JPSuisse
Well-known
Hi there all you RFFers!
I'm inclined to think of it like this:
Lens-centrically: On my M8, I'm using a 50 Lux ASPH and a 28 Chron ASPH. On my MP, I've got a 35 Lux ASPH and 75 Chron ASPH. Either way, I don't have 1.4 option either long or short for my preferred walk around focal lengths.
Egronomically: the filters a pain on the M8, if you start swapping between film and digital. Forget, and you screw up important pictures.
Quality: yeah, the M9 files look a little less clinical.
--> I'm keeping my M8 a little while longer, as I can tolerate the inconvenience for the extra $$ it would cost!
--> If I weren't using film, I probably wouldn't even think about the M9 given thet fact that I already have an M8.
JP
I'm inclined to think of it like this:
Lens-centrically: On my M8, I'm using a 50 Lux ASPH and a 28 Chron ASPH. On my MP, I've got a 35 Lux ASPH and 75 Chron ASPH. Either way, I don't have 1.4 option either long or short for my preferred walk around focal lengths.
Egronomically: the filters a pain on the M8, if you start swapping between film and digital. Forget, and you screw up important pictures.
Quality: yeah, the M9 files look a little less clinical.
--> I'm keeping my M8 a little while longer, as I can tolerate the inconvenience for the extra $$ it would cost!
--> If I weren't using film, I probably wouldn't even think about the M9 given thet fact that I already have an M8.
JP
Last edited:
Clancycoop
Established
I bought my M8 for $1,900. It works perfectly, came with boxes and paperwork and is in great condition. Keep looking, they are out there!
eleskin
Well-known
$1,900 a rational price for any digital M!!!
$1,900 a rational price for any digital M!!!
Now we are talking! $1,900 makes sense, especially for the M8. I still see some mint examples for over 4K, and I keep thinking why should I blow 4k on another M8 when for 3K more, I can have the M9. 4K is a waste of money. $1,900 is a much more realistic price. I expect the M8 to settle down to between $1,500 and $2000 and stay there for a long time as it has for the M6 etc,,,.
$1,900 a rational price for any digital M!!!
Now we are talking! $1,900 makes sense, especially for the M8. I still see some mint examples for over 4K, and I keep thinking why should I blow 4k on another M8 when for 3K more, I can have the M9. 4K is a waste of money. $1,900 is a much more realistic price. I expect the M8 to settle down to between $1,500 and $2000 and stay there for a long time as it has for the M6 etc,,,.
Symeon
Established
anu L ogy
Well-known
Yeah, I got a kick out of Ken Rockwell saying that too. I dont own an M9 and probably never will. I really enjoyed the time I spent with my M8.
Ronald M
Veteran
I have had a little experience with the M8 and in my opinion, Leica did a decent job.
I did side by sides with my D200 Nikon at the time and there was no comparison at low ISO outside. Inside the 50 1.4 was the best 50 I ever used and not ever came close.
You have to handle the purple blacks which is no big deal for 99% of my subjects. A problem if you are a wedding guy. I did a color select in Photoshop picking the purples and desaturate. Got blacks with detail.
That camera would meet 99% of my needs. M9 is nicer, but kids need education and other bills need paying first. I was 40 before I got my first Leicas.
I did side by sides with my D200 Nikon at the time and there was no comparison at low ISO outside. Inside the 50 1.4 was the best 50 I ever used and not ever came close.
You have to handle the purple blacks which is no big deal for 99% of my subjects. A problem if you are a wedding guy. I did a color select in Photoshop picking the purples and desaturate. Got blacks with detail.
That camera would meet 99% of my needs. M9 is nicer, but kids need education and other bills need paying first. I was 40 before I got my first Leicas.
eleskin
Well-known
Rockwell is DEAD WRONG!!!!
Rockwell is DEAD WRONG!!!!
For a fool I have taken over 40,000 photos with the M8 and yes, it has made me money. I have many more memories than I would have had if I were still shooting film. The M8 was my first digital camera. So Rockwell is a little off his rocker here. I like reading his articles, but he is DEAD WRONG about the M8!!!!!!
Rockwell is DEAD WRONG!!!!
For a fool I have taken over 40,000 photos with the M8 and yes, it has made me money. I have many more memories than I would have had if I were still shooting film. The M8 was my first digital camera. So Rockwell is a little off his rocker here. I like reading his articles, but he is DEAD WRONG about the M8!!!!!!
Olsen
Well-known
I bought my M8 together with my WATE which is a perfect combination. The crop factor turns this lens into a 21-24-28 with a deeper DOF. Which suits my way of shooting just fine. So, the crop factor don't bother me. The only drawback with the M8 is all the filter hassle. I don't bother using the filters anymore. I use it for street photography. Mostly when I am on business trips, since it is so compact compared to my Canon 1Ds III gear. The latter I use for birds & wildlife and some serious family occasions when multiple flash is needed.
Having two different systems is expensive. My business has been going slow the last two years and we have other capital needs within the household. Like buying a new car for my wife. No, it is not a Aston Martin or a Ferrari. But a modest four door Audi A3.
With the M9 costing 7,000 $ I have to choose between the M9 and the coming 1Ds IV. I can't buy both. At least not new.
Further: I am not at all convinced that a M9 is worth the up-grade for me. It will turn my WATE into an extreme monster. Nor do I think the improvement in ISO performance justifies the 4000 $ up grade. It's like the ISO performance upgrade of the Canon 1Ds II to III, which was close to insignificant.
But I did bid on a 2.hand M9 here in Norway a few months ago which was sold very favourable. But another guy was faster. I am keeping my eyes open for any good offers of 2.hand M9s around.
I will also seriously consider a future M10 if it represents a major upgrade on ISO performance and resolution. The excellent Leica lenses deserves a better camera.
Having two different systems is expensive. My business has been going slow the last two years and we have other capital needs within the household. Like buying a new car for my wife. No, it is not a Aston Martin or a Ferrari. But a modest four door Audi A3.
With the M9 costing 7,000 $ I have to choose between the M9 and the coming 1Ds IV. I can't buy both. At least not new.
Further: I am not at all convinced that a M9 is worth the up-grade for me. It will turn my WATE into an extreme monster. Nor do I think the improvement in ISO performance justifies the 4000 $ up grade. It's like the ISO performance upgrade of the Canon 1Ds II to III, which was close to insignificant.
But I did bid on a 2.hand M9 here in Norway a few months ago which was sold very favourable. But another guy was faster. I am keeping my eyes open for any good offers of 2.hand M9s around.
I will also seriously consider a future M10 if it represents a major upgrade on ISO performance and resolution. The excellent Leica lenses deserves a better camera.
Jeff S
Well-known
I don't quite follow. It seems you do have a 1.4 option as your walk-around lens...the 35 Summilux on your MP, and for longer FOV, the 50 Summilux on your M8. I must be missing your thought.
Also, I'm curious about the lenses you've chosen to put on your 2 cameras. I, too, own a 28, 35, 50 and 75 (the 35 is a Summicron, however), all of which I now use on an M8.2. I've wondered, if I add an M9, or some later iteration, how I would typically allocate the lenses for each body. (I owned film Ms for decades, but never simultaneous with a cropped digital M).
Your process allows for approximately the same FOV on each camera, i.e., the equivalent of a 35 (or 37) and a 75 (or 67). That makes for a nice back-up system, and one which affords different speeds and renderings at similar FOVs.
On the other hand, it doesn't maximize the full range of potential FOVs, e.g., using the 28 on your MP for a wider view, or using the 75 on your M8 for a longer view. Or, for that matter, using a 50mm FOV. Of course, switching lenses is possible, but as you say, might involve the switching of IR/UV filters.
Is the switching of filters your limiting factor, or is it more that the 35/75
FOVs are all you typically want or need? Just curious.
Jeff
JPSuisse
Well-known
Hi Jeff
The 35 and 50 are F1.4; the 28 and 75 are F2. So, neither the M8 nor the MP really gives me F1.4 options in my most used focal lengths. (Also though, I'm scared how heavy and F1.4 75mm might be, if Leica makes one again!!! --> Probably not an option for me!)
The combination of focal lengths that works best for me is just experience. And in 35mm format, the combination is really 35/75. That's not to say that I don't use my Zeiss 21mm often, it's just that a 35 / 75 is what I throw in the bag without thinking, because it really covers most of my needs.
However, the full range of potential can't be maximized with the M8 or MP. The filter problem will effectively prevent you from switching lenses between camera. Either 1.) you're just too damn lazy to do it or 2.) you miss the shot because you're asking yourself, "should I change the filter" and then playing with filters.
Cheers,
JP
PS: Just thinking about it, if I did get a full-frame digital rangefinder right now, I’d probably just put the 50mm on it and use the MP with the 35mm / 75mm combo with an occasional lens switch when I'm shooting both film and digital. But really, for me, the M9 is just too much $$$$$ right now...
The 35 and 50 are F1.4; the 28 and 75 are F2. So, neither the M8 nor the MP really gives me F1.4 options in my most used focal lengths. (Also though, I'm scared how heavy and F1.4 75mm might be, if Leica makes one again!!! --> Probably not an option for me!)
The combination of focal lengths that works best for me is just experience. And in 35mm format, the combination is really 35/75. That's not to say that I don't use my Zeiss 21mm often, it's just that a 35 / 75 is what I throw in the bag without thinking, because it really covers most of my needs.
However, the full range of potential can't be maximized with the M8 or MP. The filter problem will effectively prevent you from switching lenses between camera. Either 1.) you're just too damn lazy to do it or 2.) you miss the shot because you're asking yourself, "should I change the filter" and then playing with filters.
Cheers,
JP
PS: Just thinking about it, if I did get a full-frame digital rangefinder right now, I’d probably just put the 50mm on it and use the MP with the 35mm / 75mm combo with an occasional lens switch when I'm shooting both film and digital. But really, for me, the M9 is just too much $$$$$ right now...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
sfokevin
Established
My M8 far exceeds my abilities as it is!...
And I think a 10 would look so much cooler on the front of the camera...
And I think a 10 would look so much cooler on the front of the camera...
aizan
Veteran
the way i see it, the m8 is still a very suitable digital rangefinder for street photography. it may even be thought of as the most suitable. since it has a smaller, lower res sensor, it doesn't float into medium format territory like the m9 does. the crop throws the lens system out of whack, so i'm inclined to think of it as a fixed lens camera when paired with the 28mm elmarit asph, which makes for a small package of adequate speed and more popular angle of view. it's probably the closest we'll ever get to my 'ideal' dmd.
Jeff S
Well-known
Thanks for the follow-up, JP.
Regarding the above, maybe I'm still being dense. I understand that your most used FOVs are 35 and 75, and that you want a 1.4 option for each. As I said in my earlier post, you have this....by using the 35 Summilux on your MP, and your 50 Summilux on your M8 (ok, 67mm equivalent, not 75, but close).
Maybe your point is that neither camera allows you to have BOTH 35/75 f1.4 capability? If so, then I get it. In that case, if you don't want a 75 1.4 (for use on the MP), then your only choice is to wait for Leica to make a 28 Summilux for your M8.
I get close to this now by using the 28 Summicron asph and 50 Summilux asph on my M8.2. Great combo.
I may even buy a clean used M8.2 for back-up, which would allow for this duo without lens changes. The problem arises, as you say, when 2 formats (crop vs full frame) are involved. The filters are no problem for me, however, as they stay on permanently.
Jeff
Last edited:
barnwulf
Well-known
$$$$$$. I would prefer to use my familiar full frame focal length lenses though and more resolution would be great.