Practical Photography M8 review...

Austerby

Austerby

Well-known
Local time
7:15 AM
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
1,069
Location
Fircombe
View My Gallery
... they weren't keen. 😱

Review in the October ediiton. In summary they regard it as an averagely OK camera, but not justifying the price and certainly expensive. A lot of other cameras offer similar quality/better functionality for a lot less - or you can get a top end dSLR for the same. They awarded it two stars out of five.

"...the Leica M8 fails to fulfill modern needs and offers poor value for money".

However, they have created a new award category for it as despite their unenthusiasm they did recognise a certain je ne sais quoi, so it received the first "I Want One... But I Don't Know Why" award.😎
 
Well they have to live up to their title. I'm certain that if the magazine was called "Impractical Photography" it would have been given 7 out of 5 stars. But the award thay gave it fits.
 
M8 review

M8 review

I do not own an M8 and not sure if I would want one although I would accept one if Leica gave it to me. However, as an M-4P user, I could also write a review that says this body does nothing compared with other rangefinders, such as the Voightlander/Cosina line, at least with a light meter. Of course, the M6 and 7 both have light meters. Methinks those who would want the Leica RF (film or digital) to look, work and act like all other cameras with whistles and bells and whatever simply miss the basic point: Leica's simplicity allows the photographer to control the picture taking, not the camera. And therein lies the real joy of the Leica system. Replace film with a sensor and you still have pretty much the same camera; only the medium have changed. Leica may go under with its digital technology, but man, it will have been one beautiful journey, especially for those who hang on to their gear.
 
Austerby said:
... they weren't keen. 😱

Review in the October ediiton. In summary they regard it as an averagely OK camera, but not justifying the price and certainly expensive. A lot of other cameras offer similar quality/better functionality for a lot less - or you can get a top end dSLR for the same. They awarded it two stars out of five.

"...the Leica M8 fails to fulfill modern needs and offers poor value for money".

However, they have created a new award category for it as despite their unenthusiasm they did recognise a certain je ne sais quoi, so it received the first "I Want One... But I Don't Know Why" award.😎
Click to expand...


You could say the same thing about a Porche..."The Porche offers little practical value in transportation that can't be had in a Honda Accord for far less"...bla bla bla.

Nothing has changed: Leica's are STILL not for everybody. Why people who don't like them feel the need to trash the choices of those that do continually amazes me.

I have used many high end digital cameras and for me the M8 is far and away my favorite. I could care less what anyone else says or thinks.

Best wishes
Dan
 
i think if you look at things from an objective point of view, the review is correct. the M8 is really a poor camera in terms of its price and functions considering how much wiz bang all the other digital dslrs offer.

But on the otherhand, the M8 certainly deserves the "I Want One... But I Don't Know Why" award. because for some reason i wanted one too, and now i've gotten rid of all my other digi-cams and only have the one M8... and i don't really know why.. 😉
 
Had Practical Photography loved the M8, I would have put it on Craigslist in minutes.

If Consumer Reports ever publishes a glowing recommendation for my Porsche, that goes as well.

I don't mean to be reactionary, but I have standards.
 
Its a digital rangefinder with a 1.33 crop factor. (of course Full Frame would be better)
Its easy to use in "manual" mode, which probably goes against tne 21st Century auto-everthing movement.
I think its great, so great, I sold my Canon 5D and all the lens.
If I was into sports photography, definitely not.....
 
That was a crap article. I read it (in the newsagents) and it further confirmed my justification for not spending money on that magazine and others. I mean, how long has the M8 been out for a start and they are only just getting round to looking at it.

They say that the M8 is slow. What the hell does that really mean, and I don't remember Winogrand having any problem racking up plenty of shots with his Leica. Why don't they accept that not every photographer wants to use their camera Like a machine gun taking needles shots.

That's just one example of that terrible article. I own the M8 and a Canon 1DS. Totally different cameras for totally different results. Actually, I like both my cameras but the M8 oozes character and my Summicron lens draws images that are breathtaking. In contrast, my DSLR with 4 of Canons best 'L' lenses draw fantastic images, but they have something lacking.

They just make me laugh so much it hurts.
 
The probelm with Leica from a magazine perspective is you buy it once and stick with it. They actually want to sell magazines reviewing new gear and hopefully make your present gear seem obsolete to go and by some more magazines and them some more gear. From a magazine aspect Leica is never going to help them sell very much.
 
There is a long thread on APUG concerning B&W Magazine, increasing digital dominance and worries about the new editor ( formerly of PP Magazine )

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum56/42582-months-uk-b-w-mag.html

" Another thing which really worries me is the announcement of the new editor, David Corfield. Now, I know nothing about him at all, but what concerned me was the mention that he's been a deputy editor on Practical Photography and Photography Monthy. Two magazines which are very strong digital evangelists. The last time I brought PM a year or two ago, I chucked the mag into the bin "
Click to expand...

I've given up reading up M8 reviews, as the value proposition of the camera, for me, is not there. So I have decided never to buy one, sticking to my pair of M6's.
Once a M9 appears I will think again.
 
There's no such thing as un-biased reportage in the hard news media, let alone camera magazines. Equipment reviewers by definition of their job description have to be technogeeks, and the M8 doesn't have a host of dazzling and amazing bells and whistles to get them excited. Plus, it's probably not very good business sense for a magazine to gush over a camera that 90% of it's circulation can't afford, unless there's a cheaper model made by the same manufacturer (and major advertising client) that they can afford, that your reviewer can say "has most of the important features of it's big brother" 😉

I bought my M8 after almost a year of skepticism, after I tried it for myself. I can't remember making any purchase decision based on a magazine review, ever.
 
Practical Photography...

About as credible, journalistically, as Popular Photography and the rest of the "top 40," mostly ads, magazine crowd.

Only useful for wiping your arse, and even then not very good for that either, considering the hard, coated magazine paper.
 
Last edited:
Just realised that I posted in this thread this morning. Oh, well the beer has kicked in. Might as well repeat myself.

That article was ridiculous, and that comes from someone who ownes a 'slow M8' and a fast 1DS.

People just can't accept that the M8 was not meant for shooting Macros or machine gunning soccer matches with a 300mm zoom.

I am not biased at all. I love both my cameras, although the M8 and my Summicron do produce files that make me go WOW.

Not everyone wants or needs the latest gimmicks. In fact, as and when I can afford it a nice slow Digital Hassy might be in order.

I wonder how that would come out in one of their tests.

Oh, and I don't think Winogrand had any issues with the slowness of his Leica. I think he got round the issue somehow.
 
Last edited:
Yeah - real slow....


feed-1.jpg



Actually I think the article was spot-on. 95% of the readers would be deeply unhappy with this camera. After all, it requires the user to know something about photography and even worse - actually to use his brain....
 
Last edited:
jaapv said:
Yeah - real slow....


feed-1.jpg



Actually I think the article was spot-on. 95% of the readers would be deeply unhappy with this camera. After all, it requires the user to know something about photography and even worse - actually to use his brain....
Click to expand...

Id say more like 99.9% of their readership, And Ill bet the reviewer spent the first few hours trying to figure out where the manual focus over ride is on an M8. They managed to take a piture of some coke cans but fortunatley they were not moving at the time.
 
You are thinking Pratical Photography is about photography. It is not. It is about gear. It should be called "Practical Cameras."
 
Finder said:
You are thinking Pratical Photography is about photography. It is not. It is about gear. It should be called "Practical Cameras."
Click to expand...


and i can't help but thinking about rff....

wonderful classified section though!
 
spysmart said:
There is a long thread on APUG concerning B&W Magazine, increasing digital dominance and worries about the new editor ( formerly of PP Magazine )

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum56/42582-months-uk-b-w-mag.html


I've given up reading up M8 reviews, as the value proposition of the camera, for me, is not there. So I have decided never to buy one, sticking to my pair of M6's.
Once a M9 appears I will think again.
Click to expand...


Interesting stuff in the APUG thread. Probably the kind of comments that were flying around when wet plates began to bite the dust. After all, these new dry plates don't require as much work and care as wet plates and you don't have to get as messy using them, so they can't be much good. The quality is different, etc., etc. The images just aren't wet-plate-like!

Is anybody on these fora interested in photographs -- in other words, results; or are we all bureaucrats, interested mostly in processes? Let's face it, film is dying. It's going to take a long time for it to to go completely tits-up, but it's fading. In the meantime, you can lay down a really well-printed silver-gelatin print next to a really well-printed digital print, and unless you get out your loupe you're not going to be able to tell the difference -- unless the prints are in color. In that case digital is going to outshine film in almost all cases.
 
No other game if you want a digi RF. Too much money. Heck yes.

Now consider you don`t need new glass and it does not look so bad price wise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom