Poor M8 review - feedback from actual users

Thanks

Thanks

Matthew said:
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:
Click to expand...

Thanks for this. I have been shooting DSLR all the very short, 5 years of my photography and never shot film and never used a manual camera before. I shot briefly with an Epson RD1s before selling that off to concentrate on the Canon system due to the higher cost of owning 2 systems; both systems M and EF-mount cannot share lenses no matter.

Now that my job and family requires a lot of time from me, I have stopped doing wedding assignments (meant to supplement the high cost of this hobby) after 10 paid assignments and hence have no need of the DLSR system (to a certain extent). I have sold off my 5D and am only left with the 24-70L and TSE90mm with no DSLR body. I intend to sell of the 24-70L soon but keep the TSE90.

I am looking at the digital RF system as I dare not shoot film because I do not have the skills and knowledge of manual exposure for it and it is lighter to travel with. I do not want to lug huge bags with 35mm lenses like the 70-200f2.8 that I had gotten rid of. I do not shoot birds or sports. I happen to like street, street portraiture, portraiture (my kids) and landscape. Hence, my likes fit into the RF system. If I get a wedding assignment, I'd just rent a 5D and a 24-70 and earn the difference between cost of rental and fees.

I had planned to get the Epson (I think IQ is good) again but the lack of support for the cam spooked me. Epson does not make cameras as it's core business, although they have a 6 year support. Haveing extensively looked into the prices of lenses (I like Zeiss because I think they are better built, have slightly better IQ than CV ones and I cannot at all, afford Leicas)

This is a genuine request for useful owner's opinion. Frankly, I was on the verge of getting an M8 and googled for reviews when I bumped into this guy's review. I was quite shattered after, since there are only 2 digital RF's in existence, one end of line and the other expensive but very much supported, has a 1.3x crop factor (the 21mm f2.8 Biogon can be a 27mm instead of a 32mm on a 1.5x).

So, my post is not a flamebait but I need encouraging reviews to jump in.
 
Northernlights:

I am also a wedding photographer and do all my work with the M8... No complaints from me or my clients... I wouldn't advise anyone to dump their DSLR stuff cold and go into rangefinders unless that person has previous experience handling rangefinders, but by looking at your RD1 images (which I loved, BTW) you should have no problem.

Why don't you try getting your hands on an M8 and arriving to your own conclusions instead of going crazy reading all the nonsense that goes in online forums? I know that Leica is currently having a rental program for the M8 and Summarits where prospective owners can rent a kit for the weekend for about $50... Of course, I don't know if it is also taking place in Singapore but you may as well ask your authorized Leica dealer.

Cheers,

Riccis
 
Riccis,

As always, lovely work 🙂

No worries about not making it last month - I got swamped with other work issues so it was no loss per se - whenever you can make it, just let me know.

I'll reconsider the M8; not for the wedding work right away but at least for my personal work with a view at perhaps using it occasionally for engagement sessions or portraits.

Cheers,
Dave
 
Dave:

Thanks, man...

As I mentioned before, ask your Leica dealer about the new M8 rental program. If you do get it, I can definitely see you using it for engagement sessions and getting ready... There are a couple of wedding guys here that, after seeing my stuff, got M8s and started that way but now are using it throughout the wedding day.

Take care, man.

Riccis
 
Dude..... you ROCK

Dude..... you ROCK

jdos2 said:
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...
Click to expand...

I loved what you said in response to the review written by the reprobate (can't remember what his name was due to the insignificance of his review so euphemism will have to do). Also I love your comments on the 5D and 50 f/1.2 albeit a little harsh (I love that lens.

The M8 is what it is and when all is said and done, it makes me take a certain type of picture and work in ways that no other camera does and that's what it is, nothing more, nothing less.

-charlie
 
I Agree......

I Agree......

tmfabian said:
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.
Click to expand...


On the first point being High ISO is entirely reliant upon correct exposure however I don' feel that this is only limited to digital. I just believe that people have very short memories. I could show you some horrific result of chroma noise shot with Fuji 800 proz (such a gorgeous stock if shot/EXPOSED correctly) which came as a result of me not knowing what I was doing.

It seems as though everyone and their dog has a boner for the high ISO performance of the Nikon D3 & D300 both of which I own. However I shoot the 1Ds Mklll and the M8, why, because of the FILEZzzz. Compared to said Nikon they are just so damn beautiful. Okay, so the M8 is noisy but once again, not unreasonably so if exposed correctly and when it does get noisy, it's beautiful.

-charlie
 
Ascender said:
On the first point being High ISO is entirely reliant upon correct exposure however I don' feel that this is only limited to digital. I just believe that people have very short memories. I could show you some horrific result of chroma noise shot with Fuji 800 proz (such a gorgeous stock if shot/EXPOSED correctly) which came as a result of me not knowing what I was doing.

It seems as though everyone and their dog has a boner for the high ISO performance of the Nikon D3 & D300 both of which I own. However I shoot the 1Ds Mklll and the M8, why, because of the FILEZzzz. Compared to said Nikon they are just so damn beautiful. Okay, so the M8 is noisy but once again, not unreasonably so if exposed correctly and when it does get noisy, it's beautiful.

-charlie
Click to expand...

D300 and D3 😱 ... one day I would like to see a list of all the cameras you own or have owned Charlie ... after all aren't we all allowed our 'fifteen minutes of fame?'

