My take on choosing the M8 in 2013

[Mudman]

While I'm sure it's a subject done a bit ad nauseam here, I just updated my blog after owning the M8 (again) for a month, and a few of the reasons that I purchased it.

http://ericjenks.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/10/revisiting-the-leica-m8

A quote and photo from the article;

"Fast forward a year and a half, and I'm back with the M8. This time I did not sell the M3, as prices have dropped to a point where it wasn't necessary for me. I also bought from a dealer with a 1 year warranty, and it had just come back from Leica with a fresh CLA. (Bonus, I'm getting a couple of free filters from Leica). It's in great shape and it confirms that I've been missing out on the rangefinder experience for work and for fun.

I couldn't justify an M9, ME, or M(240) to myself. They're all just too expensive for what I would be receiving out of them. I would prefer full frame to the crop sensor on the M8, but 1.3x is not a huge crop and I don't find it too restricting. A used M9(P) runs $3600-5200. A new ME is $5,000 and the M(240) is a whopping $7,000, if you can find one. Both the M9 and ME are incremental increases in technology over the M8, in my opinion. A great increase if you need full frame, but not in terms of IQ, noise, etc. At least for what I do. The M would be wonderful, but it's close to four times what I paid for the M8. Perhaps in 5 years or so an M will come my way, but for now the M8 is a wonderful entry into the world of digital rangefinders. Frankly, it's price puts it into a range where I'm not worried about using it and damaging it."

 

[pepeguitarra]

I also bought the M8 in 2013

I also bought the M8 in 2013

I do not regret buying the M8 this year. It is my first rangefinder and I love it. I cam coming form Canon and cannot live with the heavy weight of the equipment. Leicas are a lot lighter and smaller plus the quality of the lenses is super.


Tele-Elmarit-M-90mmf2-Laguna 5-1 by Palenquero, on Flickr


El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora de Los Angeles Church 2-1 by Palenquero, on Flickr

 

[kknox]

I felt very much the same way when I bought my M8 last October. So happy with the IQ, and I can live with the crop factor for the price. My film M's did not get much use this last year since getting the M8. A great value.

 

[peterm1]

I have had an M8 for about 3 years now but never really fell much in love with it partly because of its sensor (which had very ordinary ISO performance even when it was new) and partly because of the difficulty I have in focusing it - seems much more difficult to focus than my M3. Or maybe I am just getting older.

(My point about the ISO performance being why bring out a camera that is supposed to be renowned for its natural light performance and give it a crap sensor that is lousy in low light. It does not make sense.) Having said that when an image from the M8 nails it, the image quality really is excellent. But it takes a sh*tload of work and practice to get repeatable good shots and not a small amount of luck.

But being a long time Leica user I had to have a digital M.

More recently I have been experimenting with shooting with my left instead of my right eye and I have found it's significant improvement in usability and my ability to focus - even though I had been using a diopter adjustment with my right eye. So I will persist to see what happens - it does get into your blood. It certainly has given me new found hope that maybe I can adjust to the M8.

 

[bonatto]

While I'm sure it's a subject done a bit ad nauseam here, I just updated my blog after owning the M8 (again) for a month, and a few of the reasons that I purchased it.

http://ericjenks.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/10/revisiting-the-leica-m8

A quote and photo from the article;

"Fast forward a year and a half, and I'm back with the M8. This time I did not sell the M3, as prices have dropped to a point where it wasn't necessary for me. I also bought from a dealer with a 1 year warranty, and it had just come back from Leica with a fresh CLA. (Bonus, I'm getting a couple of free filters from Leica). It's in great shape and it confirms that I've been missing out on the rangefinder experience for work and for fun.

I couldn't justify an M9, ME, or M(240) to myself. They're all just too expensive for what I would be receiving out of them. I would prefer full frame to the crop sensor on the M8, but 1.3x is not a huge crop and I don't find it too restricting. A used M9(P) runs $3600-5200. A new ME is $5,000 and the M(240) is a whopping $7,000, if you can find one. Both the M9 and ME are incremental increases in technology over the M8, in my opinion. A great increase if you need full frame, but not in terms of IQ, noise, etc. At least for what I do. The M would be wonderful, but it's close to four times what I paid for the M8. Perhaps in 5 years or so an M will come my way, but for now the M8 is a wonderful entry into the world of digital rangefinders. Frankly, it's price puts it into a range where I'm not worried about using it and damaging it."

