The Thought of The M8

[flyfoxx]

Correct me, if I'm wrong. But isn't the M8 is pretty much like any first generation digital camera? In the sense, its digital technology is in its infancy. Does it stand to reason, that constant change will take place rather quickly and often?

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not lecturing everyone on what to purchase. They are beautiful cameras and I will buy later down the line. I'm merely trying to get a clue, with these early production purchases. 🙂

Your thoughts are welcome.

Kind regards

 

[cmogi10]

Well shit then, maybe they'll take mine back.

 

[flyfoxx]

Well shit then, maybe they'll take mine back.

I mean no offense.

 

[edhohoho]

M8

M8

I tend to think of the M8 as a second generation digital RF, with the first being the R-D1, as there was ample time between the two models to make improvements and further develop technology. Aside from issues related to ergonomics (like the fixed LCD, lack of wind lever, and lack of a grippy feel), it represents significant improvements in terms of larger sensor/smaller crop factor, higher resolution, and higher build and image quality. Digital RFs are in their infancy (hopefully they will continue to flourish), but progress is probably slower due to less of a market and smaller resources for R&D (due to smaller companies in the field like Epson and Leica as compared to Canon and Nikon). Luckily dRFs came at a time when digital camera technology overall was more mature; the M8 and R-D1 are much better cameras than any of the early digitals (P&S and DSLR).

I much prefer the size and handling of a digital RF compared to a DSLR, so for now the M8 is the only current production dRF and thus the only game in town. And it's a good one. If I could afford one, I would get one even though there will be imminent advances in technology and a likely superior successor because it would more than suit my needs right now. Just look at the Canon 5D--groundbreaking in terms of image quality, sensor size, and price point at the time; but now everyone is sweating over the Nikon D3 with its high fps and crazy ISO levels. Actually, since DSLR technology seems to change so quickly, I would almost feel "safer" with a dRF in that the road to obsolescence is perhaps a little longer.

Lastly, I like to think of rangefinder cameras and their users as being "old school" in their very nature--we take our time and extract the best out of existing, proven technology. That's why I chose a dRF as my first digital camera and enjoy RF as a hobby so much.

 

[Johnmcd]

I don't even own an M8. I have a RD-1. But if it fails, then I will definitely buy one as I enjoy RF shooting too much. So I read all I can about the camera.

But I did feel compelled to add my 2 cents...

Edhohoho, it is a pleasure to read your considered response and I'm sure that is what flyfoxx was after.

cmogi10, perhaps it's just the internet and the lack of body language, tone and inflection that sometimes means that something you meant to be light and witty comes over as arrogant and know it all, but let's just say your response did not add anything to the discussion nor (for whatever it may be worth) my impression of what you may have to offer in the future.

As I step down from my soapbox, one word comes to mind - respect. Rant over.

Cheers,

John

PS. Being young ain't no excuse.

 

[Avotius]

Not interested in first and second generation changes unless they have found a way to reinvent the wheel. I am quite interested in a M8 as a "low cost excuse" for why I dont need a 1ds mark2 and a huge chiropractor bill. Frankly its a camera, it takes pictures, the next version hopefully will be better then the first, but the first is already pretty darn good, so why mess around, just go take photos.

 

[retow]

Who cares about generation.

Is there another digital camera, smaller, lighter, less obtrusive, quiter, less expensive, working with better, smaller, lighter lenses and producing better digital files than the M8?

And on the more irrational side, I simply love its looks and feel.

 

[jaapv]

Actually Leica have been consistent in saying that they are aiming for longer production cycles with the M8, and image quality being what it is, it would need a serious step forward in sensor technology to improve in that respect (and that includes a larger sensor). Now a large number of socalled "upgrades" with digital cameras have not been in the sensor and electronic department. For instance the Canon D60-10D-20D-30D-40D are rather similar in sensor technology with only gradual changes, the same goes for the electronics. There has been some improvement, but nothing dramatic.
Most of the change has been to things that would never apply to the Leica M series, like autofocus (seriously better on the newer cameras), body size and shape, etc.
What interviews with Leica spokesmen have implied is that there might be other models besides (most likely positioned under) the M8.
So the chance of an M8 becoming obsolete overnight are rather slim. And consider this:
If it is a desirable camera, taking the best imaginable photographs now, how could the advent of another one in the future change that? Many of us refuse to give up the Digilux2, despite that being a camera of at least two generations back, as there is still no other camera out there that improves on it in its niche.
And a last thing - how are you going to take that once-in-a-lifetime shot now if you are still waiting for some hypothetical ideal camera in the future?

 

[bluepenguin]

In a digital market, the change is inevitable.

But the question is when and by whom?

Epson made their R-D1 and R-D1s, then discontinued it's production.

R&D overhead is too much to keep changing every year.

 

[jaapv]

Woah. Hang on. Having owned everything from the D30 to the 30D and the 5D's, I can tell you that the change in sensor technology from the D60 to the 30D is tremendous. Incredibly improved.

Hmmm 60D-10D Same sensor, af and other camera-related stuff improved 10D-20D Same sensor, but an increase in pixels,6Mp-8Mp, better electronics, better low-light response,smaller body,better AF, 20D-30D incremental improvement, etc.... The jump form 60D to D40 is of course obvious, but the evolution was gradual....

 

[Ben Z]

Woah. Hang on. Having owned everything from the D30 to the 30D and the 5D's, I can tell you that the change in sensor technology from the D60 to the 30D is tremendous. Incredibly improved.



I ramble on about all of this because I'm curious as to where Leica goes from here. And how long they can command $5,000 for an M6 with rapidly obsolete electronics inside.

I also started with a D30, then to a D60 and finally to a 20D. The improvements were much greater between those three than between the 20D and 40D, which I've just finished comparing and have decided not to upgrade. The 8-10mp jump represents an even less percentage than between 6 and 8, I never use the LCD so I don't care how much bigger it is, the "live view" is something I have zero use for, and the 20D is already tremendously good @ ISO1600 and yet I almost never shoot above 200. I can't speak about the 5D in comparison to the 1.6-crop bodies because it's in a league by itself. My point is that the law of diminishing returns is rapidly applying to digital cameras. Leica might improve on the M8 in a number of ways but bottom-line I can't see anyone becoming dissatisfied with its image quality in two years or ten. True there are always those who defer to the numbers, but the human eye is in reality the limiting factor.

 

[jaapv]

That is about par for the course, Ben. I started with the D30, went to 10D, decided the 20D was not worth it and I might have gone for the 40D, were it not for Leica's digital awakening. I agree, the limit is biological, i.e. the human eye, not technical any more.
The only fields that might show some improvement are dynamic range and high-iso noise. But how are we going to express higher dynamic ranges in print and who is going to take a 25.000 ISO noiseless shot using a Noctilux wide open? Diminishing returns indeed. Fortunately we are back where photgraphy started out : Lenses rule the roost.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Well... I started thinking about the M8 after I saw lots of samples about. Now, I decided to hold out my purchase in favor of a Nikon D3...

Also, considering my recent experiences, I'm not in a particular rush. Just this week I purchased a camera that usually sells for upwards of $300 for only $75. It's a digital... and I'm very interested on it. Will it replace my Leicas and Nikons? Doubt it... but we'll see.

That's for the M8 on my side. Just wait and we'll get them for very little, when film becomes unreasonable to use... and that won't happen soon! 🙂

 

[kbg32]

I think Leica would have been well served if they didn't use a Kodak sensor, which has always been plagued with problems, mostly in issues of the algorithyms. The only other choice would have been a Sony sensor, who btw, supply sensors to most camera manufacturers out there including Nikon. I believe Leica's commitment to the survival of the M8 and to the company, hinges on them upgrading the firmware for the M8 periodically until they decide that another model is warranted. Since its introduction the firmware for the M8 has been upgraded at least 3 times and more upgrades are on the way.

 

[jaapv]

Well... I started thinking about the M8 after I saw lots of samples about. Now, I decided to hold out my purchase in favor of a Nikon D3...

Also, considering my recent experiences, I'm not in a particular rush. Just this week I purchased a camera that usually sells for upwards of $300 for only $75. It's a digital... and I'm very interested on it. Will it replace my Leicas and Nikons? Doubt it... but we'll see.

That's for the M8 on my side. Just wait and we'll get them for very little, when film becomes unreasonable to use... and that won't happen soon! 🙂

Well, if you switch from RF to SLR that easily, maybe the M8 concept was not for you anyway.....

 

[Olsen]

I tend to think of the M8 as a second generation digital RF, with the first being the R-D1, as there was ample time between the two models to make improvements and further develop technology. Aside from issues related to ergonomics (like the fixed LCD, lack of wind lever, and lack of a grippy feel), it represents significant improvements in terms of larger sensor/smaller crop factor, higher resolution, and higher build and image quality. Digital RFs are in their infancy (hopefully they will continue to flourish), but progress is probably slower due to less of a market and smaller resources for R&D (due to smaller companies in the field like Epson and Leica as compared to Canon and Nikon). Luckily dRFs came at a time when digital camera technology overall was more mature; the M8 and R-D1 are much better cameras than any of the early digitals (P&S and DSLR).

I much prefer the size and handling of a digital RF compared to a DSLR, so for now the M8 is the only current production dRF and thus the only game in town. And it's a good one. If I could afford one, I would get one even though there will be imminent advances in technology and a likely superior successor because it would more than suit my needs right now. Just look at the Canon 5D--groundbreaking in terms of image quality, sensor size, and price point at the time; but now everyone is sweating over the Nikon D3 with its high fps and crazy ISO levels. Actually, since DSLR technology seems to change so quickly, I would almost feel "safer" with a dRF in that the road to obsolescence is perhaps a little longer.

Lastly, I like to think of rangefinder cameras and their users as being "old school" in their very nature--we take our time and extract the best out of existing, proven technology. That's why I chose a dRF as my first digital camera and enjoy RF as a hobby so much.

This is very well put.

Except for the Nikon D3 stuff. With this Nikon has launched a camera pritty equal to Canon's 1Ds, launched 5 years ago (Well, the D3 just might be a little better, but 5 years have passed). Add to this that Canon combs home 80% of the profit of all the camera producers of the world. That shows that the paradigm shift of the camera business, 'going digital', has been a catastrophe for most camera producers. Except for Canon.

I have both a M8 and a 1Ds II. The difference in picture quality is small with the exception of the file size. Further, the 1Ds II is more advanced with several exposure modes and AF. But for an experienced amateur photographer, an enthusiast, really, this difference means little. But the M8 is far more descrete, small and compact.

The M8 offers real advantages in situations when I shot a picture of Ron Wood of The Rolling Stones at a restaurant here in Oslo, recently. Had I used my 1Ds II I would have had a heap of body guards on top of me instantly.