M8 Vs Xpro/NEX/X100/OMD etc....

I have used the M8 (standard) with a 28mm Elmarit 2.8 pre-asph for landscapes to good effect. Used an "L" bracket to shoot stitched panos in vertical mode. I was very happy with this camera/lens combination. Now have an M9-P, but not expecting to be gobsmacked with the difference between the two. Would obviously need to migrate to my 35mm Summicron for similar results. Buy the UV/IR filters for landscape work and I'm sure you will be very happy. Because the M8 is not full frame, the stitching program will have less vignetting to deal with in the stitch process. FWIW
Mike
 
I have been wondering the same thing for a while, I read tons of reviews and comparison between Nex, Gxr, OMD and M8/9, I believe if you are using M lenses mainly, M8/9 is the way to go, the Leica rf experience is irreplaceable!
 
I think it really depends on how you like taking pictures... if you really prefer the RF and manual focus, the M8 is the way to go. So think about what you want and like to shoot. If an EVF is your thing the Ricoh could be fine, and focus peaking is fine in the EVF on the NEX 5n, and more workable for longer lenses, so now I'll sometimes go out with my 28 on the M8 and a 50 on the NEX–that's a really nice combo, and small. And the NEX sensor is pretty great.

I guess I'm pretty used to the 1.33 M8 sensor, so a 28 on a 1.5 seems just a bit too narrow, but YMMV. I also wish there was a new alternative with the same sensor size and better IQ, but I'm not holding my breath.

Anyway if you buy the M8 and aren't happy you likely won't lose too much selling it again, whereas the newer cameras will likely not hold their value as much, lacking the red dot and with the more rapid iteration schedule.
 
I'm using M4P and M8 now with several M lens

I don't have plan to change M8 to Micro 4/3 or Xpro, Nex..why?
Because, M8 has bigger sensor than above cameras.Croping factor 1.3x better than 1.5 or 2 x. I'm not using rangefinder for tele shoot, 90 (eqi 120mm) more than enough for me.If I want to shot sport or bird I will bring DSLR ..:D

I never get issue regarding M8 ISO capability and IR/UV filter, 90% I shoot in daily light only 10 % in low light (ISO 640 still good).Ask yor self how often you shoot in very low light?

I have B+W IR/UV , but for me it's not "must have" filter .

Agreed with other opinion M8 produce sharper/cripsy images than M9.
 
if you want to use your lens in the same way as with a M6, M8/9/RD1 is your only choice.

No matter how good Xpro/NEX/X100/OMD can handle MF lens, they are just for fun. It's not the native working mode they are supposed to be. I only use these cameras with AF lens.
 
tomtofa said:
As far as IQ, probably not many people will say that other cameras outdo the M8 - until you go over 640 ISO . . .
Click to expand...


I disagree. I've shot the M8 at ISO 1250 with similar or better results than ISO 1600 with cameras with smaller sensors.
 
I would go with the M8 or with a Ricoh GXR (with Mount Module).
The M8 is a rangefinder which is in itself a reason to get it, and the GXR was designed for M lenses, its image quality is amazing, the ergonimics are great, especially for its size, and it has the best electronic focusing aids available.
 
Here's my subjective opinion having at least had a look through almost every EVF out there: I don't care for them, not even the so-called best of them. It still reminds me of a camcorder and it doesn't look to me like direct view at all. Sure I could compose with one. Sure I might be able to manual focus with one. But to my taste there's a kind of "remoteness" to EVF viewing compared even with a mirrored SLR, and let alone a direct viewfinder.

I could see myself owning an EVIL-type camera + M adapter as an emergency backup to my M9 (in fact, I have a Panny LX5 with EVF for just that purpose), but if I had inherited an M6 and those lenses and didn't want to sell them for the very significant chunk of change they would bring, then I would shoot film with them in the interim while I saved for a true rangefinder body.

So what would I buy? Not an RD1. I had one, and agree it was a fine camera. But there is virtually no repair infrastructure for it anymore. Maybe I'd risk it for $500 at most.

M8? I had one of those also. Image-quality-wise, it's so close to the M9 I wouldn't pass it up on that criterion. The IR filters were an embarrasing if not infuriating band-aid on a $5K camera. But at their current cost and given the manufacturer thus far still supports them with parts and service (and a new M9 battery fits), and for 3-4 lenses, I wouldn't call the IR filters a deal-breaker either. What would concern me in your case is the fact the widest lens you own (28mm) gives a field of view roughly of a 35mm. You may well find yourself wanting to go wider, in which case if you buy Leica glass, you'll be putting in as much total cash as if you'd bought an M9.

But right now, with Photokina just a few months off, I would be very tempted to put some film in that M6 and get a leg up on the learning curve meantime. If an M10 comes out in the fall, and it isn't priced more than a grand over an M9P, I would expect at least a brief glut on the used market, driving down M9 prices, and most likely M8 prices as well. If you can wait a few months you might save yourself some money.
 
The thing, with everything else that's so enjoyable about it, about the M8 I like best is its immediate response when clicking that shutter. It feels like no shutter lag at all. No other non-dslr camera is this responsive. Add to that the bright rangefinder and there's a camera that's still hard to beat. Unlike those new compacts that still feel like game consoles rather than cameras.
 
1) It is better than all of the other mooted alternatives because it is the largest sensor bar 'full frame'. The APS-H sensor size is equivalent to a Canon EOS 1D MK III. It's the next best thing to a full frame, basically.

Next best thing to full frame, barely. it's not a huge difference from APS-C and still a ways off from FF. If "better" means sharper, the new generation of sensors that have lower (or no) AA filters can be wickedly sharp. My OM-D is impressing me with its sharpness. The GXR with the Zeiss 25mm was so sharp the dng files kept falling out of my hard drive, they'd just cut right through it.

If better means high ISO performance, it's generations old and the smaller APS-C Sony sensor in the Nex 5n, A57, Pentax K5, Nikon D7000, is really the bees knees. The new sensor in the Oly OMD is also quite good. That doesn't seem to be a priority, so I get that.

I'm sure there are other ways of debating image quality, including dynamic range and color, etc, but I would say that it isn't a better sensor just because it's a bit bigger.

I had the M8 and the Epson R-D1 and though I loved the classic ergnomics of the M8, I far preferred the output of the R-D1. Why wouldn't that be a contender?

I had an M8 and I liked it...certainly
 
jippiejee said:
The thing, with everything else that's so enjoyable about it, about the M8 I like best is its immediate response when clicking that shutter. It feels like no shutter lag at all. No other non-dslr camera is this responsive. Add to that the bright rangefinder and there's a camera that's still hard to beat.
Click to expand...

This statement is good caution and not to be underestimated although I did edit out the Game console part which I disagree with (no disrespect to jippiejee).

Being an early adopter of the Xpro1 (and RD1 all those years ago).
The M8/9 and RD1 are truly a instant RF experience. No Mirror like SLR/DSLR. No refresh time and Shutter lag like Evil cameras.
I miss this aspect of the M8 after moving sideways to the Fuji Xpro.
 
I use an M8 and Nex-5 as back-up. Aside from the fact that my M8 is beginning to show its age (i.e. needs servicing) it provides a much better, more natural shooting experience (night/day) from the Nex. My primary issue with the Nex: focus is still hit-n-miss (even with fringing turned on) especially if the lens is wide open. I do like having the option to shoot video (albeit inadvertently sometimes) and low-angle TLR-like shooting (with the screen flipped up) - so I've no plans to get rid of it.
 
At this point, I doubt a M8 would be the way to go. True, it'll give you the rangefinder experience, but IQ will be outclassed by 2011-2012 cameras. By IQ, I don't only mean sharpness (the M8 is good with that aspect), but also colour rendition, dynamic range and ISO performance.

APS-C cameras and even Micro 4/3 are really impressive, especially for the price. I use a Sony NEX-7, and I'm always astonished by the results. It has a very thin AA filter, and sharpening is incredible, so are colours and DR. It's also very lightweight, sturdy, has a side EVF (it did take me some time to adapt to it, but it's incredible, it doesn't have the "waterfall effect" on lesser EVFs.

Lumix GX1 and Olympus OM-D are also very impressive. I've seen incredible 16x20 prints from all these cameras. Same goes for the Fuji X-Pro 1, even if I really don't like the "rangefinder wannabe" style of the camera (an MP or M9 is a rangefinder, not this), I prefer Sony's modern approach.

Another factor is the cost. A brand new Sony NEX-7 is less than $1200, an OM-D is $999... Even if you add $200 for a good adapter for M glass, we're still far from Leica's range, even used!

For all these reason, I strongly suggest NEX, Fuji or M 4/3 in our day and age, except if you can afford the M9 without selling a leg and absolutely want the rangefinder experience. But believe me, the NEX-7 isn't that far from it. Once set up, it's so instinctive to operate, nothing like my old SLRs. But it is a different approach and philosophy, and I understand people can disagree with it.
 
Quality wise, the M8 for sure. Investment wise, the M8 for sure. But accept its limitations and learn to live with them.
regards.
 
Manuphoto said:
Another factor is the cost. A brand new Sony NEX-7 is less than $1200, an OM-D is $999... Even if you add $200 for a good adapter for M glass, we're still far from Leica's range, even used!
Click to expand...

You have to remember his widest lens is a 28. That's 42 on the NEX and 56 on the OM-D. So add to your estimate another $3-600 for a used Voitlander 15 or 12. That brings him into M8 territory, price-wise, and those are quite slow lenses compared with his 28 Cron. Then there's the factor of DOF. Anything <APS-C and fuggettabout subject isolation via selective focus, except with really fast lenses, and even then it's not what it is on an M8 or M9.
 
I have to say I have been looking at these cameras pretty intensively as a replacement for my DMR that is getting long in tooth especially with the lack of reliability of the R8/9.
The Xpro was the clear winner in IQ and concept, but an absolute PITA to focus manually. If only it had focus peaking. The NEX 7 was reasonably good IQ but too much of a glorified point and shoot and horrible ergonomics and the OMD was handicapped by the Micro 4/3rds system (although far better than I expected) but a brilliant concept with the EVF, IS in the camera and handgrip to turn it into a real camera. But all fell short of any fullframe DSLR, the DMR and even for shorter focal lengths M9 and M8. I will have to wait for the next generation. Maybe Leice will come with a good APS-H EVIL. That would be brilliant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom