urban_alchemist
Well-known
I think this is exactly the right thing to do - this coming from someone who owns an (upgraded) M8 and doesn't use it.
Why? Because, all its foibles aside, the M8 simply has no answer for avialable light to a fast lense (f2.0 is good enough, but f1.4/f1.0 is better) and a roll of pushed Fuji Pro800Z or Neopan 1600.
You may find that you cannot shoot quite as low-speed with a CL as with a film M due to its focal-plane (rather than cloth) shutter, but you will be able to use the glass as it is intended - without the infuriating 1.3x crop, and the £1500-£2000 difference between a CL and M8 will pay for alot of process and scan.
To give you an idea...
M8, 1250ISO, 35mm/f1.4 Summilux:
Or...
MP, Neopan 1600, 50mm/f1.0
blondie1
Member
Steve Ash
Established
In my point of view the "test" is outdated and not worth to read. Kamber did not know the camera and was not interested to do so. For example he complained about the access to the battery and sd-cards. With his former film cameras he was limited to 36 pictures until film change. With my 8GB SD-card I can shoot about 700 pictures until I need to access the SD-card and battery. The firmware has been updated in the meantime etc...
Only believe the test that you did yourself. That is my best advice.
Regards
Steve
Last edited:
blondie1
Member
Well, I am a professional photographer too, who worked for two years with the M8.( Before that 15 years with analogue M's) And I can surely endorse the test. Yes, the M8 has poor results from 640 ISO and higher. Yes, the processor is absolutely too slow. Indeed, one cannot trust the color balance, and yes, the jpeg quality is very bad. It is still all the same with the M8-2. Considering the price and comparing to other camera's, one can say that the M8 is a total failure, and in most professional situations not usable Greetings, Blondie.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
One of the biggest problem with the original M8 is the deplorable framing accuracy of the framelines. Even by rangefinder standards they are off by a mile. This has been fixed in the M8.2. They are now as accurate as what we know from an M4. The only problem is that Leica will sodomize you to the tune of $1200-1500 to upgrade the M8 framelines to the M8.2 spec and that still won't get you the quieter shutter.
You will also need IR filters for all of your lenses, if you want to shoot color. Without the filters synthetic materials will have a magenta cast.
It's a nice quirky camera, but needs commitment. Don't expect performance on par with something like a D700. It's also hideously overpriced and I would feel very nervous about carrying around a digital camera worth thousands of dollars that wasn't weathersealed.
I second the recommendation to play with it in person, before buying.
You will also need IR filters for all of your lenses, if you want to shoot color. Without the filters synthetic materials will have a magenta cast.
It's a nice quirky camera, but needs commitment. Don't expect performance on par with something like a D700. It's also hideously overpriced and I would feel very nervous about carrying around a digital camera worth thousands of dollars that wasn't weathersealed.
I second the recommendation to play with it in person, before buying.
Last edited:
ruslan
Established
I have Canon 1DsIII, 1DII and 5D, have M8 about three month and very happy, it has very good IQ even at 2500iso, RAW file is very flexible, I found I'm working with M8 more and more, yes, not so fast like Canon's, but for rangefinder you no need it, small pro camera, I recommend to buy original M8 and Summicron-c 40mm, file off little bit bayonet mount to bring 35 frame (100% accurate), and it will be perfect for every day combo for professional work.
blondie1
Member
I fear that you cannot expose that well. 2500 ISO very good? Even 1250 is already bad. No, Ruslan, professionals don't want a M8. Too slow and too inaccurate. Plus the ISO results. I used it in several situations. Day by day. And this is unfortunately the conclusion. I write it with pain in the hart, because I used the analogue M system for more than 15 years. Those camera's were super. The M8 is a failure. Regards, Blondie.
blondie1
Member
Yeah, is'nt that a shame? LEICA blundered with the IR problem, and, after denying it first,let the customers pay for it. The second blunder was the frame line. Why was it changed? Could´nt they see that it was inaccurate? And now they let you pay for it also. It will go on and on.
Steve Ash
Established
It is obvious that it is not Blondie1's favourite. 
Search on this side for Iso 2500 examples if you like to judge yourself for high iso performance. Or search for m8 on flickr. It is true that the M8 needs well exposure for high iso and does not heavily process the high iso files like others. Thus if you really need iso 2500 you postprocess the files yourself. For available light I never need iso 2500 due to my fast lenses. Nevertheless, I love iso 2500 for black and white straight out of the camera sometimes.
I you are interested in professional M8 portfolios then have a look at, e.g.:
http://www.rinze.com/
another one that I like:
http://www.parabolique.co.uk/folio1_4.htm
Regards
Steve
PS: As I said, it is best to test the camera yourself. It has to suit your needs.
Search on this side for Iso 2500 examples if you like to judge yourself for high iso performance. Or search for m8 on flickr. It is true that the M8 needs well exposure for high iso and does not heavily process the high iso files like others. Thus if you really need iso 2500 you postprocess the files yourself. For available light I never need iso 2500 due to my fast lenses. Nevertheless, I love iso 2500 for black and white straight out of the camera sometimes.
I you are interested in professional M8 portfolios then have a look at, e.g.:
http://www.rinze.com/
another one that I like:
http://www.parabolique.co.uk/folio1_4.htm
Regards
Steve
PS: As I said, it is best to test the camera yourself. It has to suit your needs.
J. Borger
Well-known
Hi Blondie,
Reading your rants i thought i was reading posts from 2 years ago.... we have been through all of this at infinitum.
In the mean time there are lots of pros and non pros enjoying the M8 and m8.2 ........ do you think they are all stupid?
The M8 obvious does not suit you.... so be it ..... just take another camera and enjoy
Reading your rants i thought i was reading posts from 2 years ago.... we have been through all of this at infinitum.
In the mean time there are lots of pros and non pros enjoying the M8 and m8.2 ........ do you think they are all stupid?
The M8 obvious does not suit you.... so be it ..... just take another camera and enjoy
kevin m
Veteran
Usually for their own "personal use," and therein lies the problem for Leica.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Well, in theory and from an engineering standpoint the original framelines are correct. They just don't work in the real world.
The problem is that they are only accurate at the closest focusing distance. If you're subject is 3 meters away you're out of luck. At infinity you are REALLY out of luck. 90% of pictures are probably not taken at a distance of 70cm. So, you need to fudge them a little from what the math says they should be. Then they are accurate.
But good luck trying to explain that to an engineer, a German engineer none the less ;-). But apparently Leica was pummeled for this by pretty much anyone they gave a test camera to. So, they changed it.
But it's going to cost you.
J. Borger
Well-known
So they spent Euro 4000, body alone, on a lemon, not suited for professional work, having access to all that great superiour other cameras on their shelfs? For what reason??
Kevin, this was also the case with Film M's ..... let's face it with or without IR filters .. an M simply is not the best or most obvious choice for a lot of professional (and even personal!) work .. but this has nothing to do with the flaws in the M8... and will not change with a flawless full frame 21MP clean Iso 6400 Leica M9.
Leighgion
Bovine Overseer
The same reason classic car enthusiasts sink thousands and thousands of dollars/euros into cars that don't work, then spend even more thousands and countless hours of their time restoring said cars even if in the end, they often almost never get driven because they're not as practical and comfortable as modern, less classic cars?
Emotional attachment easily drives people to burn every scrap of spare income and time they have on machines. Whether or not they work well, work at all or can be made to work is often completely beside the point.
To the original poster, it sounds to me like it's not so much rangefinders you're attracted to as pocketability.
J. Borger
Well-known
If this is seriously how you think about it i can only conclude that you probably do not know how much fun it is to drive and own classic car .......
kevin m
Veteran
Nope, it wasn't. I knew of many wedding photographers who shot with film M's - including some of the best in the business - I know ZERO who shoot with the M8.
The film M had exactly two real limitations for wedding work relative to film SLR's: 1/50th flash sync and no autofocus, and the second one was debatable. The M8 has so many quirks and limitations relative to any decent DSLR that, well, it's not being used at all!
aizan
Veteran
buy an m8 if you want to shoot digital with a rangefinder. end of discussion.
J. Borger
Well-known
Well i know a couple who actualy use M8's for weddings ------
I will not deny a DSLR is far more convenient compared to the M8.
Most wedding photographers i know dumped their Hasselblad/ Contax MF kits for a DSLR ------and not even the Nikon/ Canon top-line...........
This says more about the state the professional weddingphotography business is in than about the quality of cameras if you ask me......
And perhaps also about the bad taste of most customers who are happy with a DVD and a couple of lousy prints
Last edited:
blondie1
Member
If it is my favorite or not does not matter. Fact is that the camera has too many shortcomings. And always there are people in the forums who say that on the point of ISO the camera is great or good enough, while professionals know better. No Steve, it is nonsense. 2500 is very bad. 1250 is bad. But perhaps you are exposing in a certain way...
The portfolio's don't prove a thing. With professional I meant press photographers. They do not and will not use the M8. Every day I am in the middle of press people and there is really nobody using it. Some tried it a few days and brought it back. For reasons I gave and the Iraq test gave. Regards, Blondie.
The portfolio's don't prove a thing. With professional I meant press photographers. They do not and will not use the M8. Every day I am in the middle of press people and there is really nobody using it. Some tried it a few days and brought it back. For reasons I gave and the Iraq test gave. Regards, Blondie.
It is obvious that it is not Blondie1's favourite.
If you are interested in professional M8 portfolios then have a look at, e.g.:
http://www.rinze.com/
another one that I like:
http://www.parabolique.co.uk/folio1_4.htm
Regards
Steve
PS: As I said, it is best to test the camera yourself. It has to suit your needs.
blondie1
Member
That's right! Also press photographers and documentary photographers used the M. Now the M8 is indeed not being used at all.