M8 Upgrade costs and the declining Economy

Ummm... Yes. But this is not about parallax. Parallax compensation goes without saying. This is field of view shift. When you focus a lens down to say 1 meter, the focal length extends. On a 50 mm lens by about 15%. That means the field of view gets more narrow at close distances than at infinity. There are a few rangefinders with "zooming" framelines to compensate for this, but none with interchangeable lenses. That is technically too complicated, if possible at all. The only solution would be electronic framelines.
 
jaapv said:
Yes, afaik the 8.2 is three meters. Leica were worried they would get customers complaining about cutting off part of the image at for instance 1m, so they decided to make them accurate at the shortest focussing distance and thus too wide at infinity. Not a really unreasonable decision imo. So now you cut off at the shortest distance and they are still wide at infinity......
Click to expand...

Jaap, according to everything I've read from authoritative sources (Osterloh, for example) Leica always sized the frames to not cut off at the closest distance for each focal length, plus a little more to compensate for what was hidden by either a slide mount or an enlarger's negative carrier. For some reason the original M8 frames are more constrictive than past Leicas.

Before I made the decision to upgrade my frames, I took my M8 to a Leica Day and made some tests with an M8.2. What I found was that the old frames are a bit generous at close focus, and the new frames are pretty close to accurate at close focus, maybe a hair tight. Very much like my M4 frames are. I don't know if it's just my brain, but I have a much easier time composing inside a frame box (i.e., to be sure not to cut anything off in close focus) than estimating outside the box for the longer focus, so I think I'm going to like the upgraded ones better than the originals.

BTW the Contax G1/G2 have framelines that compensate for loss of angle with focusing. I guess you could say they're electronic, or maybe electro-mechanical.
 
Last edited:
I'm new to this thread; so, this reply deals more with thoughts at the beginning of thread. Apologies for that.

I would think you would have to evaluate your camera against the competition if you wanted to compete as a working tool rather than a conspicuous consumption item.

When Leica began to compete with SLR’s rather than other rangefinders, it was smaller, quieter, focused high speed wides and normals with more accuracy (important at wide apertures), had a viewfinder that worked better in dim light and, in some cases, was a camera that was more rugged, reliable and long lasting.

Although the M8 is bigger than the M2, it is still considerably smaller than most DSLR’s. It is not smaller than the proposed C sensor compacts from folks like Sigma.

It is no longer quiet, especially if you were so excited about the M8 that you bought one of the first and emptied the savings account that might have paid for the upgrade. In fact, some of those folks might say it is not reliable.

Bright viewfinders, primarally designed for viewing rather than focusing, better autofocus and the ability to shoot at very high ISO’s and still produce high quality images have made the DSLR an available darkness camera the equal and sometimes superior to the M8.

And, of course, you can put bright line finders in the accessory shoes of DSLR’s.

As to all over image quality, always a strong point for Leica, I don’t see any superiority over top of the line DSLR’s. That’s an opinion, not the result of comparative testing. But I sure have made a lot of 12x18 print images from the M8 and cameras like the 5D Mark II.

To me the M8 is a conspicuous consumption item, made and marketed as such. And there is nothing wrong with that. I have somewhat similar feelings about the M7. (I spend half my time in L.A. where some very happy folks tar up Porsche engines driving 40mph on the freeways.) It’s a good camera. If you have the money and will enjoy the camera, if this will bring you more pleasure out of photography and, consequently, more good pictures - hooray. But more money doesn’t buy you an all-around better tool.
 
Last edited:
Bill Pierce said:
I'm new to this thread; so, this reply deals more with thoughts at the beginning of thread. Apologies for that.

I would think you would have to evaluate your camera against the competition if you wanted to compete as a working tool rather than a conspicuous consumption item.

When Leica began to compete with SLR’s rather than other rangefinders, it was smaller, quieter, focused high speed wides and normals with more accuracy (important at wide apertures), had a viewfinder that worked better in dim light and, in some cases, was a camera that was more rugged, reliable and long lasting.

Although the M8 is bigger than the M2, it is still considerably smaller than most DSLR’s. It is not smaller than the proposed C sensor compacts from folks like Sigma.

It is no longer quiet, especially if you were so excited about the M8 that you bought one of the first and emptied the savings account that might have paid for the upgrade. In fact, some of those folks might say it is not reliable.

Bright viewfinders, primarally designed for viewing rather than focusing, better autofocus and the ability to shoot at very high ISO’s and still produce high quality images have made the DSLR an available darkness camera the equal and sometimes superior to the M8.

And, of course, you can put bright line finders in the accessory shoes of DSLR’s.

As to all over image quality, always a strong point for Leica, I don’t see any superiority over top of the line DSLR’s. That’s an opinion, not the result of comparative testing. But I sure have made a lot of 12x18 print images from the M8 and cameras like the 5D Mark II.

To me the M8 is a conspicuous consumption item, made and marketed as such. And there is nothing wrong with that. I have somewhat similar feelings about the M7. (I spend half my time in L.A. where some very happy folks tar up Porsche engines driving 40mph on the freeways.) It’s a good camera. If you have the money and will enjoy the camera, if this will bring you more pleasure out of photography and, consequently, more good pictures - hooray. But more money doesn’t buy you an all-around better tool.
Click to expand...

So the M8 is Veblen Camera? 😀
 
Ben Z said:
Jaap, according to everything I've read from authoritative sources (Osterloh, for example) Leica always sized the frames to not cut off at the closest distance for each focal length, plus a little more to compensate for what was hidden by either a slide mount or an enlarger's negative carrier. For some reason the original M8 frames are more constrictive than past Leicas.

Before I made the decision to upgrade my frames, I took my M8 to a Leica Day and made some tests with an M8.2. What I found was that the old frames are a bit generous at close focus, and the new frames are pretty close to accurate at close focus, maybe a hair tight. Very much like my M4 frames are. I don't know if it's just my brain, but I have a much easier time composing inside a frame box (i.e., to be sure not to cut anything off in close focus) than estimating outside the box for the longer focus, so I think I'm going to like the upgraded ones better than the originals.

BTW the Contax G1/G2 have framelines that compensate for loss of angle with focusing. I guess you could say they're electronic, or maybe electro-mechanical.
Click to expand...


Ben, you are correct but for some details. Up to and including the M7 the framelines were for 1m and on the M8 for 0.7. Not that that is an earth-shattering difference, but combined with a different enlargement on the M8 to compensate for the 1.33 crop it made a noticable difference. Add to that that there were quite a number of new users that moved over from DSLR (including reviewers!) and the zoom effect of the Internet, a reputation for "loose framing" was born. It is wise of Leica that they offer the upgrade option now and that they made the M8.2 a bit more novice friendly. However, most rangefinder oldtimers, and I strongly suspect that includes you, were not overly bothered by this "frame-line issue".
 
I like what you have to say on this Bill.
I guess that's sort of the heart of my frustration with Leica these days. I still want their camera (in this case, the M8) to be a tool that is quiet, rugged, reliable and a producer of great images.
Well, at least they do produce pretty nice images.
 
In my experience of over two years with two M8 bodies they are rugged and reliable too.....And btw, the 4000 shutter with the delayed recock is rather quiet.It is up to the photographer to produce great images.
 
Last edited:
jaapv said:
In my experience of over two years with two M8 bodies they are rugged and reliable too.....And btw, the 4000 shutter with the delayed recock is rather quiet.It is up to the photographer to produce great images.
Click to expand...

My first two M8's went belly up for no particular reason. They did it early in their lives. There was no abuse of the cameras. They were faulty. I know others who had the same experience.

That said, I think these problems are ancient history and not typical of the current M8's. And there is no question that the current shutter is quieter. Unfortunately, that initial impression of unreliability can be extremely negative to journalists who have to depend on cameras that will see rough usage in lands far away from a repair shop. Most of them are just not going to take that risk.
 
Damn, and I thought it was expensive to "upgrade" my M bodies by going with them new-fangled M4 style synch sockets, but that was thirty some years ago. If I'm patient enough somebody will come out with a new back door for M bodies containing everything needed in a quality digital camera. Nobody will buy them because there'll be no prestige in putting a $100 back where nobody will notice it...LOL
 
jaapv said:
However, most rangefinder oldtimers, and I strongly suspect that includes you, were not overly bothered by this "frame-line issue".
Click to expand...

True enough, Jaap. I was used to allowing 3 frameline thicknesses at infinity, so allowing another thickness or two for the M8 was not a major problem. I imagine I'll appreciate the new, larger frames when I'm going back and forth between the M4 and M8, as the M8 will now require about the same amount of compensation.
 
Bill Pierce said:
(I spend half my time in L.A. where some very happy folks tar up Porsche engines driving 40mph on the freeways.)
Click to expand...
Bill, I'm not sure why you used a Porsche analogy because you don't tear up a Porsche engine by driving it at 40mph on the freeway. It works just as well at 40mph as it does at 140mph. Sure, it might be overkill to have a Porsche for a daily driver but it certainly won't hurt a Porsche to do that.

I didn't buy my M8 as a "conspicuous consumption item". Most of my friends have no idea what a Leica is, much less a Leica M8. I bought my M8 because (1) I'm tired of messing with film and (2) I have some Leica lenses that I wanted to use.

Finally, I'm not going to upgrade my M8. It's fine (for me) like it is.
 
Last edited:
I so happen to be a Porsche owner as well as an owner of an M8. They're excellent daily drivers if I lived far enough from my work, but far more fun on the weekends.

I've owned an M6 since the late 80's when I was a newspaper and wire service photographer. These lenses were just sitting around since, when I decided to get into an M8 so that I could get back to using them again. I've very quickly discovered many of the M8's shortcomings but will remain committed to making pictures with it when it arrives back from getting the upgrades. In the end, it's a personal committment in something you value and have use for may it be a car or a camera, they all need to be maintained.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom