UPHOTO
Member
In response to all the comments above.
The price isn't going UP.
The price will only stay the same or go down.
It makes no sense to hold onto it because you think the market value doesn't fit the value it is to you in hopes to get more for it.
I agree that it's dumb to sell it if you think you need it or it doesn't make sense to you to sell it because you think it's worth more, so sorry if i didn't communicate that well. I kind of assumed he was hanging onto it because he thought it wasn't a good time to sell it value wise.
But you can see how the M8 has not held it's value as well as other past Leica camera's.
The price isn't going UP.
The price will only stay the same or go down.
It makes no sense to hold onto it because you think the market value doesn't fit the value it is to you in hopes to get more for it.
I agree that it's dumb to sell it if you think you need it or it doesn't make sense to you to sell it because you think it's worth more, so sorry if i didn't communicate that well. I kind of assumed he was hanging onto it because he thought it wasn't a good time to sell it value wise.
But you can see how the M8 has not held it's value as well as other past Leica camera's.
Last edited:
RichC
Well-known
And don't forget the rather important fact that the M8's image quality remains among the very top echelon, even compared with the M9 and the current top-range Nikon and Canon dSLRs..
So, the M9 may have replaced the M8, but the M8 remains a very capable and desirable camera - and there are thus a considerable number of M8 users like myself who have no intention of selling their M8's for various reasons, for example (some already mentioned):
• Bought (or ordered!) an M9 but keeping the M8 as as second body - either because of need or unwillingness to sell because of the high initial cost of the camera: unless they need the cash, I suspect some people will simply prefer to keep their M8 than to sell it for a low price. The M8 makes a very good back-up to the M9, and the x1.3 crop is closer to full frame than you might think. (I don't thing anyone's hanging on to their M8 in the hope that the price will go up, as some have suggested!)
• No interest in the M9 and perfectly happy with the M8. The M9 is very expensive, and for photographers who have no interest in "full frame" (that's me), the M9 has few advantages over the M8. Digital cameras have matured in the last half-decade, so there is no quantum leap in image quality when a new model is released these days (as occurred in the bad old days of the 1990s/early 2000s), and with image quality taken out of the equation, there's precious little to tempt rangefinder users, as we're notorious for our love of simplicity and dislike of gadgetry (at least in our cameras!) - mention "I want a swivelling LCD" on the Leica Users Forum and see what happens...!
Lastly, there's supply and demand - compared with digital Nikon and Canon cameras, there simply aren't many second-hand M8's for sale: for example, a quick search on eBay shows there's just over a dozen second-hand M8's available worldwide to the UK, whereas there's over 300 used Canon 5D's.
For all these reasons, the Leica M8 will remain an expensive camera. I doubt we'll see it selling for $1800 for a very long time!
The M8 came out in 2006 (we'll ignore the short-lived interim M8-2 model) - a three-year product cycle. Thus, we're unlikely to see a Leica M10 until at least 2012/2013. And only when the M10 sees the light of day will the price of the M8 drop appreciably...
So, the M9 may have replaced the M8, but the M8 remains a very capable and desirable camera - and there are thus a considerable number of M8 users like myself who have no intention of selling their M8's for various reasons, for example (some already mentioned):
• Bought (or ordered!) an M9 but keeping the M8 as as second body - either because of need or unwillingness to sell because of the high initial cost of the camera: unless they need the cash, I suspect some people will simply prefer to keep their M8 than to sell it for a low price. The M8 makes a very good back-up to the M9, and the x1.3 crop is closer to full frame than you might think. (I don't thing anyone's hanging on to their M8 in the hope that the price will go up, as some have suggested!)
• No interest in the M9 and perfectly happy with the M8. The M9 is very expensive, and for photographers who have no interest in "full frame" (that's me), the M9 has few advantages over the M8. Digital cameras have matured in the last half-decade, so there is no quantum leap in image quality when a new model is released these days (as occurred in the bad old days of the 1990s/early 2000s), and with image quality taken out of the equation, there's precious little to tempt rangefinder users, as we're notorious for our love of simplicity and dislike of gadgetry (at least in our cameras!) - mention "I want a swivelling LCD" on the Leica Users Forum and see what happens...!
Lastly, there's supply and demand - compared with digital Nikon and Canon cameras, there simply aren't many second-hand M8's for sale: for example, a quick search on eBay shows there's just over a dozen second-hand M8's available worldwide to the UK, whereas there's over 300 used Canon 5D's.
For all these reasons, the Leica M8 will remain an expensive camera. I doubt we'll see it selling for $1800 for a very long time!
The M8 came out in 2006 (we'll ignore the short-lived interim M8-2 model) - a three-year product cycle. Thus, we're unlikely to see a Leica M10 until at least 2012/2013. And only when the M10 sees the light of day will the price of the M8 drop appreciably...
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Actually, prices seem to have gone up the last month or so. And what do you say to the Digilux2? It is selling at 700$-1250$... Unlike the identical Panasonic camera, that barely makes half that price. Crazy.
bluepenguin
Established
That is quite right, jaapv. The price of Digilux2 went up and I sold mine in good timing.
Do you remember the time that everybody sold the R-D1s right after the M8 release? The price went down then it came back because of demands.
It is the same thing. There are simply not many M8/M8.2 are out there.
There are simply not much option so far, either M8/M8.2 or M9.
Do you remember the time that everybody sold the R-D1s right after the M8 release? The price went down then it came back because of demands.
It is the same thing. There are simply not many M8/M8.2 are out there.
There are simply not much option so far, either M8/M8.2 or M9.
raid
Dad Photographer
I have been totally "against" using a digital camera, but if the prices of a clean and reliable M8 with warranty is around $2000, then this is very difficult to ignore. It would imply a lot of changes with respect to lens focal lengths, and I would need lenses to be coded ... etc., but it would also mean for me the death of film photography. Therefore, such a step is still a major step for me to be taking.
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
I was feeling exactly the same but M8 started to attract me...I love the image quality regardless of that silly crop factor and UV filters....If I sell my m6 and all my lenses except the cheapest, I still need to add some cash so I am not thinking right now...
raid
Dad Photographer
If you sell all of your good lenses, what is the purpose of switching to the M8?
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
"And don't forget the rather important fact that the M8's image quality remains among the very top echelon, even compared with the M9 and the current top-range Nikon and Canon dSLRs.."
Awe, not that nonsense again. I thought all those claims evaporated when the M9 was released. The M8 certainly doesn't compare to the top Canon and Digital DSLR's. It's sensor is an antique.
Awe, not that nonsense again. I thought all those claims evaporated when the M9 was released. The M8 certainly doesn't compare to the top Canon and Digital DSLR's. It's sensor is an antique.
UPHOTO
Member
Exactly.
I'm only looking at an M8 because I've been wanting something to slow me down and appreciate my job and photography more NOT because it's superior in quality to my 5D's.
Athos6
Tao Master
Speaking of the 5d Mark 1, now is the time to buy a used one, prices are pretty good for a FF DSLR. Add a 28mm or 35mm Zeiss, woot!
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
That makes the M9 sensor an antique as well I suppose, seeing that it is an evolution of the M8 one. My grandmother taught me : better to keep your mouth shut and appear ignorant than open it and remove all doubt....
Last edited:
Bro, have you seen images from a 5D mark II? Or a D700? D3? 1D mark IV? The M9 brings nothing to the table once you get to ISO1000, where as the others are just getting warmed up.
Digital rangefinders are fun to use and all, but really lets be objective about image quality. They are simply miles behind.
Austerby
Well-known
Look at the prices of new vs secondhand M7s and MPs and you'll see a substantial difference. A new M7/MP is about £2800 yet even "as new" used examples are around £1k less.
I think its a bit of a myth about Leica camera's holding their prices from new - they seem to fall quite far quite quickly, but then stablise. I don't see the M8 being much different here.
Lenses on the other hand always seem to be much more price resilient whether new or used.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
It has nothing to do with the above. There is a basic choice to be made between CCD and CMos. CCD will produce better image quality under a certain ISO level , about 1000 on the M8 and 1600 on the M9 (note that Leica uses a conservative approach to digital ISO, for instance 1250Leica=1600Canon) CMos will produce less noise at higher ISO, in the case of DSLRs aided by in-camera processing, albeit at some loss in color definition. I don't think that the lower cost of CMos sensors is a serious consideration.
Leica has chosen for maximum quality with limited ISO, in common with all medium format camera builders. Both systems, however, are close to the limit of their development potential. For further improvement we must look to different sensors. At the moment backlit CMos seems promising. On the other hand the question is whether electronic imaging is not very close to the biological limts of our eye and brain. In that case we have hit the wall of diminishing returns.
And yes, there are comparative tests out there between M9, M8, 5D, D3 etc. They confirm everything I wrote above. The one of most interest to members here is probably the LFI one, which compares exactly these parameters.
I have a puzzled feeling about this obsession with high ISO noise. Of course there are examples where high ISO can be quite beneficial, neccessary even. But the vast majority of images is best taken with ISOs up to 640 and lenses down to 1.4. And to sacrifice quality for the bulk of ones work to the requirements of a few images does not seem to be very rational. If one regularly needs clean and smooth high-ISO images, one would not choose a CCD camera.
Leica has chosen for maximum quality with limited ISO, in common with all medium format camera builders. Both systems, however, are close to the limit of their development potential. For further improvement we must look to different sensors. At the moment backlit CMos seems promising. On the other hand the question is whether electronic imaging is not very close to the biological limts of our eye and brain. In that case we have hit the wall of diminishing returns.
And yes, there are comparative tests out there between M9, M8, 5D, D3 etc. They confirm everything I wrote above. The one of most interest to members here is probably the LFI one, which compares exactly these parameters.
I have a puzzled feeling about this obsession with high ISO noise. Of course there are examples where high ISO can be quite beneficial, neccessary even. But the vast majority of images is best taken with ISOs up to 640 and lenses down to 1.4. And to sacrifice quality for the bulk of ones work to the requirements of a few images does not seem to be very rational. If one regularly needs clean and smooth high-ISO images, one would not choose a CCD camera.
Last edited:
Is the LFI review online?
Unfortunately I do not have an M9 to test, but I can say that at low ISOs, the Canon Mark II absolutely destroys the Leica M8 in terms of detail and image quality. I would like to see how the M9 holds up against the Mark II since its sensor is just an upscaled version of the M8.
Unfortunately I do not have an M9 to test, but I can say that at low ISOs, the Canon Mark II absolutely destroys the Leica M8 in terms of detail and image quality. I would like to see how the M9 holds up against the Mark II since its sensor is just an upscaled version of the M8.
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Maybe people expected a glut of bargain M8's to hit the market when the M9 was released but that hasn't really happened IMO. If you can live with the M8's crop factor and slightly limiting high ISO capabilty (compared to the current full frame DSLR's) nothing can match it for the price and I can't see it getting a lot cheaper than where it currently resides.
In spite of making the jump to a D700 for the Nikon's well documented capabilities ... I won't be parting with my M8 in the near future!
In spite of making the jump to a D700 for the Nikon's well documented capabilities ... I won't be parting with my M8 in the near future!
RichC
Well-known
The nonsense is from you...
Have you compared? People have - I have. There simply isn't that much difference, if any. Current sensors give better high-ISO performance (less noise) and large files, and that's about it. For example, let's compare the M9 with the M8: a worthwhile exercise as not only does it rebuff your erroneous statement but also clarifies why a lot of people are hanging on to their M8's.
So, let's list the changes: the M9 has 1 stop less noise, and has 18 MP compared with the M8's 10 MP; the M9 also has a slightly different colour rendition. I use my M8 professionally, so I went to my Leica dealer and spent a while testing the M9. When I got home and carefully examined the files, I decided not to get an M9 because its image quality matched the M8's for all practical purposes. Googling for large images will find full-size samples of M9 and M8 images, so you can confirm this yourself.
First, and importantly, I'm not to say that M9 images don't have advantages over M8 images - but whether these advantages are relevant depends on your needs and preferences.
The following summarises my findings.
1. Full frame. This is a personal preference. I've never used a full-frame 35mm camera (film or digital) in my life, and, to me, the "crop factor" format is normal - I've used a full frame camera on occasion, but I don't like it because it feels unnatural.
2. Better high ISO performance. The M9 has about 1 stop less noise than the M8. This a major impact only at ISO 1250 and higher - below that, noise is either non-existent or is easily removed. If you use high ISOs a lot, this may be of relevance, but I don't often use high ISOs, and the small improvement of 1 stop wouldn't make much difference to me. I'd like less noise, but 1 stop is not worth $7000!
3. Larger files. The M8's 10 MP are all that's needed for most practical purposes - you can make prints of any size from them (whether for exhibitions or for a magazine/book). I've worked in the print/publishing industry for 25 years, so I know what I'm talking about (for an overview of how to print your photo, and how many megapixels you need, see http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica...al-printing-pixels-resolution-resampling.html). For me, the M9's 18 MP would be perfect, as my photo agency requires 50 MB TIFFs (equivalent to an 18 MP ), so I have to resample my M8 files - which works extremely well (tip: buy SizeFixer) but is extra work for me. Yes, the larger M9 file (As an aside, if you printed original and resampled M8 images side by side, you wouldn't see any difference in practice - but photo agencies want maximum theoretical image quality for a typical magazine spread [I have the requirements for my clients - better over-specified files than risk getting poor images].). Another benefit of the M9's larger file size is the ability to crop in tighter.
As an example of how well M8 images hold up in practice, DP Review resampled an M8 image to 17 MP (see http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/LeicaM8/page18.asp). Here's a 100% crop of it compared with one of the latest and best professional cameras, the Canon 1D Mark IV (also from DP Review: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmarkIV/page26.asp). Not a huge difference, is there!? Bear in mind that each of these images would be a little under 1 inch wide if printed, so the only differences you'd see in prints would be down to colour rendition. And remember, this is a resampled M8 file - the original is less than two-thirds the size!
Left: Leica M8 resampled to 17 MP. Right: Canon 1D Mk IV.(Reproduced under the UK's fair usage legislation.)
In summary, the M9's larger file size does not improve the quality of prints but can be useful if you have a contract with a photo agency, or like to make major crops. Of all the changes, this is the one that I want - but, again, it's not worth $7000!
4. Colour rendition and tonality. The M9 handles colour slightly differently to the M8. It's not better - just different. When I was looking at photographs from the M8 and M9 of the same subject, I had no preference - the difference isn't huge, anyway. Shadows seemed less dense in the M9 images, though I couldn't always see any differences between M8 and M9 images: the M9 might thus be treat contrasting differently, but, if so, the difference is slight.
5. Camera features. The M9 has changes, of course, but these aren't numerous - not surprising since the raison d'etre of the Leica M is simplicity - and are more to do with personal preference than image quality. One change does impact image quality: the IR filter - the M9 has one, the M8 doesn't. With the M8, you have to put an IR filter on the lens - which I find inconvenient, and can produce unwanted reflections if you're photographing point lights sources (night shots with car headlamps) and forget to remove the filter. It's not all roses, though: some M9 images look very slightly softer than M8 images, possibly the result of having the IR filter over the filter (this being the reason why Leica didn't use the sensor filter in the M8).
Last edited:
Lens coding is required for wide-angle lenses. I have not coded any of my lenses, do not see the need for 50mm lenses.
I've still been shooting film, mostly for outings. No more lens tests with the RF's if they fit on the M8. The latter is much more accurate for shimming Jupiters and Sonnars. Even shimmed a 90/2 Summicron with it.
I think mine was a bargain. I grabbed it. $2,500 with case, spare battery, filters, all packed like-new with warranty. I still think it is a bargain. If you went my KEH grading, mine was "LN", I would expect an "EX" to go for $1,800.
As far as it being a great backup to an M9 and photographers not wanting to sell it for that amount, of course that makes sense. A working Photographer requires a backup and the aletrnative is a second M9.
As far as image quality: I hate AA filters. I like the M8 as it does not have one. And there is not a DSLR in production that takes a J-3.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Without getting into a better/worse argument which is moot anyway since all these cameras are far beyond the requirements of any photography members of this forum practise,if you see a vast difference between M8/9 files and your Canon 5DII, you are doing something very wrong in processing DNGs.