M8 or GF1???

S

SeaninBrisbane

Member
Local time
7:20 PM
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
38
Hi - I have a couple of M lenses (Summicron-c 40 and Heliar 15) that I would like to use with a digital body. In terms of image quality only, what would give me the best results? I had never considered an M8 until recent price drops. I use these lenses with my M2 usually. Thanks for any advice.
 
The biggest issue will be the 2x crop factor on the GF1. That will make the 40 an 80mm tele and the 15 a 30mm normal wide. That's a big issue to me and one of the reasons I only use M glass on my G1 when I need a telephoto lens.

/T
 
As far as I know, the M8 isn't going to drop down into the same price range as the GF1, so I am not sure how one might consider them occupying similar categories. I would think then that the biggest issue would be price. Panasonic GF1 is around $900 w/lens new while the M8 is in the $2800 price range on the used market.
 
As long as 2x crop factor stays, M lens users will not pay much attention.

If the company comes up with FF sensor without AA filter, built in HD/accepts all mount type lens/+ many functions at Rangefinder shape, it will be a rock star!
 
bluepenguin said:
As long as 2x crop factor stays, M lens users will not pay much attention.

If the company comes up with FF sensor without AA filter, built in HD/accepts all mount type lens/+ many functions at Rangefinder shape, it will be a rock star!
Click to expand...

Agreed. It wouldn't even have to be full frame; just not 2:1. A crop factor of around 1.25:1, or 1.2:1, would help me to use each lens in a manner similar to how I've always used them on film cameras. a 21mm or 24mm would still be in the ultrawide category, for instance. Our 21mm lenses could then be around 25mm--wide enough. But I don't want to turn my 24mm into a 48mm normal lens!
 
leicashot said:
Benz or Hyundai?
Click to expand...

i have to agree. as sean reid has pointed out in his review of the similar G1, the micro 4/3 cameras are miles behind the Ms. so if you have the cash for an M8, i'd recommend that.

that said, i hope the micro 4/3 cameras can narrow the gap--as it'd make for an interesting backup/second camera.
 
I agree with ramosa, a 4/3 camera like the Olympus or the Panasonic that could take Leica M mount lenses would be a great backup camera. My local shop is going to call me when they get in the GF1 so I can try it out using my Zeiss ZM lenses.
 
the M8 is a rangefinder with typical rangefinder foibles...focus shift, parallax,viewfinder blockage. the G1, GH1, GF1...the first two have a state of the art EVF, with a flip-out Live view LCD sporting 460,000 pix (twice as many as the M9)...Since the camera focuses off the sensor, there is no focus shift, no parallax problems or viewfinder blockage... it is an excellent performer with Ultra fast lenses... With adapters, It can use almost any 35mm legacy lenses ever made, plus the complete array of modern and legacy 35mm/16mm cine lenses with beautiful signatures... btw the 15mm heliar is a shyte lens adapt'd to digital... anyway, the two cameras are different tools, is what I want to say, and cannot be considered interchangable:)

Yehh, the GF1 is a fashion statement...it lacks a the high quality EVF and flip out screen of the the G1/Gh1...

regards Hudson
 
Last edited:
Y.B.hudson III said:
the M8 is a rangefinder with typical rangefinder foibles...focus shift, parallax,viewfinder blockage. the G1, GH1, GF1...the first two have a state of the art EVF, with a flip-out Live view LCD sporting 460,000 pix (twice as many as the M9)...Since the camera focuses off the sensor, there is no focus shift, no parallax problems or viewfinder blockage... it is an excellent performer with Ultra fast lenses... With adapters, It can use almost any 35mm legacy lenses ever made, plus the complete array of modern and legacy 35mm/16mm cine lenses with beautiful signatures... btw the 15mm heliar is a shyte lens adapt'd to digital... anyway, the two cameras are different tools, is what I want to say, and cannot be considered interchangable:)

regards Hudson
Click to expand...

No 460,000 pixel LCD is gonna make any difference to my shooting ability or quality of results.
 
Thanks for the replies everyone. I appreciate that they are completely different tools with different ways of working, but I was interested in the files they would produce. Of course I would much rather work with an M-type camera.
 
Even still, you can't compare the two, as they are very different in the 'way' they capture the image. Have you ever shot an M? I think you need to before making any comparison with their sensors....and of course price ain't exactly comparable either.
 
leicashot said:
Even still, you can't compare the two, as they are very different in the 'way' they capture the image. Have you ever shot an M? I think you need to before making any comparison with their sensors....and of course price ain't exactly comparable either.
Click to expand...

I've been using an M2 for 5 years and love it. The price isn't comparable, but I reckon I could stretch my budget to a used M8 body if I had to.
 
Y.B.hudson III said:
the M8 is a rangefinder with typical rangefinder foibles...focus shift, parallax,viewfinder blockage. the G1, GH1, GF1...the first two have a state of the art EVF, with a flip-out Live view LCD sporting 460,000 pix (twice as many as the M9)...Since the camera focuses off the sensor, there is no focus shift, no parallax problems or viewfinder blockage... it is an excellent performer with Ultra fast lenses... With adapters, It can use almost any 35mm legacy lenses ever made, plus the complete array of modern and legacy 35mm/16mm cine lenses with beautiful signatures... btw the 15mm heliar is a shyte lens adapt'd to digital... anyway, the two cameras are different tools, is what I want to say, and cannot be considered interchangable:)

Yehh, the GF1 is a fashion statement...it lacks a the high quality EVF and flip out screen of the the G1/Gh1...

regards Hudson
Click to expand...

Why is the Heliar 15mm so bad on a digital body?
 
SeaninBrisbane said:
Thanks for the replies everyone. I appreciate that they are completely different tools with different ways of working, but I was interested in the files they would produce. Of course I would much rather work with an M-type camera.
Click to expand...

as i mentioned before, sean reid (at reid reviews) compared the G1 (which is very similar to the GF1) with the M8. he found that the G1's IQ was nowhere close to as good as the M8. i was hoping the difference would be so significant.
 
ramosa said:
as i mentioned before, sean reid (at reid reviews) compared the G1 (which is very similar to the GF1) with the M8. he found that the G1's IQ was nowhere close to as good as the M8. i was hoping the difference would be so significant.
Click to expand...

I was hoping that would be the case. It looks like a beautiful camera with most of the early glitches now resolved. Looks like I'll save up for a used M8 then!
 
I'd go for the GF1, but then again the most expensive camera I've ever purchased was $500.

The old adage "you get what you pay for" is fairly accurate. I don't need the IQ the M8 or M9 will offer, so I have no problem with the less expansive camera.
 
SeaninBrisbane said:
I've been using an M2 for 5 years and love it. The price isn't comparable, but I reckon I could stretch my budget to a used M8 body if I had to.
Click to expand...

Just do it. Contact Alan at Camera Lane in Melbourne. He has an M8.2 like new for a sweet deal, tell him Aussie Kris living in LA sent you. I personally have an M8 and love it and couldn't care less about full frame honestly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom