M8 article

Context is everything. The reviewer was using the camera in a war zone, under conditions of dust, heat, shock and danger that most of us will never encounter. For him it was the wrong camera. That does not negate the value of the camera for others. Even for some journalists and documentary photographers. Certainly not for me--I'd buy my M8 again if I had the choice now.

If a digital M had the weather sealing and build quality of a pro-level C or N, it might not be as light and portable as it is. Nor might it look and feel like a "real" Leica. The M8 stuffs a lot of electronics into a smaller space than any pro-level DSLR, and gives up the drastically overbuilt cloth shutter that made a film M so reliable.

General reliability issues: He's quite right. I've been lucky so far (knock wood, spit over left shoulder three times). Others have not.

Sensor noise--again, he's right. But this is partially mitigated by very good, very fast lenses and lack of mirror slap. And to some degree, perception of noise is ruled by Canon marketing--"noise is bad, pay no attention to the Barbie doll plastic quality of your subject's face." Pick your tool, neither is perfect, each has strengths.

The reviewer posted samples of "unacceptable" noise that "ruined" his photos. Several of them remind me of the guy who calls the police because if he stands on the dresser, bends over double and looks up throught the bottom of the window, he can just barely see the woman undressing in the apartment across the street. Yes, his general point is well taken. But doesn't he or his paper have any time at all for a simple curve adjustment in Photoshop, or a quick dose of Neat Image?

The M8 is optimized for maximum image quality possible if you shoot RAW at low to medium ISOs (and today's medium ISO is yesterday's high ISO). If he must shoot JPG, no time to even run a RAW file through a preset RAW developer, then no, the M8 is the wrong tool.

IR issues and white balance issues are not issues any more--filters and firmware updates took care of them.

There is plenty to criticize about the M8. The reviewer has his points, and he may be right that the M8 isn't completely suitable for his brand of journalism.

But the idea that "if it costs $5,000, it must be absolutely perfect for absolutely every application, or it does not deserve to exist," well, that's nonsense. Some of the M8 bashing we're getting in reaction to this review is the same old Leica-bashing that's been going on for decades. It can be summed up as "I hate doctors and dentists with more cash than brains, and I'm smarter than they are because I don't have a Leica."

--Peter
 
Last edited:
Bill Pierce said:
Dave -

When the M8 first appeared everyone was so excited and pleased that there was a digital Leica M that, given the limited amount of time they had to really test it, it's no suprise that many wrote deadlined reviews that bubbled over with enthusiasm. And given a $5000 price tag for a body without a lens, it's no suprise that some folks who own the camera get a little defensive when it is criticized.
Click to expand...
Oh, no doubt Bill.

I still feel that we, those that actually own and/or use Leica products, probably expected too much right out of the gate for Leica's first "kick at the can" digitally speaking.

I mean, to be honest, I was pretty shocked when I learned just how large (or in their case, small) the company truly was.

I know they've been around a long long time but still; I really think that a lot of people may have been expecting large scale Toyota assembly line results out of a Delorean sized company.

Cheers,
Dave
 
dcsang said:
I know they've been around a long long time but still; I really think that a lot of people may have been expecting large scale Toyota assembly line results out of a Delorean sized company.

Cheers,
Dave
Click to expand...

Dave -

I covered the troubles in Northern Ireland for a long time. You may remember that is where Delorean set up his company. Delorean visited the factory (It must have been a slow news day; I photographed the visit.) but was out of the country when it went belly up. It turns out the well being of the firm had been somewhat exaggerated. I understand a few of the cars are still out there and valued by collectors. The entire analogy is getting a little scary - especially if Canon turns out to be Toyota.

Bill
 
Peter Klein said:
Sensor noise--again, he's right. But this is partially mitigated by very good, very fast lenses and lack of mirror slap. And to some degree, perception of noise is ruled by Canon marketing--"noise is bad, pay no attention to the Barbie doll plastic quality of your subject's face." Pick your tool, neither is perfect, each has strengths.

The reviewer posted samples of "unacceptable" noise that "ruined" his photos. Several of them remind me of the guy who calls the police because if he stands on the dresser, bends over double and looks up throught the bottom of the window, he can just barely see the woman undressing in the apartment across the street. Yes, his general point is well taken. But doesn't he or his paper have any time at all for a simple curve adjustment in Photoshop, or a quick dose of Neat Image?

--Peter
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you have stated in your comment Peter but I would like to focus on this "noise" issue as you have noted it here.

The current "low noise / high ISO" king is the Nikon D3.

We all talk about the Canon 5D because a lot of us actually own that camera as well as the M8 (or before the M8, or instead of the M8 etc.). We're inherently tied to that particular system. I personally wouldn't want to go out and sell all my gear to switch companies but I do know that people have done that in the past.

With that said, I do not think the images out of the 5D produce "plastic" quality faces on human subjects. I think, and this is merely my opinion, that a lot of that sort of thing comes from the folks who enjoy zooming into their images to 100% on their monitors only to find that ISO 1600 noise unappealing thereby causing them to buy noise reduction software and "overdoing" the entire post processing process.

The same goes for those complaining about noise via the M8.

In reality, look at the noise after converting the image to B&W. It is, actually (at least in my opinion) not half bad and awfully comparable to film grain (although more "ordered" and not as random; thereby making it different to film).

I think, as we progress further into this age of digital photography, that a lot of us have forgotten what "high ISO" used to be... remember Fuji NPZ? That was when a "clean high ISO colour film" meant ISO 800 - how did we ever survive ? ? ? :D

I, personally, am salivating at getting my M8 back - I know that it can produce brilliant images even if its got some quirks... High ISO or not.

Cheers,
Dave
 
dcsang said:
The same goes for those complaining about noise via the M8.

In reality, look at the noise after converting the image to B&W. It is, actually (at least in my opinion) not half bad and awfully comparable to film grain (although more "ordered" and not as random; thereby making it different to film).

I think, as we progress further into this age of digital photography, that a lot of us have forgotten what "high ISO" used to be... remember Fuji NPZ? That was when a "clean high ISO colour film" meant ISO 800 - how did we ever survive ? ? ? :D

I, personally, am salivating at getting my M8 back - I know that it can produce brilliant images even if its got some quirks... High ISO or not.

Cheers,
Dave
Click to expand...


I love grain - at least in B&W photography. I remember long ago shooting college football games at night and how happy we were when Tmax 3200 hit the market. It was grainy. But it worked.

I guess I don't mind using the M8 at high ISOs because I focus most of my work on B&W. I'd probably care more if I did more color work.

Either way, though. I find myself wondering why people are so unforgiving of noise, when we were often so willing to accept it on film. Maybe it is the fact that digital noise, as you say, is less random.
 
All valid points, Dave. I grew up on Tri-X and available light, so to me grain is (up to a point) part of the poetry. There are (unfortunately) plenty of people for whom any trace of grain or noise renders a picture totally unacceptable. I think it's a result of Canon marketing being accepted as fact. And since you can easily blow a picture up to 100%, spot some noise and go "bzzzzzt!--bad, bad camera," it becomes a immediate "proof" on Internet disussion groups.

The truth is much more subtle and subjective. A little noise actually makes a picture look sharper. Film grain is often prettier than digital noise, and some cameras' noise is prettier than others. And the M8's noise is not bad at 1250 in B&W IF you expose properly.

From what I've seen, the D3 simply balances noise reduction vs. image degradation differently than Canon, and it looks very good.

Here's a nice M8 trick: Instead of ISO 640, shoot at 320 with -1 EV. For 1250, try 640 -1 EV, and for 2500, try 640 with -2 EV. These adjustments can look better than the native high ISO settings.

Another trick is to use Neat Image with 100% chroma noise reduction, but only 20% Luminance noise reduction. I'm sure there are equivalents in Noise Ninja, etc.

Another is not to sharpen at all in the RAW developer, and only as much as necessary in for the output in Photoshop or equivalent. The M8 needs much less sharpening than Canon files do, and the defaults of the RAW processor may be too high.

Yet another is to remove your IR filter when shooting B&W in low tungsten light. Lose a little sharpness, gain a bit of shadow luminance, which might reduce noise.

The whole noise debate is often one of absolutes at 100% magnification. The real question should be: How do the low light pictures actually look when printed or at viewing size on the screen?

--Peter
 
Peter Klein said:
A


Here's a nice M8 trick: Instead of ISO 640, shoot at 320 with -1 EV. For 1250, try 640 -1 EV, and for 2500, try 640 with -2 EV. These adjustments can look better than the native high ISO settings.


--Peter
Click to expand...

I have read that multiple times and did controlled tests myself. It simply doesn't work. Of course it didn't make sense to me that it would work, because raising the gain of the sensor would seem to be a more reasonable way of increasing EV than jacking it up via software.

The trick about keeping sharpening off, however, is my standard workflow - also, add no converter noise reduction as well. I find noise ninja-esque tools to be my personal last resort.
 
"I was a little disappointed that even a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist of today doesn't know how to use apostrophes correctly.
Leica Ms, not Leica M's! I have three M8s. Not three M8's!"

One of my college English professors always stated the purpose of language is clarity in communications. With the alphabet and numerical soup of camera models today, adding an apostophe sometimes improves clarity. Nikon did have an F2As model at one time, I believe, and to designate multiple samples as F2As's seems clearer than the alternative without the apostophe.
 
Peter Klein said:
Context is everything. The reviewer was using the camera in a war zone, under conditions of dust, heat, shock and danger that most of us will never encounter. For him it was the wrong camera. That does not negate the value of the camera for others. Even for some journalists and documentary photographers. Certainly not for me--I'd buy my M8 again if I had the choice now.
Click to expand...

Actually the problem is that the M8 displays all of these issues even in the livingroom of a civilian, when they are taking pictures of their cat or dog.

If a digital M had the weather sealing and build quality of a pro-level C or N, it might not be as light and portable as it is. Nor might it look and feel like a "real" Leica. The M8 stuffs a lot of electronics into a smaller space than any pro-level DSLR, and gives up the drastically overbuilt cloth shutter that made a film M so reliable.
Click to expand...

Adding o-rings and other sealing would not increase the size of the camere nor affect it's shape.

But the idea that "if it costs $5,000, it must be absolutely perfect for absolutely every application, or it does not deserve to exist," well, that's nonsense. Some of the M8 bashing we're getting in reaction to this review is the same old Leica-bashing that's been going on for decades. It can be summed up as "I hate doctors and dentists with more cash than brains, and I'm smarter than they are because I don't have a Leica."

--Peter
Click to expand...


I think nearly everyone realizes that in many ways an RF camera is a specialized tool and not suitable to all tasks. I do not expect an RF to be as flexible as an SLR, nor do I expect an SLR to excell where an RF camera does. That's not the problem. The problem is two fold.

- The M8 is unreliable and tempramental. That's a problem no matter how you cut it and close to fatal when we are talking about a piece of gear that costs $5500.

- As a rangefinder the M8 does not perform as good as it's analog predecessors. (Inaccurate framelines even by RF standards, ergonomic problems, reliability issues etc)

I'm hoping that the M8 turns out to be the M4-2 of digital M bodies.

To give Leica credit they did almost hit a bullseye the first time around. This is an impressive achievement when you consider how little experience they have in this field and the turmoil that has engulfed the company in recent years. But I hope they learn from this experience and the M8-2 or M9 will resolve these issues, because I really want to see Leica succeed.

HL
 
Last edited:
Some of the M8 bashing we're getting in reaction to this review is the same old Leica-bashing that's been going on for decades. It can be summed up as "I hate doctors and dentists with more cash than brains, and I'm smarter than they are because I don't have a Leica."
Click to expand...


I'm a long-time Leica owner, and in addition to shooting with them for my own pleasure, I used mine to shoot weddings professionaly. My pair of M6 TTL's were as reliable as anvils, and I loved using them. I was planning on replacing them with M8's, but the M8 simply isn't the reliable, no-excuses tool the film bodies are. That's the issue, period.

As to the "bashing," well, maybe Leica needs to be "bashed" a bit to wake up and stop marketing to collectors and dilettantes, and start making useable tools again.
 
kevin m said:
...As to the "bashing," well, maybe Leica needs to be "bashed" a bit to wake up and stop marketing to collectors and dilettantes, and start making useable tools again.
Click to expand...

I am certain Leica is aware of their quality slide downwards. Whether they had little digital experience is another question given that their business is cameras (and lenses). Today no digital, no business.

I chose the D200 with 50mm/1.4 and 25mm/2.8 Zeiss lenses over the M8 for my digital capture. I have none of the problems described by Kamber and his M8's. My fotos are razor sharp, color right on, not one complaint with the rig.

For my M's I love my Leica lenses as they are. When I place my 35mm Summilux ASPH on my MP I want it to be a 35mm, not a 47mm. ditto this with my 90mm Elmarit-M. I know the FF threshold is a difficult barrier to cross, but I love my Leica lenses as they are.
 
Harry Lime said:
Actually the problem is that the M8 displays all of these issues even in the livingroom of a civilian, when they are taking pictures of their cat or dog.

Adding o-rings and other sealing would not increase the size of the camere nor affect it's shape.

I think nearly everyone realizes that in many ways an RF camera is a specialized tool and not suitable to all tasks. I do not expect an RF to be as flexible as an SLR, nor do I expect an SLR to excell where an RF camera does. That's not the problem. The problem is two fold.

- The M8 is unreliable and tempramental. That's a problem no matter how you cut it and close to fatal when we are talking about a piece of gear that costs $5500.

- As a rangefinder the M8 does not perform as good as it's analog predecessors. (Inaccurate framelines even by RF standards, ergonomic problems, reliability issues etc)

I'm hoping that the M8 turns out to be the M4-2 of digital M bodies.

To give Leica credit they did almost hit a bullseye the first time around. This is an impressive achievement when you consider how little experience they have in this field and the turmoil that has engulfed the company in recent years. But I hope they learn from this experience and the M8-2 or M9 will resolve these issues, because I really want to see Leica succeed.

HL
Click to expand...

I want to second what Harry has said. Especially "Actually the problem is that the M8 displays all of these issues even in the livingroom of a civilian, when they are taking pictures of their cat or dog."

Photojournalists didn't gravitate to the 35mm rangefinder because it was a war camera. A couple of bodies and a few lenses traveled easily, eliminated the need for flash or tripod in many cases, produced images of high technical quality and were dependable. It was a good, all around news camera. (Even Joe Rosenthal would probably agree.)

And those characteristics (easily transported, easily used, good image quality and dependable) are just as important when you are documenting the life around you. My film shots of family dogs for the most part were taken with a Leica. I was documenting good friends who would not live as long as me. In some cases I was documenting myself and my family saying goodbye to those friends. It was important to me. More than any other camera, i trusted the film Leica.

I think family snapshots are incredibly important. Kodak asked me what I thought would be a good project to celebrate the bicentennial of this country. When I said they should go to their photofinishers and edit an exhibit of amateur snapshots, they thought I was crazy. But I think people photographing their own history is important.

Most non-professionals are going to travel around with just one camera. Just one camera is going to sit on the shelf ready to document their lives.

I've gone through 3 M8's. The last one has worked well for over a year. It is an incredibly good camera. But my faith in the dependability of the M8 has yet to come back. It will in time. But that need for dependability is drilled into a news photographer. When I'm using only one camera, it's not an M8. That means a lot of important dog snapshots are being made with a DSLR.
 
I look at my previous post and I realize that to some it will seem overly negative. Truth is, I use the M8 all the time and like it. I think the image quality is exceptional. (I don't seem to have the problems some have at higher ISO's. I think this is not only a question of taste, but also of image processing. Maybe we should start a thread on how folks are processing their M8 images, especially the high speed ones.)

But, because of my experience with early M8's, I'm uncomfortable using it solo when the event is unrepeatable and important or when I'm working for someone else. Wish it were otherwise, but, in those cases everybody should probably have more than one body available regardless of camera type. I'm sure there is some bromide about cats and stove burners and not getting your tail singed twice. And I'm sure that there will come a time when I do a job with only digital rangefinders - an M9 and an M8.
 
Bill, I don't think you were being too critical.

As far as cameras go, there is nothing that I desire more than a digital M that is as good as the analog bodies. I think that we will eventually get there; that is if Leica starts to listen to the pros again and gains experience in digital. I'm always amazed by the passionate response the M8 provokes, even 2 years after it's release. There is nothing else like this in the camera world and it is totally out of proportion with Leica's marketshare. I think it just goes to show, how badly people want to see this story have a happy ending.

Flaws and all I probably would have purchased an M8 two years ago, but I simply can't get myself to drop $5500 on the camera in it's current state. Maybe if it was half as much, I would be more open to the idea.

The other problem is that I have been unable to overcome my Tri-X addiction.... I'm lucky in that I don't have to hit deadlines, like a working PJ, so there really is no absolute need for me to go digital... I also think that at some point in your development as an artist you manage to develop a look and style that is your own and for better or worse, in my case that involves a roll of Tri-X and certain developers.

Everytime I'm ready to head down to the dealer to get an M8 I end up asking myself: 'What are you actually gaining by switching to one of these? The framelines are less accurate, your focal lengths are going to be screwed up and worst of all you're going to lose 2-4 stops of dynamic range...'

The biggest gain would be convenience. But I have my developing pipeline down to the point where I can turn around several rolls of b/w in an hour and start scanning my picks shortly after that.

It's never simple, is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom