M8 M8.2 or Fuji X Pro 1 or X100

If you shoot M8 against Nikon, it is no wonder you get better images from your D70, if you follow a Nikon workflow. The processing of the raw is simply different and you need to adapt your postprocessing. If you shoot jpg about any camera will beat the M8. But an properly processed DNG will blow just about anything out of the water.
 
jaapv, by all means the M8 is a slow camera. due to its relatively old processor, i suppose. if you take jpegs, the camera processes for a few seconds during which you can see its red led on the back blinking. during this time, the menu buttons are frozen.
you can of course keep on taking pictures, until you fill up the buffer with 7 images, more or less. then again, if you take jpegs, the buffer seems to be filled up even before.
"erratic framelines" is my way of expressing that you don't always get what you expect. Leica introduced improvements to the M8.2 framelines for a reason, don't you think?
not to be mistaken, I love my M8 and it has been inseparable from me in the last 2 years and for about 30.000 pictures.
however, i have no problems accepting it's limitations. my points of comparison are a 1957 M3 and an M9 that I borrow from a friend once in a while.
 
I never take Jpegs...And it is 12 images in the buffer. The M9 takes 7. The only improvement in the 8.2 framelines was the exact correspondence at 2 m instead of 0.7, which makes no difference in the "zooming" effect they have, which is 100% predictable for both cameras. I don't need the menu buttons when shooting, nor do I have autoreview switched on ( I hate the light in my eyes) so they do not slow down the camera imo.
 
ktmrider said:
The X100 is simply outstanding. I had an M8.2 for about an hour before deciding to send it back (poor ISO above 650). And it is coming up on 4 or 5 years old.
Click to expand...

Here's an example of the M8 "poor ISO above 650' (NOT)
15480212-lg.jpg

Leica M8.2, ISO 1250

Yes, there are cameras with better high-ISO performance. But I feel that the "poor ISO" of the M8 has been so often repeated that such comments may, in some cases, flow more from what one has read, than from images seen. The M8 isn't bad at all at ISO 1250; and even at ISO 2500, it can deliver a good picture as long as there aren't large dark, underexposed areas. I'd say my photo gives a pretty fair and balanced idea of what the M8 can do. You can see some noise on the shadow side of the nose cone; tops of the wing tanks; and in dark areas that have no detail. I wouldn't shun the M8 or M8.2 just for that.
 
This one is also at ISO 1250. I don't believe I see any noise at all.
15480372-lg.jpg

Space Shuttle Enterprise, National Air & Space Museum Leica M8.2
 
SR-71 Blackbird, M8.2, ISO 1250. Good example to evaluate the noise in dark areas. (OK I'll stop now)
15480412-lg.jpg
 
Rob-F said:
Here's an example of the M8 "poor ISO above 650' (NOT)
15480212-lg.jpg

Leica M8.2, ISO 1250

Yes, there are cameras with better high-ISO performance. But I feel that the "poor ISO" of the M8 has been so often repeated that such comments may, in some cases, flow more from what one has read, than from images seen. The M8 isn't bad at all at ISO 1250; and even at ISO 2500, it can deliver a good picture as long as there aren't large dark, underexposed areas. I'd say my photo gives a pretty fair and balanced idea of what the M8 can do. You can see some noise on the shadow side of the nose cone; tops of the wing tanks; and in dark areas that have no detail. I wouldn't shun the M8 or M8.2 just for that.
Click to expand...

This image is extremely noisy. I would consider this performance very very poor compared to what the X100 produces. I am shocked actually at how bad it is at only 1250. I think posting this image proves the point of the detractors perfectly.

I do not intend to argue any further or start a debate, I just see what I see.
 
Only I would add that...ummm...well...

No, you've said it all :p

David_Manning said:
The Fujis will give you technically better, cleaner images. They operate differently than Ms though.

As far as simplicity, the X100 wins...you can go full Auto, and will never have to change a lens. Or...you can shoot in manual like a mechanical camera.

If you want or need an M's operation, nothing else will suffice. As you know, sometimes it's about the images, sometimes it's about MAKING the images.

I've never even seen an X-Pro 1, but if it operates like an X100, it'll be a good camera.

The X100 seems like a digital Hexar AF, and the X-Pro 1 seems like a digital Contax G.
Click to expand...
 
Archiver said:
Agreed about the 28mm Elmarit on the M8. It's a 36mm equivalent and yet feels both wider and longer than 35mm on other formats. I can't quite explain it. Sometimes it feels like a 40, at other times it feels like a 32. If I had a M8, the 28mm Elmarit would be on it all the time.
Click to expand...
Same feeling !

Regards
 
Archiver said:
Agreed about the 28mm Elmarit on the M8. It's a 36mm equivalent and yet feels both wider and longer than 35mm on other formats. I can't quite explain it. Sometimes it feels like a 40, at other times it feels like a 32. If I had a M8, the 28mm Elmarit would be on it all the time.
Click to expand...

It's a 28mm FOV (and depth of field) cropped to 37.24mm. It makes you'd feel this way since the lens has certain charecteristics of a 28mm but your framelines are 37mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom