PrisonersDilema
Established
This report paints a very bad opinion of the M8.
Typically, The following were highlighted by the reviewer:
1. Cam tends to overexpose.
2. Poor AWB even in daylight.
3. Use of IR/cut filters.
4. Image quality worse than Nikon D40x or EOS 40D.
5. Noisy at anything above ISO 320.
Reviewer Ben Long even mentions there is nothing 'Leica-ness' about the M8 as there are no mechanical parts. Other than a great looker.
http://www.completedigitalphotography.com/?p=518
Can users comment based on their own experiences? I am considering a digital rangefinder and am considering between an RD1s and M8.
Typically, The following were highlighted by the reviewer:
1. Cam tends to overexpose.
2. Poor AWB even in daylight.
3. Use of IR/cut filters.
4. Image quality worse than Nikon D40x or EOS 40D.
5. Noisy at anything above ISO 320.
Reviewer Ben Long even mentions there is nothing 'Leica-ness' about the M8 as there are no mechanical parts. Other than a great looker.
http://www.completedigitalphotography.com/?p=518
Can users comment based on their own experiences? I am considering a digital rangefinder and am considering between an RD1s and M8.
Quinn Porter
Established
One can debate the image quality, but the camera certainly feels like a rangefinder. As for mechanical parts, the entire viewfinder/rangefinder assembly is mechanical as are the lenses placed on the camera. There is also a traditional shutter speed dial. The only things missing are a mechanical film advance lever and shutter release.
jdos2
Well-known
Ah. This'll be flamebait, I'm sure. You'll find opinion wildly ranging, betcha, including those that'll sound like they are on the dole from Leica.
1. Mine doesn't over expose at all. It's as accurate as my 5D was, or my S3.
2. The last firmware fixed most of my AWB troubles, and again, now no worse than my 5D or S3.
3. Yup. PIA. Gotta switch 'em, too. What many don't seem to understand is that these things are not only for the "purple blacks," but for ultimate sharpness. Not that ultimate sharpness is the most important thing, especially at 640, f/1.4, indoor light...
4. Um... I've pictures out of mine that look like the 5D could have taken 'em. Worse than the 40D? "Worse" is an interesting word in this context...
5. K. True enough. Small pixels, more noise. I switch to Black and White at 1250 and up because I just don't like the look of pictures out of the camera at higher ISO's: the 5D spoiled me.
So... A mixed bag. Actually, none of what is mentioned above is what is truly the problem of the digital M system from my perspective, but the terrible focusing of many of the lenses I've tried can't easily be fixed. Neither can the small market, or small range of folks experienced with fixing the thing.
RD1s and M8? Try 'em and you'll understand in fairly short order why one is much more expensive. Worth $5k? Well... Probably not. I'd rather have my 5D back, but that's not an option, and even then, I have to put up with the Best Mediocre 50mm Prime Ever (the f/1.2- the "backfocuser," just like a good few of my CV lenses), so I'd be surprised by any shot I took, just like with the Leica and the CV lenses.
There's always something about which to complain. I'd get the M8 again. Not for 5K$, but I'd own it again.
And I'd always try *any* lens before I bought it. Nothing like paying thousands for a backfocuser, only to have to send it to someone that takes a couple months to fix...
1. Mine doesn't over expose at all. It's as accurate as my 5D was, or my S3.
2. The last firmware fixed most of my AWB troubles, and again, now no worse than my 5D or S3.
3. Yup. PIA. Gotta switch 'em, too. What many don't seem to understand is that these things are not only for the "purple blacks," but for ultimate sharpness. Not that ultimate sharpness is the most important thing, especially at 640, f/1.4, indoor light...
4. Um... I've pictures out of mine that look like the 5D could have taken 'em. Worse than the 40D? "Worse" is an interesting word in this context...
5. K. True enough. Small pixels, more noise. I switch to Black and White at 1250 and up because I just don't like the look of pictures out of the camera at higher ISO's: the 5D spoiled me.
So... A mixed bag. Actually, none of what is mentioned above is what is truly the problem of the digital M system from my perspective, but the terrible focusing of many of the lenses I've tried can't easily be fixed. Neither can the small market, or small range of folks experienced with fixing the thing.
RD1s and M8? Try 'em and you'll understand in fairly short order why one is much more expensive. Worth $5k? Well... Probably not. I'd rather have my 5D back, but that's not an option, and even then, I have to put up with the Best Mediocre 50mm Prime Ever (the f/1.2- the "backfocuser," just like a good few of my CV lenses), so I'd be surprised by any shot I took, just like with the Leica and the CV lenses.
There's always something about which to complain. I'd get the M8 again. Not for 5K$, but I'd own it again.
And I'd always try *any* lens before I bought it. Nothing like paying thousands for a backfocuser, only to have to send it to someone that takes a couple months to fix...
tmfabian
I met a man once...
Oh yes...i hate when my M8 tends to overexpose in shutter priority mode...that guy just had a bone to pick for some reason, just as canon users poke at nikons.
"...In shutter priority, the camera has a marked tendency toward overexposure...."
"...In shutter priority, the camera has a marked tendency toward overexposure...."
1. Never seen any exposure issues.
2. AWB is fine with latest firmware.
3. UV/IR is not a bad deal. Would you rather have it on the lens or the sensor? There are pros and cons to both.
4. IQ is fine. Anything here is subjective.
5. Again, this is subjective. One person's unacceptable noise is another person's 'isn't that totally cool, just like tri-x pushed to 1600.'
Don't understand the 'Leica-ness' comment. It's a digital M.
2. AWB is fine with latest firmware.
3. UV/IR is not a bad deal. Would you rather have it on the lens or the sensor? There are pros and cons to both.
4. IQ is fine. Anything here is subjective.
5. Again, this is subjective. One person's unacceptable noise is another person's 'isn't that totally cool, just like tri-x pushed to 1600.'
Don't understand the 'Leica-ness' comment. It's a digital M.
funkaoshi
Well-known
Is the start-up time of the M8 still that slow, or has this been addressed in recent firmware updates?
The reviewer certainly didn't seem to be going out of his way to disrespect the M8. Several times in the review he extols the virtues of the camera, and rangefinders in general. I think his main complaint is a good one: for 5K you would expect a camera that performs exceptionally well.
The reviewer certainly didn't seem to be going out of his way to disrespect the M8. Several times in the review he extols the virtues of the camera, and rangefinders in general. I think his main complaint is a good one: for 5K you would expect a camera that performs exceptionally well.
funkaoshi
Well-known
Well that's good then. I think most of the other complaints he has with the M8 really aren't that big a deal. With my DSLR I shoot raw and fix everything in post anyway. I imagine if I had an M8 I'd work in much the same way. If the camera took a couple seconds to get going before you could shoot however, well, that'd be lame.
Matthew
Established
I've had one and used it as my primary camera (over 90% of photos) for over a year now and can comment on all of these points:
1. I don't find this to be the case in the slightest. Once one learns how the meter on the M8 functions (how much of the scene it is metering) it functions perfectly. If you're coming from a DSLR with matrix metering then you may experience a bit of a learning curve, but if you're used to the meter in film Ms (or any older center-weighted meter) you'll be fine. I dial in - 1/3 EV to protect the highlights, but I do that on my Nikon as well. From the review it seems like the reviewer simply didn't understand the differences between the M8 meter and others. And seemed to think that having to compensate manually for situations that fool pretty much any meter was a design flaw.
2. AWB was admitedly a bit wonky in previous versions of the firmware but is spot on with the current one. It was never really a problem in my usage (and I think entirely overblown in the internet discussion) as I always shoot in RAW and any WB problems were corrected then. I have to say that, with the latest firmware, I have to manually adjust the WB in probably less than 1% of images, no matter the lightsource.
3. Except in extremely back-lit situations where the chance of reflections/flare is greater (theoretically, I've never experienced this in practivce) this is a non-issue. Would it have been better to somehow integrate the IR filter into the body, yes. Should Leica have worked this one out before releasing the camera, yes. Does it effect how I shoot in the slightest, no. I used UV filters on my lenses beforehand in any case, now it's just an IR/UV filter.
4. As the reviewer correctly states, image quality is as much a function of lens as it is sensor. While other camera makers produce some fine lenses, the newest Leica lenses consistently outperform them. Sometimes this is splitting hairs, though. Do a search for image comparisons: there are plenty out there between the M8 and the 5D, D300, etc etc. The M8 more than holds its own.
5. Noise on the M8: well, at 160 it's non-existent; 320, barely noticeable to the point of being non-existent; 640, it's certainly there but nothing to prevent you from using it whenever required; 1250, a good deal of noise on the screen at original resolution at 100% but in practical use on the web or in a print, nothing to worry about; ISO 2500 is pretty chunky looking and you probably can get better results underexposing 1250 by a stop and fixing it in development--that said, in a print it looks generally fine.
At 1250 and 2500 there are better performing cameras out there, but for the type of work I do it's really not a problem. Shooting with an M6 and in color slides the fastest film I worked with for years was ISO 400 pushed to 800 and never felt like my worked suffered creatively because of it. With the M8 that's like shooting at ISO 640. Sometimes I do get a bit envious that other cameras can shoot up to ISO 12500 without too much noise, but then I remember that I've never had need for that speed with film or in a digital camera in over 10 years of shooting, so why should I need it now? That said, your needs may be different than mine...
As far as nothing "Leica-ness" about it: utter cr*p. If you've shot with a Leica M you can pick up the M8 and start working with it immediately without even looking at the manual. It's slightly thicker than a film M, but other than that feels nearly identical. Nothing mechanical about it? The rangefinder is entirely mechanical, as are the frame lines, shutter dial and focussing. The only thing which I will say is a departure is the sound of the shutter. It's certainly louder than a film M, and was slightly disconcerting at first, but not once have I found it to be a practical hindrance on my photography.
Don't give this review much credence. As many of the comments have stated, this reviewer really doesn't seem to have any experience with the M system or understand the niche the M8 was designed to fill--which it fills quite well. There are things I would change about it, but nothing that makes me not love the camera. If you are capable of stomaching the price tag (which is certainly considerable) and are familiar with all the advantages and disadvantages of the M system, then buy one with confidence.
1. I don't find this to be the case in the slightest. Once one learns how the meter on the M8 functions (how much of the scene it is metering) it functions perfectly. If you're coming from a DSLR with matrix metering then you may experience a bit of a learning curve, but if you're used to the meter in film Ms (or any older center-weighted meter) you'll be fine. I dial in - 1/3 EV to protect the highlights, but I do that on my Nikon as well. From the review it seems like the reviewer simply didn't understand the differences between the M8 meter and others. And seemed to think that having to compensate manually for situations that fool pretty much any meter was a design flaw.
2. AWB was admitedly a bit wonky in previous versions of the firmware but is spot on with the current one. It was never really a problem in my usage (and I think entirely overblown in the internet discussion) as I always shoot in RAW and any WB problems were corrected then. I have to say that, with the latest firmware, I have to manually adjust the WB in probably less than 1% of images, no matter the lightsource.
3. Except in extremely back-lit situations where the chance of reflections/flare is greater (theoretically, I've never experienced this in practivce) this is a non-issue. Would it have been better to somehow integrate the IR filter into the body, yes. Should Leica have worked this one out before releasing the camera, yes. Does it effect how I shoot in the slightest, no. I used UV filters on my lenses beforehand in any case, now it's just an IR/UV filter.
4. As the reviewer correctly states, image quality is as much a function of lens as it is sensor. While other camera makers produce some fine lenses, the newest Leica lenses consistently outperform them. Sometimes this is splitting hairs, though. Do a search for image comparisons: there are plenty out there between the M8 and the 5D, D300, etc etc. The M8 more than holds its own.
5. Noise on the M8: well, at 160 it's non-existent; 320, barely noticeable to the point of being non-existent; 640, it's certainly there but nothing to prevent you from using it whenever required; 1250, a good deal of noise on the screen at original resolution at 100% but in practical use on the web or in a print, nothing to worry about; ISO 2500 is pretty chunky looking and you probably can get better results underexposing 1250 by a stop and fixing it in development--that said, in a print it looks generally fine.
At 1250 and 2500 there are better performing cameras out there, but for the type of work I do it's really not a problem. Shooting with an M6 and in color slides the fastest film I worked with for years was ISO 400 pushed to 800 and never felt like my worked suffered creatively because of it. With the M8 that's like shooting at ISO 640. Sometimes I do get a bit envious that other cameras can shoot up to ISO 12500 without too much noise, but then I remember that I've never had need for that speed with film or in a digital camera in over 10 years of shooting, so why should I need it now? That said, your needs may be different than mine...
As far as nothing "Leica-ness" about it: utter cr*p. If you've shot with a Leica M you can pick up the M8 and start working with it immediately without even looking at the manual. It's slightly thicker than a film M, but other than that feels nearly identical. Nothing mechanical about it? The rangefinder is entirely mechanical, as are the frame lines, shutter dial and focussing. The only thing which I will say is a departure is the sound of the shutter. It's certainly louder than a film M, and was slightly disconcerting at first, but not once have I found it to be a practical hindrance on my photography.
