the M10 at $9995-$11995 on release.
 
DRabbit said:
M8.3 -- I'd be happy at $3500.
Keep the same type of sensor even, just increase resolution. Fix some of the bugs/issues. Update firmware to allow manual lens selection (like M9). Figure out a way to keep 1/8000 max shutter speed (they should do that for the M10 too!).
Click to expand...

Near the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 near the end of the M8s production cycle, when I and many others here purchased M8s from the UK, the pound had dipped to historically low rates, a rebate of £500+ was being offered, and sales to destinations outside the EU were VAT-free. All of this enabled quite a few people to buy new M8s with 2 year passport warranty for less than US$3000.

Even at today's exchange rates, the value would still be under US$3500.

Fast forward to today and I'm not talking about a FF replacement, but rather an update to a crop-factor model that would basically bring better high-ISO, user-definable lens-code menu, perhaps a better battery and LCD screen, and the framelines of the M8.2 into a new APS-H or APS-C M8.3 model.
 
Hmm.. perhaps there's a market for an updated crop sensor digital rangefinder, but to be be honest, see nothing revolutionary in it. Nothing to show any sign of progress since the R-D1 or M8 were introduced. A reasonably priced full frame digital CL/ CLE-type camera would be a game changer. For those of us who shoot film Leica's (and I'm suggesting this is where the untapped niche is for a more affordable digital rangefinder), we want our lenses to give the same field of view on a digital rangefinder as our film one.

Those folks who were both willing to accept a crop factor and also the myriad of risks that came with buying a used digital rangefinder, have already settled for an M8 or R-D1. What I'm talking about here are all those shooting Leica or Bessa film rangefinders, these folks remain entirely unserved by both Leicas current offerings, as well as used Leica or Epson options.

The naysayers who say this can't be done (and for a reasonable price), seem to be many, and as naysayers go, all sound reasonable, but when is the last time the voice of moderation or reason was the fuel for advancement. To say there is no market for a more reasonably priced full frame digital rangefinder is ridiculous. I'm not sure how many film rangefinder shooters are out there, perhaps Leica M & Bessa production numbers would give us a good idea, but it easily numbers in the tens, if not hundreds of thousands, and to say that is not a market is simply ridiculous.

Something like that, could be the making of Leica, but to be honest they don't seem to have that much vision. I think they could do quite well with a digital CL/CLE serving as an entry level body, and a full M as their flagship. Less people might buy M9's, but that would be more than made up for by combined sales CL/CLE's & M's, as well as the fact Leica would now own an enlarged digital rangefinder market effectively, and put Leica on quite a stable footing simply through camera volume sales.
 
I never got over the crop factor with my M8 but for some reason it hasn't fazed me with the Epson ... probably because it's now the only rangefinder I shoot with whereas when I had the M8 I owned numerous other RF film bodies.

My 50 Sonnar is now my 75 ... my 35 Nokton is now my 50 ... my 25 Distagon is around 35 and my 15mm Heliar is a 23. I should grind all the markings off them and relabel them because it seems unlikely they'll be going on a full frame body in the near future! 😀
 
Lss said:
I don't want to play roulette with my M8 and R-D1 either. Luckily they can still be used for photography.
Click to expand...

Ha ha. Most I have spent on a camera body was 1500 euro, and that was for one that was new and worked. The prospect of dropping 2000 euro on a camera which for that price is used, many years old, and with a checkered history of reliability, is not for me. Like you, I would simply prefer to be taking photographs, and not worrying about the camera, or what will happen if something goes wrong.

No thanks, give me a Fuji, which is the real bottom line here, as the Fuji may scratch an itch, but is not a digital rangefinder, for those of us who love shooting with our film M's and would like a digital option too.
 
the main problem I see with a crop sensor is the availability of fast wide lenses, which is important for most RF shooters.
 
In Japan a couple of years ago I bought the R-D1 'mook', containing hundreds of photos of the R-D1 along with all manner of lens tests and image samples. Incredible book and something that tempted me to get the camera. In fact, Map Camera in Shinjuku had a few secondhand ones at decent prices. But I couldn't get over the 6mp sensor and 1.5 crop factor.

But now I have a Ricoh GXR and I have somehow rationalized the crop factor because the sensor is 12mp, it has no AA filter, and the modules are interchangeable with a number of other fun and useful things. I often use the GXR as a backup or complementary camera for the M9, but I still think about the R-D1. I hear the R-D1x is being dumped for much lower prices these days...
 
Like you, I would simply prefer to be taking photographs, and not worrying about the camera, or what will happen if something goes wrong.
Click to expand...
I can understand that sentiment, but no warranty given by the manufacturer will cover the photographs and opportunities you lose. Especially those ones you lose while waiting for something that has not even been announced yet. With the M8/R-D1 I am not losing the photos or opportunities, although I would still prefer a full frame camera. Something else will work better for someone else.
 
damien.murphy said:
Hmm.. perhaps there's a market for an updated crop sensor digital rangefinder, but to be be honest, see nothing revolutionary in it. Nothing to show any sign of progress since the R-D1 or M8 were introduced. A reasonably priced full frame digital CL/ CLE-type camera would be a game changer.
Click to expand...

There doesn't need to be anything revolutionary in the updated crop sensor camera. In fact, people who want an affordable updated dRF *don't want anything revolutionary*, they just want the timeless RF body with a current generation APS-level output.

A FF model priced at 1/2 the price of the flagship model wouldn't make any sense for Leica, and is almost certainly not feasible economically. The only thing that really distinguishes the M9 from the M8 besides the enormous price differential is the FF sensor. Surely very few people would otherwise pay the premium for the convenience of menu coding and 1 stop better ISO performance.

I hope this doesn't become another thread of pipe dreams wishing for the Bessa-priced FF dRF.
 
From time to time I think about going M8 -> M9 but then I look at my lenses that fit nicely to the crop factor and besides the cost for the camera I had to switch 1 or 2 lenses. I think I'll stay with the M8 as long as it works.
 
Last edited:
noimmunity said:
I have both, and I agree (with your disagreement). The XP1 doesn't replace a camera with a combined mechanical VF/RF. They do make a sweet pair, however, that does things an M9 alone for instance couldn't do.
Click to expand...

I guess I wasn't as enamored with the mechanical RF as I thought...because my M9 is lonely since I got the X-Pro1. Some of the advantages of the X-Pro1 (close focus, weight, high ISO) have got me to the point where I feel I may miss something if I go out with the M9 alone. I haven't been able to bring myslef to sell the M9 yet though.
 
jsrockit said:
I guess I wasn't as enamored with the mechanical RF as I thought...because my M9 is lonely since I got the X-Pro1. Some of the advantages of the X-Pro1 (close focus, weight, high ISO) have got me to the point where I feel I may miss something if I go out with the M9 alone. I haven't been able to bring myslef to sell the M9 yet though.
Click to expand...

If you sell your M9, that may be a bellwether move.

I, too, use the M8 much much less now that I have the XP1. When I go out with just one body, it will be a choice between film and the XP1, depending on what I want. With two bodies, I almost always prefer to take one film RF and the XP1--unless it is strictly for landscape, in which case I will take the M8.

If the M8.3 were to sport a clean ISO 3200+, I would often prefer to take it instead of the XP1.
 
Im still contemplating whether to sell my M6 TTL to go with M8. There are one shop wanna sell it at AUS$2750..which I think quite high ...

but at the same time the XP1 looks solid and promising...confused 🙂
 
donz said:
Im still contemplating whether to sell my M6 TTL to go with M8. There are one shop wanna sell it at AUS$2750..which I think quite high ...

but at the same time the XP1 looks solid and promising...confused 🙂
Click to expand...

Do not get the Fuji as a Leica replacement. Get it because you like the Fuji. If you really love the mechanical RF, nothing is a substitute. Me, I like AF and mechnical RFs best... so the Fuji works for me.

One thing I could do is sell the M9 and get a M8 for when I'm jonzing for the RF patch.
 
M8.3w

M8.3w

How about an M8.3W (Wide), with 21mm framelines? If it had a 0.51 finder magnification, The 21mm framelines would be just as easy to see as the 28mm frame in the M8.2. The frameline selection would be 21/24/28/35/50. While we are at it, let's make the crop factor 1.25; it would only call for just a little bit larger sensor, and then the 28mm could have a true 35mm field. Leave the framelines normalized to a 2 meter distance, as they are in the M8.2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom