M8 -- the likely best M digital choice for the next few years

[John Camp]

I'm skeptical about the possibilties of another rangefinder camera. Leica can do it because of the luxury brand name, but basically, rf photography is just too hard for most people: you actually have to spend time learning to focus, and to make other manual photography choices, and most people don't want to do that.

I think that the biggest threat to rangefinders (or what you might consider their next evolution) would be a digital equivalent of the high end P&S cameras that were coming out at the end of the film era.

If I were running Zeiss, I wouldn't even think of a rf. I would build lenses for the digital M, and then I'd produce:

-A camera basically like the high-end P&S cameras that were coming out at the end of the film era.
-With a chip like the D200, small enough to use smaller lenses, big enough for great quality and acceptable high ISO;
-Interchangeable lenses, but only two: a fast high quality short zoom (~21-50) and a high quality long zoom (~50-200.)
-Full manual controls and RAW, with the option of AE and Program.
-Auto-focus and IS.
-A flash shoe.
-A rotating LCD (not live.)

If Zeiss did that, you might kiss the rangefinder good-bye, because that might BE the 21st century rangefinder equivalent.

JC

 

[IGMeanwell]

Has anyone thought of the possibility that Panasonic might come out with a plastic, drastically simplified version of the M8?

I see it happening if Leica can't bounce back ... just to supplement some extra income

you say, no way because it would compromise their M system and tradition

but I say give Leica a nice portion of the sales due to its design and Leica would be willing to produce a Panasonic CL

 

[Ben Z]

OK, the digital $5,000 digital M8 was introduced with a few problems. And if you want perfect M8 colors, it gets more expensive quickly with expensive IR filters.

But where does it stand in the M digital marketplace?

The leader, by default.

Unfortunately that last phrase sums it up perfectly.

Despite its fans, the Epson RD1/s has been effectively abandoned by Epson. Epson didn't know how to sell it, and after one production run, Epson gave up. Sure an RD2 was planned even before the RD1 was introduced, but it will never be made. From here on out, I believe the RD parts and repair situation will only
get a lot worse.

Stephen, is there any possibility you can think of that Epson could be talked into selling the remaining parts and the service equipment to a 3rd party who would take over the servicing of the RD-1? There are an awful lot of people out there who would benefit from that.

I personally expect to see a M8 Mark II before I see a digital ZM or VM. There is a REASON why Leica had so much trouble with a digital M. At this point in digital technology, it AIN'T EASY! That leaves the M8 as the once and future digital M king for the foreseeable future.

There has been a lot of whispering coming from various sources including some off-the-record remarks by Leica reps and dealers that Leica will pretty much be forced to refit the M8 with a stronger IR filtered sensor because of backlash against buying/using those front filters. Since that technology already exists, the opinion is it may be fairly soon. I can only speak for myself but it would definitely make the difference for me, I'd buy one if it didn't need the filters even if it (for example) vignetted more. That at least can be handled with firmware or software as with the RD-1. It may all be just wishful thinking though.

A camera for people with money, to be sure. But Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, etc sure sell a lot of high end cars.

That I know of, none of them has made a car with a free-flowing exhaust for maximum engine power knowing it would deafen the driver and passengers and then rather than recall them and install proper mufflers, offered drivers 2 free earplugs and then they could buy more for their passengers 😀

For most RF shooters who don't want to, or can't, spend that kind of money, a RF film camera with a good scanner is the digital answer.

Stephen Gandy

However I don't think that's the answer a lot of people will choose. Some people who are set on going digital will either get an RD-1 and roll the dice, or swallow hard and buy that 5D ($2200 now with double rebates) they were postponing until the final word on the M8 fixes was out.

 

[Harry Lime]

Is it realy that loud?
rvw

No. It's slightly louder than a film M, but still very quiet. The M8 sounds more like an M7 than a well used M2.

But more important it doesn't sound like an SLR, so it doesn't register as a camera being tripped with most people.

 

[Harry Lime]

Weathersealing would be nice .... but would not bring very much because none of the lenses is weathersealed .... so you have to use somekind of plastic bag in the rain anyhow!

Yes, but it is a lot easier to seal a lens with a plastic bag etc in a pinch, than the entire camera. I do it all the time with my Canon 1-v. The body is sealed, but not all of my lenses. Also M lenses don't contain electronics that will short out if they come into contact with water.

You can't stick an M in a plastic bag, because it obscures the RF windows.

 

[Harry Lime]

That's true, but the M8 could at least be as weather "suitable" as the former M's are. I've used a M6 on, for instance, wet alpine hikes, without problems - it's not really weathersealed, but can stand quite much waterdrops and humidity. The lens was mostly the 28 Skopar and did not suffer, too. I kept the camera inside the (wet) jacket but it got many drops on when shooting. This kind of "watherproofness" is usually enough good for me.
Didier

It wasn't such a big issue with the old mechnical M cameras. They are many reports of them getting soaked, dried out and functioning perfectly.

Obviously a digital camera is a whole different beast.

If Leica wants to increase sales they could also sell sealed lenses. There are people out there that would buy them.

 

[Harry Lime]

Hmm . . . a 4/3's Japanese digital rangerfinder wouldn't be a bad system. If it was developed from the E-330 body, it'd be a nice sized camera and Olympus makes some terrific lenses. Too bad it'll never happen.

*(I own an E-330)

Sorry, but this would probably be a bad idea. The 4/3 system is a technological dead end, because of the miniscule size of the receptor wells. This problem worsens as you increase the resolution and need to cram more and thus smaller receptors onto the same size chip. Smaller receptors equal lower dynamic range and increased noise at higher iso levels.

APS size chips as are used in Nikon cameras are a good compromise. They are economical to manufacture, yet still deliver very good performance all the way up to 12MP, as the 2Dx proves.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

And, for crying out loud, have you heard the horrible noise this POS makes? May as well be a clacking, grinding DSLR...

POS? What's POS, Dave?

You've been using this acronym so much I'm beginning to wonder what it really means.

 

[MP Guy]

Dave,

although I have the M8 I am not blind t its flaws. And the shutter does sound horrible. It sounds like a toy that needs a key to wind up the spring. Even worse, it sounds like something is just about to fall apart. It probably wont but that is what it sounds like. In all honesty, if it sounded like an SLR, i would feel more confident in its reliability.

 

[Nick R.]

Sorry, but this would probably be a bad idea. The 4/3 system is a technological dead end, because of the miniscule size of the receptor wells. This problem worsens as you increase the resolution and need to cram more and thus smaller receptors onto the same size chip. Smaller receptors equal lower dynamic range and increased noise at higher iso levels.

APS size chips as are used in Nikon cameras are a good compromise. They are economical to manufacture, yet still deliver very good performance all the way up to 12MP, as the 2Dx proves.

Well, I've seen the photos and they look fine. I guess I'm not a pixel peeper.

 

[KoNickon]

I just figured it out: Piece of s***. All I can say is that the to-do with the M8 further proves my philosophy (driven largely by personal economics): Never be the first to get a new model of anything. Let others deal with the high prices and initial teething problems.

 

[Harry Lime]

Well, I've seen the photos and they look fine. I guess I'm not a pixel peeper.

Neither am I, but it's difficult to ignore grain the size of golf balls at 800 asa and up.

Still better than 800 asa film, but Leica claims to aim for higher standards than most and 4/3rds isn't going to deliver it.

 

[35mmdelux]

Real men don't wear magenta.

 

[Nick R.]

Neither am I, but it's difficult to ignore grain the size of golf balls at 800 asa and up.

Still better than 800 asa film, but Leica claims to aim for higher standards than most and 4/3rds isn't going to deliver it.

Ah, I didn't mean for Leica but as a Japanese alternative. I thought that a ~$1000 rangefinder based on existing 4/3's technology would be doable.

 

[35mmdelux]

I'd prefer to let the dust settle before moving in the digi direction someday. Nevermind that the MP and M7 are at fire sale prices because of the digi revolution.

HP-5 rules!

 

[sgy1962]

M8 a lot of money? From what I can deduce it cost a fortune to develop the camera- let's say Leica gives 28 points to dealers this means they only gross $3400. Subtract from that the shrinking dollar and they net even less from their biggest export market. Now let's say it costs Leica $1200 to manufacture the thing (including labor? I don't know). I'd say Leica pockets no more then $2k per unit and most likely less- now lets factor the cost of the recall and the cost of shelving parts for repair and their margin shrinks by even more. I'd guess they will sell no more then 10,000 units total at no more then $1500 net net profit per unit so it's a thin line.

Now factor the cost of developing film- I shoot aprox 1000 to 1500 exposures per week on a photog trip. That’s about $350 to $450 per week for film and development depending on if I shoot slide or print film (print development costs can and do go much higher then this). Add to this the time spent scanning slides and the hassle of film at airports and the M8 pays for it's self very quickly. Of course your mileage and shooting may vary so factor this into your return on investment. And of course you may just love film in which case this is a non-issue. But if you love to shoot a lot, don't want to hassle with film and or just can't stand the thought of lugging a heavy DSLR around the globe the Leica M8 is a breath of fresh air that quickly pays for it's self.

So Leica delivered a product at a very tight margin (for them) and they stand behind their product. Seems fair to me.

PS. I am sure someone will have a better idea of actual dealer margins and production costs as well as comparative savings of film vs. digital. This I feel is an excellent topic when discussing the overall value of the M8.

PSS. When I first read this post I felt like I just heard Walter Cronkite declare, for the first time, that the war in Vietnam is "unwinnable."

The caveat is that with film you don't shoot as many exposures as you do with digital. That seems to be a fact with the vast majority of people.

 

[furcafe]

The better analogy would be to the Morgan (http://www.morgan-motor.co.uk/). They don't sell a lot, but they are still in business.

Stephen, that is a flawed comparison. Luxury cars are at the forefront of automotive technology and safety. People buy them for those reason as well as their name recongnition.

Leica M8 takes away camera technology from the user to give you a bare bone camera that excels ( in theory ) at taking images. Short of camera geeks like us no one knows what a Leica is. This is the equivalent of Rolls Royce restarting the production of the 1950s Silver Cloud complete with manual windows, AM radio, and no airbags and tries to convince the consumer that this is the best automobile in the world. Sure it'll be a nice car to own and look at for people with money, but I guarantee it won't sell a lot.

 

[furcafe]

It's interesting how subjective these ergonomic issues are. I've handled the M8, own the R-D1 & a Hexar RF & reached completely different conclusions. I found the M8's shutter release to be similar to my M7, which I prefer to the R-D1 & the Hexar (which I find a bit "mushy" even as compared to the similar Kyocera Contax G2). I also don't understand those who complain about the M8's sound as I didn't find that to be objectionable, either, & certainly not worthy of the "POS" appellation. I do prefer the R-D1's flip-open LCD screen, jog dial, & exposure lock button (not a fan of having to use a button to release the shutter speed dial, though).

I have handled M8, its shutter release is not as smooth as R-D1, or indeed Hexar RF (which has the smoothest and lighest shutter release IMO).

 

[sgy1962]

The question is how big is the market for a quality digital rangefinder?

I'm suprised that the Epson didn't sell better, but when the R-D1 was released the Leica digital M was already on the future horizon. If that had not been the case, then the R-D1 would of sold much better. I believe a lot of folks just decided to wait.

 

[furcafe]

I suspect that you're right w/respect to photography generally, & not just w/RFs. Otherwise, I think Canon or (especially) Nikon would have introduced a manual focus dSLR by now. I personally would love to see something like a digital Canon F-1 or Nikon F3 w/a real VF, only w/the sensor from a 5D.

I'm skeptical about the possibilties of another rangefinder camera. Leica can do it because of the luxury brand name, but basically, rf photography is just too hard for most people: you actually have to spend time learning to focus, and to make other manual photography choices, and most people don't want to do that.
JC