Don't give this review much credence. As many of the comments have stated, this reviewer really doesn't seem to have any experience with the M system or understand the niche the M8 was designed to fill--which it fills quite well. There are things I would change about it, but nothing that makes me not love the camera. If you are capable of stomaching the price tag (which is certainly considerable) and are familiar with all the advantages and disadvantages of the M system, then buy one with confidence.
Matthew
Established
If Leica had a dole, my bank balance would be considerably greater...
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Matthew,
I don't have an M8 - I've often wondered about a lot of the things you've mentioned in your comment and I just wanna say "Thank you" for explaining a lot of it - most folks around here usually tell you to "go and rent/get one and then report back if you have issues" - which is, imho, pretty difficult to do when no one around my parts rents this camera and the ones that sell it only order it in (never in house stock).
This makes more sense to me now and I can see the "issue" with the metering is more from the point of view of someone who's got the usual "35 point metering" stuff in their DSLR (I personally use a centre weighted average when I'm shooting with my 5D so I think I'll be ok with the M8).
One other question though (and this is open to anyone) - with respect to the noise issue at higher ISO's - have any of you folks been running your higher ISO images through any noise reduction software? (either in Photoshop or in a stand alone app)
Thanks,
Dave
I don't have an M8 - I've often wondered about a lot of the things you've mentioned in your comment and I just wanna say "Thank you" for explaining a lot of it - most folks around here usually tell you to "go and rent/get one and then report back if you have issues" - which is, imho, pretty difficult to do when no one around my parts rents this camera and the ones that sell it only order it in (never in house stock).
This makes more sense to me now and I can see the "issue" with the metering is more from the point of view of someone who's got the usual "35 point metering" stuff in their DSLR (I personally use a centre weighted average when I'm shooting with my 5D so I think I'll be ok with the M8).
One other question though (and this is open to anyone) - with respect to the noise issue at higher ISO's - have any of you folks been running your higher ISO images through any noise reduction software? (either in Photoshop or in a stand alone app)
Thanks,
Dave
tmfabian
I met a man once...
I agree entirely, accurate exposure is the key with any high iso setting on any camera(sans d3/300) Having compared my 1250 setting to my girlfriends 5d's 1250 setting they're pretty similar...meaning that neither is really superb. It's just a digital issue more than a camera make issue, digital noise just plain sucks that's all there is to it.
1066
Member
Having been an M user for the last 20 years I am less than thrilled with the performance of the M8 compared to the flawless performance of my two M6's. This camera (M8), and all its little quirks, just say to me that it was released to soon, not tested thoroughly, and rushed to the marketplace.
Just my two cents...
Bat
Just my two cents...
Bat
Matthew
Established
I would agree with you that the camera was probably released too soon, and not tested thoroughly enough (I am amazed that the IR issue wasn't noticed in beta-testing and addressed prior to release). I also agree that long-term reliability (and even short-term in the earliest cameras) compared to film Ms is an open question. Though I'm not sure the reliability issue is one that is unique to the M8, but rather is an issue between film cameras and digital cameras in general. A film camera, even a low end one, was designed and built for a longer product life than any digital camera. I find that sad, but it's with us. These were all issues that plagued my thought process before I made the leap (selling my M6 and film scanner) and bought the M8. Now that I've done it however, I've been quite pleased. I don't mean this to try to change your opinion of the camera, just to illustrate (further) my experience.
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
it's an interesting review with many interesting "facts"
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I've been a Leica M user for more than 35 years - Yes, the M8 is different from my M3, it is a bit more lumpy, the shutter is more noisy, but all in all it is a "real" Leica M8. Build quality is excellent and the image quality is right at the front of the pack. Considering the fast lenses compared to the average DSLR zoom and the better handholdability of a rangefinder I would say that the noise by the same light -which is what counts for getting the shot- will be a lot better than any DSLR. When the 5D is at ISO 3200 you may well be shooting at 640 still with the M8. Having said that, 640 is clean - if exposed properly - 1250 still very good -if exposed exactly. 1250 is my favored setting for B&W work, the noise is so grain-like.
The guy who wrote the review
1. did not know how to expose, being used to little goblins under the hood doing the thinking for him
2. did not know how to hold the camera. he held it skewed, causing him to accuse it of parallax.
3. did not know that Leica (finally!) came out with a firmware that fixed the AWB andmost of the Jpeg issues
4. did not understand the theory behind the necessity and indeed advantages of an IR filter in front of the lens instead of in front of the sensor
5. did not notice the real quirks of the camera, like framelines, that, although theoretically correct, present difficulties to some users, focussing problems with some lenses like the 1.4 Summilux asph, focus shift on the Noctilux, etc.
A very sloppy review. There are better ones out there.
For instance on DpReview, if critical and dated in the AWB/Jpeg thing, is fair and knowlegable, Sean Reid on his (paying) site has extensive and expert opinions on lenses, the M8 and other items of interest, etc.
The guy who wrote the review
1. did not know how to expose, being used to little goblins under the hood doing the thinking for him
2. did not know how to hold the camera. he held it skewed, causing him to accuse it of parallax.
3. did not know that Leica (finally!) came out with a firmware that fixed the AWB andmost of the Jpeg issues
4. did not understand the theory behind the necessity and indeed advantages of an IR filter in front of the lens instead of in front of the sensor
5. did not notice the real quirks of the camera, like framelines, that, although theoretically correct, present difficulties to some users, focussing problems with some lenses like the 1.4 Summilux asph, focus shift on the Noctilux, etc.
A very sloppy review. There are better ones out there.
For instance on DpReview, if critical and dated in the AWB/Jpeg thing, is fair and knowlegable, Sean Reid on his (paying) site has extensive and expert opinions on lenses, the M8 and other items of interest, etc.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
I am somewhat biased. My introduction to "RAW" digital photography was with the M8. Once I got all of my lenses coded and IR/CUT filters on my lenses my film M cameras became elaborate paperweights.
I have been more than satisfied with image quality - other than the digital processing learning curve it has been a seamless process. My thumb just can't seem to stop looking for that pesky (now invisible) film advance lever.
I also thought the reviewer had an ax to grind and somewhat detached from reality.
I have been more than satisfied with image quality - other than the digital processing learning curve it has been a seamless process. My thumb just can't seem to stop looking for that pesky (now invisible) film advance lever.
I also thought the reviewer had an ax to grind and somewhat detached from reality.
NickTrop
Veteran
Regarding the M8 IR issue. While I don't own this camera and never intend to own it. Not in the digital capture camp (printing, post is another matter) - except for taking advantage of their incredible hand-held zoom capabilities... and it's simply way, way, way more than I ever intend to pay for any stinkin' camera...
... the IR "feature" is actually a plus to me. Many folks hack perfectly good (and expensive) digital cameras to shoot IR or make it their IR camera...
... there's also (I think) a cottage industry of people who do this, and (again, "I think") you can get the IR "capability" special ordered.
So, having this "built-in" at the price of merely having to keep a filter on the camera is actually kinda nice if you think about it. If Leica was aware of this issue in advance, they should have sold it as "IR-ready". Shame on their marketing department - if anything.
... the IR "feature" is actually a plus to me. Many folks hack perfectly good (and expensive) digital cameras to shoot IR or make it their IR camera...
... there's also (I think) a cottage industry of people who do this, and (again, "I think") you can get the IR "capability" special ordered.
So, having this "built-in" at the price of merely having to keep a filter on the camera is actually kinda nice if you think about it. If Leica was aware of this issue in advance, they should have sold it as "IR-ready". Shame on their marketing department - if anything.
Riccis
Well-known
Dave:
I couldn't make it to Toronto last month due to a kink on my client's schedule, but I'll let you know when I'll come.
Once again, no problem using the M8 at high ISOs (1250 and 2500 when needed, although with fast glass this is not necessary)
This is a ISO 640 shot in the basement of a theater with no windows or other light sources but the bulb you see on the frame... Whatever grain you see, it was added by me in post...
I'm not going to address the M8 "issues", but rather invite anyone that wants to see plenty of M8 images shot in almost any condition possible to go to my blog.
Cheers,
Riccis
I couldn't make it to Toronto last month due to a kink on my client's schedule, but I'll let you know when I'll come.
Once again, no problem using the M8 at high ISOs (1250 and 2500 when needed, although with fast glass this is not necessary)
This is a ISO 640 shot in the basement of a theater with no windows or other light sources but the bulb you see on the frame... Whatever grain you see, it was added by me in post...
I'm not going to address the M8 "issues", but rather invite anyone that wants to see plenty of M8 images shot in almost any condition possible to go to my blog.
Cheers,
Riccis
Digital Dude
Newbie
Ok, the M8 is more than I would pay if I had to do it over again. After returning from playing with Nikons, I can tell you one thing. I will really miss the handling, feel and size of the M8. The Leica glass is truly wonderful so enough said on that. When I manipulate the controls on the D300, I feel like I’m text messaging someone. In the end, I suppose it all depends on what you're looking for.
Regards,
Regards,