M8's a great camera, enjoy it! Here's my take on that exact same street corner:

 

[Mudman]

It's a small world isn't it Bonatto?

and Peter, how are you processing the files? The NR in LR3 and up does a great job on the M8 raw files. I'd also say how do you define a "Crap" sensor for lowlight? Compared to film, I think it's damn good, especially for when it came out in 2007. Compared to the latest offerings from Nikon and others, the sensor shows its age, but I still don't have a problem with the grain present. YMMV

 

[jsrockit]

It is refereshing to see someone say they bought the M8 simply because they like it instead of stating some mythology about how it is somehow more magical than other digital cameras...

 

[Chyn]

I got mine used a few months after the M9's release, so it was already obsolete. Besides, I have long given up staying ahead of the tech curve. The camera was the only affordable option for shooting digital rangefinder (the RD-1s was hard to find), and it has held up well, even to this day.

 

[bonatto]

It's a small world isn't it Bonatto?

and Peter, how are you processing the files? The NR in LR3 and up does a great job on the M8 raw files. I'd also say how do you define a "Crap" sensor for lowlight? Compared to film, I think it's damn good, especially for when it came out in 2007. Compared to the latest offerings from Nikon and others, the sensor shows its age, but I still don't have a problem with the grain present. YMMV

The issue with the low light is not necessarily the high ISO, rather, the exposure.

If it's underexposed, it will show banding, even at 640 (if you push it a bit)

In daylight, I was able to shoot at 1250 without the noise or banding, but with reduced definition within the image.

Long exposures are a tough one.

 

[1joel1]

I've had my M8 for a couple of years now and have no great desire for an M9 or greater. If I did ever "upgrade", I would keep the M8 for B&W at the very least. The crop factor is no big deal for me since I can detach from the "35mm thinking" and extreme wide-angle lenses are important to me either.

My $0.02,

Joel

 

[Mudman]

The issue with the low light is not necessarily the high ISO, rather, the exposure.

If it's underexposed, it will show banding, even at 640 (if you push it a bit)

In daylight, I was able to shoot at 1250 without the noise or banding, but with reduced definition within the image.

Long exposures are a tough one.

Definitely agree; you need to nail the exposure at higher iso's or else it does not look good.

 

[peterm1]

It's a small world isn't it Bonatto?

and Peter, how are you processing the files? The NR in LR3 and up does a great job on the M8 raw files. I'd also say how do you define a "Crap" sensor for lowlight? Compared to film, I think it's damn good, especially for when it came out in 2007. Compared to the latest offerings from Nikon and others, the sensor shows its age, but I still don't have a problem with the grain present. YMMV

Very true that the Leica sensor is better than 100 ISO print film but when I say its crap I am comparing it of course to the 800-1600 ISO that many cameras were capable of at the time - without mentioning the 240000 that some of the present sensors offer. My point was that even at the time it was released the M8's sensor performed poorly by comparison with its competition. OK I understand that Leica has long had an attitude of being a slow adopter of new technology but using a sensor that has these quirks was to say the least surprising given a sensor is the heart and brain of a camera. That sensor seemed to be an odd choice for Leica to make given its pretensions to be one of the best cameras in the world.

As a result I really only feel comfortable using my M8 in good daylight. If I want a smallish portable camera that will shoot in low light conditions I will have to use my NEX f3. This seems to me to be a photographic sin - in the film days a large part of owning a Leica M was the ability to hand hold in lowish light.

 

[Mudman]

I see that Peter, but I don't have a problem with the M8 at higher ISOs. Two Samples

1250 (View it Larger on my website http://ericjenks.zenfolio.com/p703930639/h116b928b#h116b928b)

and 1250 (view it larger on my website http://ericjenks.zenfolio.com/p703930639/h116b928b#h17ccf239)

Is grain present? Yes. Is it destroying the image? No.

 

[willie_901]

It is refereshing to see someone say they bought the M8 simply because they like it instead of stating some mythology about how it is somehow more magical than other digital cameras...

This reflects my thoughts as well.

With respect to low-light... never use ISO above 640. Just shoot in raw and increase the brightness during post. The noise filtering performance of LR 5 is far superior to LR 3.

