Yoricko
Established
Not sure whether to get the M8 or M8.2.
Right now, I'm studying and taking up a part-time job to fund myself a digital Leica for use in commercial shoots. (Using my film M for some random company event is purely a waste of film, money and trouble)
The question is, should I pump the extra 1000~2000 for the quieter shutter and more accurate framelines?
I'm very particular about the shutter noise, but spending an extra 2-3k is something I'm not sure about.
Or should I just wait till I finish my school and wait for the future M9 or something? The 1.33x crop factor is something I don't like at all. Even with the slightly retarded crop factor, DSLRs is a no-no for me.
Right now, I'm studying and taking up a part-time job to fund myself a digital Leica for use in commercial shoots. (Using my film M for some random company event is purely a waste of film, money and trouble)
The question is, should I pump the extra 1000~2000 for the quieter shutter and more accurate framelines?
I'm very particular about the shutter noise, but spending an extra 2-3k is something I'm not sure about.
Or should I just wait till I finish my school and wait for the future M9 or something? The 1.33x crop factor is something I don't like at all. Even with the slightly retarded crop factor, DSLRs is a no-no for me.
AusDLK
Famous Photographer
Ben Z
Veteran
If I were you I would definitely wait. I've been using a 20D and M8 for quite some time, and recently got a 5D. The so-called full frame has only one advantage I can find, which is the viewfinder image is larger. Otherwise there just isn't one single thing I have found annoying let alone dislikable about the crop factors, not the 1.6x of the 20D and definitely not the 1.33x of the M8. But I know that some people are convinced that a crop factor has all sorts of disadvantages, and since you sound like one of them, spending $300 much less $3000 on something you "don't like at all" and is "slightly retarded" is...well, slightly retarded, don't you agree?
MCTuomey
Veteran
i don't have an M8.2, just a "new to me" M8, so my comments aren't worth much from the point of view of experience. keep firmly in mind that the sensor didn't change in 8.2. none of the 8.2 changes affect image-quality. the changes do affect one's shooting experience. only you can decide whether that matters enough to spend another $2+K (USD). gotta have vulcanite, black paint, a smaller charger, a bit less shutter noise, a trade-off b/w near and far VF accuracy? invest in the M8.2 and be happy. not? then invest in the M8 and take your loved one to someplace very nice ... with your camera.
well, that's my bias and pretty much what i did.
well, that's my bias and pretty much what i did.
victoriapio
Well-known
I have the same attitude. Bought a wonderfully reliable M8 from Mike Hattam here on RFF that has not given me any problems at all. I have not seen any reason to convert it - or any part of it - to the 8.2. Now if in their brilliance Leica introduces a "sensor upgrade" to EVEN BETTER pixels - and the image quality is already superb - then I would jump on it if it didn't cost too much :bang:
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
You really should try one before you decide either way. You might find the crop factor isn't the big deal you imagined it would be.
ampguy
Veteran
I've never used the 8.2, but the 8 classic is fine for me regarding a) framelines, b) shutter sound (note that with upgraded firmware, you can gain the delayed release/advance feature of the 8.2 in the 8), c) sapphire lcd cover.
disadvantages of the "upgraded" 8.2 are possibly increased battery life (I get 400 shots per charge on the M8 classic), and 100% slower top shutter speed, making it impossible to not overexpose with a summilux in daylight.
disadvantages of the "upgraded" 8.2 are possibly increased battery life (I get 400 shots per charge on the M8 classic), and 100% slower top shutter speed, making it impossible to not overexpose with a summilux in daylight.
Yoricko
Established
Hmm, aite.
Read it on another topic in this forum
Well, I often use wide angles, so if I take out a 35mm, it turns into a 47mm lens, a 21 into a 28, a 15 to 20 and so on. The crop factor also affects the DoF markings as well. Slighty annoying, but, I can live with it.
Shooting experience is something I must consider if I'm planning to use the camera for quite a while. For now, I think the M8 should do justice, but I hope I will not regret getting the M8.2 when the shutter really gets into me.
I've used someone's M8 on the street before, can't really hear the shutter because of the noise on the street. A little fatter than I've expected. Never tried the .2 before though
Can't really tell the difference actually.
Hmm, ok.
wolfhound
Newbie
Olsen
Well-known
If cost is a factor, I would have gone for a 2.hand M8. I believe that they might increase in price when and if a M9 is launched. This makes sense since you already have a Leica with lenses (not?). If cost isn't factor I would have bought a brand new M8.2.
Starburst
Member
I can't explain why, since I am not very good at understanding physics. But if you want to compare the difference in depth of field between different sensor sizes, you should check out the dofmaster page.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
DOF as we used to know it on film does not exist on a sensor anyway. You may get the impression it does by making smallish prints, but if you look very carefully at the image that comes out of the camera you'll find that it has a plane of sharpness that is about 1.5 cm thick, regardless of aperture or focal length. (that is, assuming a plane can have a thickness, which it cannot, but you may get my drift.) The only thing affected by the aperture or focal length (which, again, has to do with enlargement) is the steepness of the falloff in sharpness.
The size of the sensor does not change the focal length of your lens btw, just the angle of view, or crop.
This phenomen is the reason behind the often stated observation the the change of fingerprint of lenses used on the M8 as compared to film is minimal, far less than the crop factor would lead one to suppose. It is also the reason that Leica states in the manual shipped with their lenses "DOF markings on the lens are the same for film or M8"
It will be interesting to see what will change in this respect when the M9 comes out.
The size of the sensor does not change the focal length of your lens btw, just the angle of view, or crop.
This phenomen is the reason behind the often stated observation the the change of fingerprint of lenses used on the M8 as compared to film is minimal, far less than the crop factor would lead one to suppose. It is also the reason that Leica states in the manual shipped with their lenses "DOF markings on the lens are the same for film or M8"
It will be interesting to see what will change in this respect when the M9 comes out.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I have both and if you can afford it the 8.2 is easily worth the extra money. On the other hand, if it's a stretch, the M8 is also an excellent camera. The noise may or not matter; the 'discreet' cocking mode likewise; and you can learn to adjust for the frames.
I really wouldn't wait for an M9. After all, you might then as well wait for an M10, or M11, or indeed Godot. Photography is about taking pictures, and you can't do that without a camera.
Cheers,
R.
I really wouldn't wait for an M9. After all, you might then as well wait for an M10, or M11, or indeed Godot. Photography is about taking pictures, and you can't do that without a camera.
Cheers,
R.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
09-09-2009??