Toby
On the alert
But am I the only one who's spotted the irony in the fact that street photography has very limited commercial potential but the ideal street photography tool is one of the most expensive cameras on the market?
lxlim
Member
Being thinking and enjoying about the general trend of thoughts in this thread. Thanks all.
I'm a canon professional who's interested in the M8 (Not changing system but adding to my repertoire). The M8 will serve to open new areas of work for me and the M8's strengths are opposite to the strengths of the Canon system. My canons are excellent for some of my work but not all my clients are well served by a Canon.
I am considering a Leica M8 for its quietness, excellent low distortion compact lenses at wide open apertures and consistent reliable mechanics of its lenses. And the lack of the AA filter.
Alex
I'm a canon professional who's interested in the M8 (Not changing system but adding to my repertoire). The M8 will serve to open new areas of work for me and the M8's strengths are opposite to the strengths of the Canon system. My canons are excellent for some of my work but not all my clients are well served by a Canon.
I am considering a Leica M8 for its quietness, excellent low distortion compact lenses at wide open apertures and consistent reliable mechanics of its lenses. And the lack of the AA filter.
Alex
lxlim
Member
Toby said:But am I the only one who's spotted the irony in the fact that street photography has very limited commercial potential but the ideal street photography tool is one of the most expensive cameras on the market?
Very true! Aiming high at an M8 requires serious considerations at your economics of operations. No passerby I've encountered ever offered me any money even for a memorable composition. sigh!
Fortunately, for some of the jobs I do, I can justify an M8.
Alex
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
For me it is not that.
1. digital workflow - unavoidable nowadays unless you are a B&W shooter or want to invest major effort and time in a colour darkroom ( or accept the doubtful output of lab's).
2.Filmscanning - I don't know about you, but I personally don't have the time or the inclination and, frankly, unless one really invests those two the results are variable at best.
3.SLR's- been there-done that. Decades of use taught me that RF-s are my thing.
4.DSLR's- great machines if you need them or like them.Great results if you have a good one.I kept the one I disliked least.
5.RD1- nice if not great camera, betters most prosumer digital offerings. But not the camera for a Leica M user of 35 years.
6.The M8- Finally a Leica M that promises to yield results that are in the same range as the best digital camera's now on the market.
So excuse me please if I am happy that it has come and that I am pleased when prelimerary results seem to confirm that it delivers its promise.
And to comment on the wealthy amateur remarks. Yes I am an amateur - which, incidentally, means somebody who does something because he really likes to. But wealthy? not according to my bank manager - If my signature looks like it: consider that that represents 50 years of up-trading equipment.
1. digital workflow - unavoidable nowadays unless you are a B&W shooter or want to invest major effort and time in a colour darkroom ( or accept the doubtful output of lab's).
2.Filmscanning - I don't know about you, but I personally don't have the time or the inclination and, frankly, unless one really invests those two the results are variable at best.
3.SLR's- been there-done that. Decades of use taught me that RF-s are my thing.
4.DSLR's- great machines if you need them or like them.Great results if you have a good one.I kept the one I disliked least.
5.RD1- nice if not great camera, betters most prosumer digital offerings. But not the camera for a Leica M user of 35 years.
6.The M8- Finally a Leica M that promises to yield results that are in the same range as the best digital camera's now on the market.
So excuse me please if I am happy that it has come and that I am pleased when prelimerary results seem to confirm that it delivers its promise.
And to comment on the wealthy amateur remarks. Yes I am an amateur - which, incidentally, means somebody who does something because he really likes to. But wealthy? not according to my bank manager - If my signature looks like it: consider that that represents 50 years of up-trading equipment.
Last edited:
Toby
On the alert
lxlim said:
I think that for what I would use it for I'd be lucky if it paid for itself in a year or two.
georgl
Member
I have to admit that these few examples aren't a 100% proof for top-notch-image-quality.
But it's not a 10MP-consumer-camera.
It uses the most expensive 35mm-hardware on the market, the best lenses in the world and has a build quality unlike any other (35mm-segment). Professional C and N are robust, so is the M8. But the M8 is build to fulfill highest standards Leica-customers are used to. Why do you think they use CNC-milling to make all outer parts of the camera? Why this expensive finish in every detail? Because it's a Leica. They don't think of financing a 100Mil. $ marketing-campaign due a 20%-margin of your (not soo cheap) C/N.
A 10MPixel can't do magic, but when I think of the M8-files (I've shot a few DNGs at a shop) and especially DMR-files (which even uses an older sensor) I can say that this is top-quality - it has nothing to do with cheap consumer-cameras.
You have to shot RAW and you have to uses the latest generation Leica-lenses and you will get an unique combination!
The lenses aren't used to 100%, but you can buy them now and they will bring you extreme quality with further developed sensors in the future.
Canon is superior? Yes, when you shoot sports, need fast pictures this is the perfect tool. Everybody else who is willing to pay this much money should think about it twice. Many Canon-users which prefer IQ over speed already switched to the DMR (it's still only a niche between 35mm and MF-backs), the M8 has even further advantages.
But two things are simply extraordinary:
The build quality (bodies and lenses) and the optical-lens-quality.
Everybody who likes to use wideangles should try this when the M8 is out:
M8+ 16-21-Tri (about 7000€) vs. 1dsMarkII/Nikon D2X + any WA-lens from C/N (5000-9000€).
Have you handled the small <800g (no plastic!!!) -combo with the new 2,8/28Asph. ? Compare it at open aperture against your 2kg-DSLR-solution (they're build for a special purpose: speed)...
Or simply try the 1,4/35Asph at open aperture, or the 90AA, or...
Just try it yourself!
But it's not a 10MP-consumer-camera.
It uses the most expensive 35mm-hardware on the market, the best lenses in the world and has a build quality unlike any other (35mm-segment). Professional C and N are robust, so is the M8. But the M8 is build to fulfill highest standards Leica-customers are used to. Why do you think they use CNC-milling to make all outer parts of the camera? Why this expensive finish in every detail? Because it's a Leica. They don't think of financing a 100Mil. $ marketing-campaign due a 20%-margin of your (not soo cheap) C/N.
A 10MPixel can't do magic, but when I think of the M8-files (I've shot a few DNGs at a shop) and especially DMR-files (which even uses an older sensor) I can say that this is top-quality - it has nothing to do with cheap consumer-cameras.
You have to shot RAW and you have to uses the latest generation Leica-lenses and you will get an unique combination!
The lenses aren't used to 100%, but you can buy them now and they will bring you extreme quality with further developed sensors in the future.
Canon is superior? Yes, when you shoot sports, need fast pictures this is the perfect tool. Everybody else who is willing to pay this much money should think about it twice. Many Canon-users which prefer IQ over speed already switched to the DMR (it's still only a niche between 35mm and MF-backs), the M8 has even further advantages.
But two things are simply extraordinary:
The build quality (bodies and lenses) and the optical-lens-quality.
Everybody who likes to use wideangles should try this when the M8 is out:
M8+ 16-21-Tri (about 7000€) vs. 1dsMarkII/Nikon D2X + any WA-lens from C/N (5000-9000€).
Have you handled the small <800g (no plastic!!!) -combo with the new 2,8/28Asph. ? Compare it at open aperture against your 2kg-DSLR-solution (they're build for a special purpose: speed)...
Or simply try the 1,4/35Asph at open aperture, or the 90AA, or...
Just try it yourself!
lxlim
Member
Toby said:I think that for what I would use it for I'd be lucky if it paid for itself in a year or two.
We all need to justify the expenses sensibly or we will be out of business. I never considered a leica for any of my work until I worked out the requirements of my clients and then only as a subset of my toolkit. Never considered the Leica in my film days as the Sinar was my main bread and butter camera with the Rollei and the Canons for other work. The M series never fitted then.
Three key factors made me lean toward a leica.
A 5D or 1DSmkII with the equivalent lenses would seriously impair my mobiity as well as my speed of response.
Canon's AF while excellent is not 100% accurate in certain conditions especially with wides at 40 to 80 meters range.
Viewing outside the imaging area is valuable to me. The equal of having zooms.
Alex
Toby
On the alert
lxlim said:
I agree - its totally reflective in how you work. I made a conscious decision to sacrifice some image quality for zooms, although I do keep a 50 1.4 with me.
I certainly do not blindly trust AF
I know I can street shoot with my Bessa kit a lot long longer than I can with my EOS kit and that in itself may yield a better result. But to the same extent I often have days when I think I've always got the wrong lens on the camera I have that less often with zooms.
There is no perfect kit. There are always compromises. No one yet has made my perfect camera.
I'm interested in the M8 but I like to wait to see what people think when the cameras been around for a few months. I'm not worried about image quality I've made nice pictures with £100 SLR's and crappy ones with a 6x7. I know in the end its down to me.
M
Magnus
Guest
Measurebators.....
Hopefully there will enough Brick Walls availible once the distribtution gets going.
I dread to think of the content of various rangefinder/leica related fori once people get their hands on one ....
Me, I will just go out and take pictures, avoid brick walls and give the internet a rest for a while, ahhh yes I will put my M8 on my bedside cabinet for the first couple of weeks and perhaps stroke it when I wake up in the middle of the night, that is if it ever ships.....
I was promissed a shipment date of end October, which is now second week of december .....
But then again Leica is a company that doesn't need "actual" customer satisfaction, the red dot performs wonders. On another forum I read a remark about the sharpness of the digilux 3
"ok so it seems less sharp than X,y and z, but then you only need sharpness if your into architectural and art photography, I don't do that, so I'm happy"
Very easy customer base, people that will polish off quality issues by simply disregarding them.
I wish my industry type would work like that .....
Hopefully there will enough Brick Walls availible once the distribtution gets going.
I dread to think of the content of various rangefinder/leica related fori once people get their hands on one ....
Me, I will just go out and take pictures, avoid brick walls and give the internet a rest for a while, ahhh yes I will put my M8 on my bedside cabinet for the first couple of weeks and perhaps stroke it when I wake up in the middle of the night, that is if it ever ships.....
I was promissed a shipment date of end October, which is now second week of december .....
But then again Leica is a company that doesn't need "actual" customer satisfaction, the red dot performs wonders. On another forum I read a remark about the sharpness of the digilux 3
"ok so it seems less sharp than X,y and z, but then you only need sharpness if your into architectural and art photography, I don't do that, so I'm happy"
Very easy customer base, people that will polish off quality issues by simply disregarding them.
I wish my industry type would work like that .....
Frikki@myndlist
Newbie
I am a photojurnalist and I forsee using the m8 (ordering tomorrow) in more or less in about 80% of my avalable light work I will still use my nikon but it will mostly be used for the long lens, flash and run and gun shooting that I do.
jaapv said:Let's start being rational then: we are on RFF so we opt for rangefinders (D)SLR's are out then.
We are on the digital section so we leave our film in the gearbag.
Two options left :RD1 and M8. We are in the M8 thread. The camera is still in transit to us, so there is nothing to talk about. So what do we talk about?: nothing
Which pub?
this actually makes sense.
x-ray
Veteran
Gid said:Agreed, even though I love my RD-1. However, I doubt the image quality will be any better than the semi pro/prosumer kit with 10 MP - Nikon D200, forthcoming Pentax K10D etc. The M8's USPs are it is an M mount RF (with all of the benefits that brings), it is most likely better built than the RD-1 and you'll most likely get it serviced in the future. It will never be as robust as a mechanical M - the electronics will see to that - no banging in nails or fending off a mugger with this one
As far a price is concerned, it is a better deal than the RD-1 was when it was launched - MP/M7 + 50% versus something like CV R3 + 300% (I'm ignoring the ergonomics of the RD-1 which are great, but still not really worth that sort of mark up).
I'm sure that the M8 will be a relative success and in the right hands, capable of producing great images, but not necessarily any better than a whole raft of other digital cameras or existing film cameras. No sour grapes here, I will eventually get one, once user feedback is in the public domain, as my RD-1 will not last forever.
Only a few years ago Kodak had the only real game going in DSLR equipment. It's been within the past seven years that a camera with less than 3MP was $30,000. When Nikon came out with the D1 the Kodak 2.5mp ( don't remember the exact MP) was in the $30K range and the cheapest Kodak was $14,000. I shot with the AP digi SLR once and found it almost unusable. The files were terrible but the camera was $17K. I guess I look at this from a professional point of view and see the fantastic improvements in digital and see how the prices tumbled after the D1 Nikon came out at under $5K (2.75 MP). This basically is what's happened with the RD-1 and now the M8. Features, image and build quality had jumped through the roof. I see the M8 the same way as the new crop of DSLR's but tamed down somewhat. I don't see it as particularly over priced as much as I see it weak on features and specs for a comperable DSLR. Build will be great but in a time that technology doubles every 18 months I don't see that traditional Leica build is important like it was in a film camera that would be used for 50 years. In 5 years or less the M8 will be so out dated in technology they will be selling for under $1000. Even at this point I would'nt say the M8 is a technology marvel but would consider it's image quality to equal but not better the current crop of prosumer / pro DSLR's. Leica missed the boat in PJ use when they didn't incorporate water and dirt seals in the body and lenses. Our film M will keep on going under the worst conditions but rain and dirt are the death of digital.
x-ray
Veteran
Gid said:This, as most of these threads are, is therapy for those who are about to drop $5000 on a camera that will produce images as good as cameras costing $1000. Not pointless at all
I love it! Not trying to beat up on you guys but I think it's a way to justify spending $5K on a camera just to save $250 a year in film and processing.
I think we've nailed it :<).
When I was thinking about going digital seven years ago I had to weigh the savings of film / processing vs the cost of digital. I deceided to buy a $5K D1 Nikon thinking it would save about $30K in film and processing a year. To my surprise within a year it replaced 85%. The savings was roughly $85K that year.
I had to face this question again when I was thinking of buying a $27K back for my Hasselblads. I deceided that the small amount of LF and MF film that I would replace each year wasn't enough to justify a $27 to $30K+ back. I now shoot film as needed and do my owns scans on my Fuji Finescan 5000.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
The responses get too predictable, I'm afraid: "digital sucks! film is dead! Leica needs to be saved! It's just like a digicam! I don't care about this camera, and this is why I need you to read and care why I don't care! Is this the end of film? Is digital the next new thing? German cars. Nikon cameras."J. Borger said:Am i the only one having the impression this thread, as most M8 or digital related threads, are leading nowhere ..... a complete waste of bandwith and time ... ........i had it for today ..... of to the pub
It's like watching an Aaron Spelling production.
V
varjag
Guest
I'm not sure if the same logic of saving on film applies to amateur use. This way or that, financially amateur photography is a net loss. Ideal cost saving would be just abandon the hobby altogether.
As for pro-use, people choose whatever they think is apropriate. I've seen people shooting MF Alpa with lightbulbs where you would least expect them. And that Magnum chap doing war reportage with Oly C-7070/8080 digicams (does it make them warzone-proven?)
As for pro-use, people choose whatever they think is apropriate. I've seen people shooting MF Alpa with lightbulbs where you would least expect them. And that Magnum chap doing war reportage with Oly C-7070/8080 digicams (does it make them warzone-proven?)
mani
Well-known
gabrielma said:
Totally agree - EXACTLY the problem i'm afraid.
For those of us who're in the queue to buy the camera - which is an enormous investment for most of us - it's eternally frustrating that the flow of information about it is ALWAYS and INEVITABLY frustrated by a small but incredibly persistent band of sceptics who have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to add to the debate, other than to mutter a variation of "digital sucks" over and over and over and over and over and over again.
I challenge one of these guys (you know who you are) to point to ONE single thread on this entire M8 forum where no-one jumps in and says "digital sucks" in some way or other, and spoils the whole debate for everyone.
What i don't really get is this: if they hate digital so much - WHY DO THEY SPEND ALL THEIR TIME ON THE DIGITAL FORUMS??
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I guess that's a function of the lack of information about the camera. Since there's nothing to talk about, people talk about nothing. In a year or so, all of them/you/us will have seen an M8, you can expect all of this to be over.mani said:
Philipp
MarcoS
R9/DMR . M8 . R-D1
x-ray said:
Nice, but the per-pixel quality of the M8 portrait is definitely better, even taking into account the higher close-up.
This is one of the reasons why many photographers who shot wth the 1DsII went DMR (go to Fredmiranda forum).
Even if it has 10 Mp the final quality often exceeds that of the 16.7 Mp 1DsII.
Other factors were higher dynamic range and the quality of lenses.
If you want high resolution with AF or IS lenses and fast shooting Canon is still the king (though Nikon is catching up).
x-ray said:
1DsII is almost 2,000 $ more expensive than the M8.
Sorry but you can't compare the 1DIIN with 1DsII, the latter has much better image quality.
Yes, 1DIIN is cheaper than the M8.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
x-ray said:
Yes- but can it bake a cake?
Not wanting to be trollish- but is this not turning the thread into a RF vs. SLR debate? That is going about half a century back in time.
x-ray
Veteran
It's not a DSLR vs RF debate, just an image quality discussion.
Sorry to disagree that the M8 pixel per pixel quality is better. This is total advertising hype. It might be equal but not better. The lack of AA filter does not necessarily make a better file. My 1D canon had a margial AA filter and was sharp but moire was a big problem when shooting fabrics like fashion. Also I've not found one pro that I've run into that uses the DMR. DMR sales relative to canon or nikon are only a small fraction. I know it's good but to say that 10mp is better is silly. If you're shooting for small repro then it might equal it but when upsampling is needed there is absolutely no substitute for pixels.
Sorry to disagree that the M8 pixel per pixel quality is better. This is total advertising hype. It might be equal but not better. The lack of AA filter does not necessarily make a better file. My 1D canon had a margial AA filter and was sharp but moire was a big problem when shooting fabrics like fashion. Also I've not found one pro that I've run into that uses the DMR. DMR sales relative to canon or nikon are only a small fraction. I know it's good but to say that 10mp is better is silly. If you're shooting for small repro then it might equal it but when upsampling is needed there is absolutely no substitute for pixels.