I wish you enjoyment with your new camera for a long time. 🙂

 

[peterm1]

I see that Peter, but I don't have a problem with the M8 at higher ISOs. Two Samples

1250 (View it Larger on my website http://ericjenks.zenfolio.com/p703930639/h116b928b#h116b928b)

and 1250 (view it larger on my website http://ericjenks.zenfolio.com/p703930639/h116b928b#h17ccf239)

Is grain present? Yes. Is it destroying the image? No.

Ok thanks for that - looks like I need to do some more exploring......I have not gotten such good results. In particular a lot of ugly colour noise (luma noise I dont mind so much.) But can I ask what the lighting conditions were like? I would expect poorer performance in lower light.

 

[Mudman]

Both fairly standard lower light. The first is in my friends shop; Fluorescent lights, not too bright. The second is one bulb in a fairly dim cafe, though the light from above the table isn't too horrendous. Here is an outdoor shot near Le Louvre at 1250, streetlamps only (http://ericjenks.zenfolio.com/paris/h31195463#h31195463)

And the lighting at Cafe Lena is very dim, even on stage.

1250 shot (http://ericjenks.zenfolio.com/hotclub/h7dcc9bea#h7c22893e)

ISO 2500 Shot (http://ericjenks.zenfolio.com/hotclub/h7dcc9bea#h7eda4afa)

 

[Tom Niblick]

I bought a M8 about 3 months after it came out and used it for several years before selling it to buy a M9. Now, while I love the M9, I'm thinking about reacquiring a M8 as a back up body and for black and white. In fact, before I came across this post, I was making a few prints from my old M8 files to see if they gave me enough detail and tonality to make me happy or if I needed to save a few more thousands for a monochrom. From what I'm seeing, I think the M8 will hold up fine if I keep the print size under 24 inches. And, of course, I could always sell it for about the same dollars if I found that I absolutely had to have a Monochrom.

There is a beauty to the M8 file when shot without the IR blocking filter that is just not there in the M9. At least that is my experience.

 

[Doug]

I bought a new/demo chrome M8 in Jan 2009, and then since my cameras often go in pairs, I couldn't resist a used black M8 a couple months later. It took me a while to get the IR issue and lens coding settled, but once I accepted those necessities I became fond of the cameras.

After about 2 years, a used M9 called to me and I yielded to the temptation. But despite the nice results, it never really bonded. I sold the M9 last week with no regrets, but will happily continue using the M8 pair. There is something about the images that's attractive.

Oddly, I feel 15mm and 18mm are "too wide" for comfort on full-frame, while useful on the M8. Similarly, even 75mm is "too long" on the M8 but a favorite on full-frame. It's probably the small framelines...

 

[peterm1]

Both fairly standard lower light. The first is in my friends shop; Fluorescent lights, not too bright. The second is one bulb in a fairly dim cafe, though the light from above the table isn't too horrendous. Here is an outdoor shot near Le Louvre at 1250, streetlamps only (http://ericjenks.zenfolio.com/paris/h31195463#h31195463)

And the lighting at Cafe Lena is very dim, even on stage.

1250 shot (http://ericjenks.zenfolio.com/hotclub/h7dcc9bea#h7c22893e)

ISO 2500 Shot (http://ericjenks.zenfolio.com/hotclub/h7dcc9bea#h7eda4afa)

OK you got me. Looks like I need to do some further assessment of the M8's high ISO capabilities.

 

[Lss]

With respect to low-light... never use ISO above 640. Just shoot in raw and increase the brightness during post. The noise filtering performance of LR 5 is far superior to LR 3.

That's probably good advice for most people.

Personally, I have seldom used any noise reduction whatsoever. Here's one example at ISO 1250 and pushed two stops to "ISO 5000" in Aperture (whatever the version was in 2010) with no noise reduction. The JPEG compression seems to muddle the noise that is present despite the downscaling. In full size with less compression it looks noisier, and in print it looks simply better.

Here's one in colour at ISO 1250 with no noise reduction.





Speaking of the dialed in ISO values, I find the M8 a very usable camera at ISO 1250, great at ISO 640. There is a quality drop going up from ISO 160, which is however seldom significant in real-life photos. Test images are a different story. Many people seem to have a significant preference for doing high ISO in post processing based on ISO 640. I may go that way myself, too.