I shot an art exhibition opening recently with my M8 and when I presented the client with the files the other night she was delighted with the results ... all done in low gallery lighting with a 35mm f1.2 Nokton with an IR filter blue tacked on the front because I didn't have the right size ... and the art crowd wear a lotta black you know! 😛
 
After reading that review for a good 2-3 minutes I gave up, the reviewer obviously is a moron as he gets so many points about the camera so wrong, for instance saying it has not automatic exposure functions. Hello, what the hell does the A on the shutter dial mean I wonder.....asinine? A number pusher rather then a actual photographer in my opinion. This camera has no molded hand grip, but neither did hundreds, maybe thousands of SLR's back in the day when cameras were made right and you didnt need a camera bag the size of a hat box to carry them around.

Go back to your brick wall.
 
Years ago, I shot mostly Nikon and Mamiya with film. The only rangefinder I've used is the Canonete. I've been shooting mainly 5D bodies for the last few years, and the M8 is my first M.

I have to say that every feature on the 5D seems to (at least) one up the M8, with the exception of image quality. 🙂 After post processing about 100,000 5D wedding images, the M8 really stands out to me. The color is awesome. The shadows are excellent. The sharpness at 1:1 in Lightroom is so crisp, I feel like I need to zoom in more. The lack of an anti-alias filter on this sensor is the best idea since sliced bread.

Yesterday I ran a roll of film through an M6, and I must say I really prefer the M8. The only thing I preferred about the M6 was the PC flash port. I guess it's about what you are used to.

I bit nails over the M8 for over a year reading good, bad, and ugly reviews. When I got it home, I was extremely impressed, and it surpassed my expectations entirely.

So, I'm more than willing to deal with the many inconveniences of the M8, (and let's face it...any M body), to use this wonderful machine. In fact, I'm seriously thinking about getting my eyes fixed just for this camera.

In general, I think most M8 reviews depend entirely on the mindset of the reviewer. Reviews like this one come from the practical, good-enough, bang-for-the-buck types. This is not me.

I've been reading a lot of lens reviews lately. What drives me nuts is the common attitude of: "This lens is better because it's almost as good, but it's much cheaper."

So, what do you want? Better value, or better images? More convenient, or better images?
 
edrodgers731 said:
[snip]In fact, I'm seriously thinking about getting my eyes fixed just for this camera.[snip]
Click to expand...




I am with you here, I have almost totally stopped shooting SLR except when I need to do some sort of product or tripod work. I wear glasses and never had much luck with contacts, I too have thought about getting my eyes fixed (im nearsighted) so I can shoot easier. With the SLR it didnt mater too much but with the rangefinder it would be awfully handy.
 
In re: high-ISO. I no longer touch the ISO setting on my M8. It's permanently left on 160. In low light if I want to stop down and/or the shutter speed would be too slow, I just underexpose. The exposure compensation (which works in manual-metering in addition to AUTO) only goes 3 stops so if I need the equivalent of more than ISO 1250 I have to stop down one more click (I always manual meter, but if I were in AUTO I would have to switch to manual). Then I "push process" in ACR which is my preferred DNG converter (I gave up on C1-LE a while back). I found by experimenting that gives much less noise than turning up the ISO on the M8. Then for any residual noise I feel needs reduction, I use Noise Ninja (I splurged for the PS plug-in version, it's so much more convenient) with profiles I generated using their instructions.
 
Ben, would you mind sharing your ACR settings for pusing from 160? When I first heard of people preferring to do this, I did some quick tests and found the results to me more or less a wash between pushing and changing the ISO. Perhaps I didn't spend enough time tweaking develop settings.
 
As an FYI to us Canadian (or at least Toronto) folks - I've checked around and Eight Elm Photo is going to verify this "try-before-you-buy" / rental program that Leica USA apparently has going on.

Rick from Eight Elm has never heard of it 🙁 but he is willing to call Leica (didn't even have to ask him to do so) and check it out and let me know.

Cheers,
Dave
 
If you think about it, there is little difference between changing the ISO and pushing the RAW file. The sensor has only one base ISO, and anything higher is actually a push in the sensor to amplify the signal received.

The difference is that the sensor has the analog data to work with, and the DNG has only a digital representation of the analog data.

Theoretically, the higher ISO setting should be slightly better, particularly in the mid-tones and highlights.

Maybe in practice though, results may vary.
 
Matthew said:
Ben, would you mind sharing your ACR settings for pusing from 160? When I first heard of people preferring to do this, I did some quick tests and found the results to me more or less a wash between pushing and changing the ISO. Perhaps I didn't spend enough time tweaking develop settings.
Click to expand...

I use CS2 and +however# of stops I underexposed, as a starting point, and adjust more or less to taste (even if I metered say 3 stops under, my exposure might have been off a half stop). Sometimes it needs a little playing with the shadow and highlight settings but I leave that up to my lab guy to do in PS (curves or something, whatever it's more than I want to bother myself with) because that's what I pay him for 😀
 
This works best with low contrast subjects, as one tends to lose quite a lot of dynamic range. After all, the histogram gets compressed to the left. In my experience higher ISO and correct exposure gives better results with high contrast subjects, although Ben's method is better if you don't need the range. It all has to do with the amplification of the base noise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom