Please tell me. Is the M8 any good?

[Ben Z]

A crop factor is just that. If one has spent a quarter century or more shooting film M cameras there is more than a bit of adjustment in simply thinking of using a 28mm to get approximately a 35mm Fov. The imaging of the lenses is so much different with the crop factor.

I've spent way more than a quarter century shooting film M cameras and I disagree completely with that statement. Dealing with the crop factor is nothing more than using the next-wider focal length, which may be approximate but far less approximate than the M camera's framelines. I don't know what lenses you have, but I have around a dozen, including Leica, Voitlander and even a Nikon (105/2.5), and the imaging of every one of them is identical to full-frame except 1. the image is cropped, and 2. the worst lens characteristics (vignetting, field curvature, loss of contrast and resolution) are minimized because most of those are more severe in the outer regions, which are cropped.

 

[ferider]

I've been thinking about it myself recently. I think it all boils down to having the right main lens for it (i.e. FOV, speed and signature you like). A 28/1.9 / 50/1.4 combo that I already have might just work perfectly ....

 

[snausages]

Have any of you M8 users ever felt like you can coax comparable results from RD1 or even m4/3 files or do you think the M8 gets your images places those sensors can't?

 

[rxmd]

Which kinda brings it full circle and nullifies the importance of M-mount anything in a cropped digital world...

In Fred's cropped digital world. If I say my Canon doesn't give me anything I won't get from my FSU cameras, that doesn't mean that the overall importance of Canon anything for everybody else is zero as long as FSU cameras exist.

at least in terms of the files they make.

Well but then it's not only about files. For example, if I have some lens for system A, but not for system B, the fact that both systems produce equivalent files does not enter the equation.

If a digital rangefinder doesn't give you anything you won't get from another camera, it's not for you. This is a triviality and not specific to rangefinders or the M mount. If meat doesn't give you anything you won't get from bread, I suggest you stick with the bread. However, I guess the OP had a reason why he wanted that M8.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

You must be kidding... In a time when even entry level cameras are great you ask whether the M8 is "any good at making photos"? Maybe it is not worth the money, maybe you don't like the crop factor, maybe it is not as reliable as its price is high, maybe...whatever, but any good at making photos? Sure it is!

GLF

 

[ampguy]

RD1 is great

RD1 is great

for b/w, ISO 1600 on the RD1, equals or betters the M8 @ 1250, gets close to 2500 on the M8.

For color, probably equal for 8x10 prints, maybe 90% for larger.

Have any of you M8 users ever felt like you can coax comparable results from RD1 or even m4/3 files or do you think the M8 gets your images places those sensors can't?

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

but any good at making photos? Sure it is!

GLF

So is a D40!....after reading yet another thread like this - boy! am I glad that I never parted with £3000 😀

 

[crusius]

Have any of you M8 users ever felt like you can coax comparable results from RD1 or even m4/3 files or do you think the M8 gets your images places those sensors can't?

I have many excellent 13x19" prints from the R-D1. The M8 would do slightly better at that size (haven't printed anything from the M8 yet). I never printed 16x20" but I expect that the R-D1 files would start to break down then.

What tips the scale (for me) is that with the M8 you're more free to crop and still get the same quality. That and the longer effective baseline.

What really sucks in the M8 is the ergonomics, high ISO noise, and that the RAW files are 8 bit (yes, I have run into situations where it matters). The 8 bit issue is the worse by far, because there's simply no way around it apart from Leica lifting this dumbness in a firmware upgrade.

If you don't print big, or ever crop, the R-D1 is arguably better. I promised I'd sell the R-D1 once I got the M8, but haven't found the heart yet.

But both are good.

If you want to make a decision, it really boils down to how much you crop and how large you print.

Edit: Moral of the story - you don't need to "coax" anything out of the R-D1. It is equivalent to the M8 if you don't print big or crop too much.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

So is a D40!....after reading yet another thread like this - boy! am I glad that I never parted with £3000 😀

Sure it is and anybody makes his choices based on taste, money etc, but asking whether it is "any good" is almost like asking nothing...

GLF

 

[snausages]

Thank you Fred, Crusius, and ampguy for your thoughts. rxmd, i get what you're saying - personally, 95% of my glass is m or ltm, so a digital option for my lenses would be terrific. Just trying to discern the ultimate (sometimes difficult to gauge without firsthand experience) differences in the files made by these cameras, just as one might try to discern the difference between film emulsions.

 

[MCTuomey]

i believe the M8's files uprez quite well, better than the R-D1's. so for larger prints the M8 is the better choice, imho. which files do i prefer to process? i don't know, i like both for different reasons. fwiw, i kept the M8 and sold the R-D1, more for the greater resolution and lower crop factor than anything else. either camera is better than i am, honestly.

the leica's converted DNG files are really nice, though. if you shoot a lot of jpg and print 8x10, then i think maybe the leica would be a waste.

part of the question for me is that i'm moving toward zeiss lenses which i like better on the M8. i loved older glass on my R-D1, like the canon 35/2.8 and 50/1.5, especially. to me the more modern lenses on the R-D1 yielded a certain overly contrasty, binary-ish look. (i realize this is awfully subjective, so i'll stop rambling on.)

now that the two cameras are, what, about USD800 apart in the used market, this question has more meaning than when the M8 was $3,000+

purely from a versatility and performance point of view, i could be forever happy with a 5D and 2 or 3 L lenses. but i like the subtlety and useability of rangefinders coupled with all that really phenomenal glass (often for not much money).

 

[snausages]

(i realize this is awfully subjective, so i'll stop rambling on.)

i find the subjective, gut feelings of experienced users quite helpful, so i think what you're saying is informative.

 

[emraphoto]

Great camera. Beautiful files.




view large

Cool photo.

 

[alifil]

Thanks emraphoto.

 

[Ming Rider]

Hi Guys & Gals.

Thank you for all your feedback on buying an M8.

I've decided to take the plunge and have whittled it down to a Black M8 at a London dealers. £1699 with passport till November `11 and 6 months dealer warranty plus 7 days money back. Should give me time to check for any potential long term problems.

Now if only somebody would buy my old Series Land Rover.

Will post when I`ve finally stolen (sorry, raised) enough wonga, provided my hands stop shaking long enough to type, or take a picture.

Kev😎

 

[MCTuomey]

good, kev, glad to hear you decided. welcome to RFF, btw. stay in touch.

 

[Ming Rider]

It takes like 2 seconds to slide the Green up in Lightroom or Capture one to fix that, so don't worry too much. Where about do you live?

I'm right on the West Coast of Cumbria (pronounced "Cooom bree arrr") Bloody Farmers!!!

 

[jl-lb.ms]

I've had (and have most of): Nikon D70, Nikon D200, Epson R-D1, Leica D-Lux 4. Just upgraded to an M8 and I absolutely love it. I'm shooting in Raw+ Jpeg fine, and I'm really not seeming to need the raw files. The out-of-camera jpegs are GREAT. Basically, I'm just doing a bit of sharpening and contrast enhancement in Photoshop. That's it. Some examples are at my flickr site, shown below.

At this point, I wouldn't go back, nor would I go to an M9. No need for the extra expense, and I don't like the slight change in the body profile that they made to the 9. If I could afford to upgrade to an M8.2 or the factory upgrade, I might do that. But really, I'm quite satisfied now.

Go with the M8; you won't regret it!

 

[HenningW]

What really sucks in the M8 is the ergonomics, high ISO noise, and that the RAW files are 8 bit (yes, I have run into situations where it matters). The 8 bit issue is the worse by far, because there's simply no way around it apart from Leica lifting this dumbness in a firmware upgrade.

Have you worked with DNG's? It should be apparent that they are not 8bit files. The compression does throw out some information, but they are not 8bit.

RD-1 files are quite useable in a number of circumstances, but if you are interested in wider angles, or faster lenses you are much more limited.

 

[HenningW]

I must know as I am about to either make the greatest/worst decision of my photographic life. If I was to go by all the posts on ALL the forums, I wouldn't bother. I know all the pluses and minuses such as IR sensitivity, crappy menu choices, dead cells etc. But is it any good at the most important thing. Taking photo`s . . ?:bang:

Hard to say for anyone but you.

I love mine, but I've had Leica RF's since 1962; probably about 20 or 25, and a lot of lenses. They are my favourite cameras. I've also shot with many other rangefinders, including the RD-1.

I have other cameras for other purposes, from Xpan and Roundshot through a fair bit of MF and LF gear as well as Canon 5DII and Panasonic G1, but at the moment my M8's are my favourites.

The main thing is you have to feel comfortable with rangefinders, and it's best if you have a bunch of lenses. As others have noted, add a 15/4.5 if you don't have that already, get some IR cut filters for the lenses you plan to use and you can shoot away. The bad comments on menus, ergonomics etc are mostly cases of people's opinions and not getting along with them, not them being intrinsically bad. I haven't yet come across a camera with a menu system I'm fully in agreement with.

The files are excellent and certainly good enough for my purposes. I don't really need to print larger than 17x22, and mostly 8x10. DR is fine, as is the high ISO capability although both could be better. But to some degree, that goes for every camera. Now we complain if we can't get noise free shots at 3200ISO, but that was unachievable with film, and I shot 35mm Kodachrome in the 50's at ASA 10, limited DR and still got shots I enjoy now.