Recent M8 price on eBay... US $1,089.00

my prediction is that in 2 years they will be giving them away. It may be a Leica, but still a 10MP camera.

Why? What's the problem with 10 MP? I make exhibition and competition prints with the M8 that are 20-30 inches, and the quality is stunning at low ISOs. The prints are equal to any current high-end dSLR (and also the M9).

Like many other M8/M8.2 owners, I'm not interested in selling my camera, so I predict prices will stay high.
 
Why? What's the problem with 10 MP? I make exhibition and competition prints with the M8 that are 20-30 inches, and the quality is stunning at low ISOs. The prints are equal to any current high-end dSLR (and also the M9).

Like many other M8/M8.2 owners, I'm not interested in selling my camera, so I predict prices will stay high.

Time will tell, but I see no reason why the M8/8.2 will be immune to market forces. M6s cost less than MPs by far and they are still as good as 35mm film can be. My personal view is that this is wishful thinking on your part as in two years there may well be a M10 or 9.2 and then M8s will be ancient history. In digital terms that means low prices.

10MP may be great for some things, but it is not 18 or 25 and whether this means anything to you, will factor in other peoples choices. I would be amazed if M8.2s are not under $2k in 2 years. M8s cheaper still.

I beg to differ on the 10MP where fine detail is concerned and up rezzing gets you nowhere. If one accepts that a M8 cannot compete with a 24MP nikkon in fine detail then imagine in two years.
 
The prices will continue to decline but there is also a leveling off. Five and six year old Nikon D70s are still useful cameras and their prices are hovering around $250. You can buy an entry level dslr with better specs for $450 new.

I'd still rather buy an M8 over an Epson RD-1, so the prices will follow each other. I bet you'll see a lot of shooters of more modest means buying M8s and some less expensive VC wides, which should be a decent combination for actually making photos. Heck I am thinking of that myself.
 
I'd still rather buy an M8 over an Epson RD-1, so the prices will follow each other. I bet you'll see a lot of shooters of more modest means buying M8s and some less expensive VC wides, which should be a decent combination for actually making photos. Heck I am thinking of that myself.

That's what I just did 🙂
 
Time will tell, but I see no reason why the M8/8.2 will be immune to market forces.

I beg to differ on the 10MP where fine detail is concerned and up rezzing gets you nowhere. If one accepts that a M8 cannot compete with a 24MP nikkon in fine detail then imagine in two years.

No, not immune, prices will fall, but I'm convinced less steeply than than some predict.

As for the M8's 10 MP, the lack of an antialiasing filter over the sensor makes a huge difference to perceived resolution compared with most dSLRs. My post http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1074925&postcount=34 shows a 100% crop - unlike many dSLR images that look a little "smeared" and artificial (for want of a better description) when viewed or printed at 100% full-screen resolution, good M8 shots have stunning clarity, like my posted example. Printed at that resolution, you end up with a print 39 inches (1 m) wide! (As most are aware, printing at screen resolution should usually be avoided - 180-300 dpi being the norm.)

So, resampling is often not needed for M8 images. And if is, and done carefully, works very well: my link also shows the aforementioned 100% crop uprezzed to 200%. OK, there are sampling artefacts and softness, but bear in mind that if this too is printed at screen resolution, you're talking about a 6-foot wide print; if printed smaller, you won't see these artefacts.
 
Frank is right, the prices will level off (assuming there isn't another global financial crash, which I wouldn't rule out). On the megapixel file size, I don't see any evidence of noticeable better quality as file sizes go up. You just get a bigger file. Just like film, a larger sensor won't give more detail, it only allows bigger enlargements, which in turn will show more detail as the print is larger. There will have to be advances in sensor design to see markedly better image quality in digital cameras, or modifications to the existing setup, like Leica's decision to leave out the anti aliasing filter on their M8 to get sharper images, which has resulted in several unwanted effects.

People are getting somewhat better image quality using Hasselblad digital backs vs DSLR's because they're using Hassy lenses, which are some of the best lenses around. When you rez the files down they look the same. It's exactly the same sensor. Put a Leica R lens on that DSLR and you'll see image quality go up as well, which is why there's a ton of adapters being sold to do just that.

As I mentioned, only Leica has improved the image quality, but you have to do workarounds to fix the problems caused by their "fix".
 
10MP may be great for some things, but it is not 18 or 25 and whether this means anything to you, will factor in other peoples choices.

I agree. Ignorance and misconceptions do drive markets, and not only in digital cameras.

I beg to differ on the 10MP where fine detail is concerned and up rezzing gets you nowhere. If one accepts that a M8 cannot compete with a 24MP nikkon in fine detail then imagine in two years.

I don't see the huge superiority that some others do of the M8 over 8-12MP cameras like my 20D and 5D, so I don't doubt that files from 21-24MP cameras can be enlarged (or cropped and enlarged) more without losing detail. However, at typical display print sizes (8x10, 11x14 and even 16x20) from uncropped files, the difference in perceptible detail is slight if at all. So unless you have some really specialized uses, those extra megapixels are most often wasted.
 
I think more importantly, for SOME people, the need for higher MP can go towards professional printing (where 240-300dpi is critical). I don't shoot for that output more than a few times a year, but when I do it would be nicer to have bigger files. I will say though, I've put M8 and other digital files on HUGE displays and even the side of a truck without a problem. Of course, that's a different printing process and 300dpi isn't essential for either.

Remember when 6mp was enough? ... LOL

For my photography-hobby end of things, which is 85-90% of the time, anything above 10 or 12mp is more of a hassle than it's worth to me. I rarely print larger than 16x20 and a lot of the ways I display my photos these days is digitally - on digital picture frames, large-screen HD TVs, large monitors and on the web. The hassle of storing and working with larger files just isn't worth it (for me). If I'm ever lucky to showcase prints of my work, they'll look great on 16x20 and that's fine for me.

However, could I afford an M9, I'd probably buy one anyway 😉
 
Back
Top Bottom