M8 debunking the theory of the M line

[guy_mancuso]

Wow interesting title, what does it mean. From the beginning of the M line ( i am new to the M but i watched it for years) it had a feeling that it was destined to be the stealth reportage camera that is small , lean and quiet to capture certain types of photography. Street work, journalist , wedding guys and so on but it was always the low light camera that no one dared put a flash on it never mind use a tripod. From the film days it was Black and white photography that the film was pushed , pulled and shreded to create artistic images ala the HCB era and it has been very successfull at that and also had some of the best glass the world made. That theory continues on with the new M8 or at least that was the intention from leica was to make a digital film m. they did and basically it followed the tradition of the film Line , hence it kept the M title.

Now as this camera was on the rumor boards and announcements made many of us thought this would continue to be the reportage camera that we know of the M. We and i include myself here thought great a digital M to do event work , PR stuff and wedding work that these camera's have been known for. This was my thought also i can get two of these and let the DMR do other duty like the commercial work and use these at higher ISO an do the other stuff. Flash forward

Okay now apparently 15000 people have these in there hands and as we get through some of the issues the noise is pretty darn good for most folks work some out there maybe better and some a lot worse and if we left it right there , It did the job leica designed it do be a digital film camera that can handle higer ISO for available light work.

STOP now put everything i just said and put it over in the corner on the table and leave all thoughts of this as a reportage camera just forget it exist.


Let's debunk that thoery of a reportage camera.

Now what we did NOT count on. Did anyone think this would be extremely sharp and carry micro contrast like no ones business and that it maybe good for god forbid something BESIDES a reportage camera. Did anyone think it would have the exposure range that is in the same park as the DMR and closely coming into the MF digital world. remember these are small MF backs inside the body. CCD no AA filter , Kodak sensors like the Phase One backs. Did anyone think the color, contrast and saturation of the lenses with a digital sensor would start to look like Kodachrome. BIG question did anyone stop and think this could be something besides a reportage camera. I DID NOT EITHER, BUT I DO NOW.

Ernest just rolled over and said oh shit. What have we done. well i will tell you . You gave us something different that was not expected. I can take this camera and do work with strobes and colored gells and produce images like i do with my DMR and probably better. We could actually use this to make 30 x40 inch prints. We can use this at low ISO and high ISO with or without flash. I can actually put it on a tripod and use a on camera flash. Pause okay i will wait from the fainting spell you all just had.

I sit here today and listen to all this high ISO crap and say who cares this thing can actually do something that it was NOT designed to do. Now should i be checking myself in to the guys in the white jackets or did i strike a different thought pattern. I don't know but i do know one thing it just ain't a reportage camera anymore ( bad English and all).

Something to Ponder

[Jamie Roberts]

Guy, you hit what I've been thinking on the head.

I think the high ISO performance really will be ok once the hardware is fixed and I can blow out highlights to get a good exposure in the midtones. My night street shots / moonlit shots have shown this. Is it as good as the 1ds2 at 3200? No... but it's not nearly unprintable or anything...

That's really the only "anti-reportage thing" but honestly you still need light Noctilux, here I come!

But your whole thread is begging the question. If I ever get through my printing backlog, I have four or five studio assignments over the next few months that are all going to be M8. Not DMR. Heck--by then I might even have filters!!

Interesting, no?

The M8 just punches wayyy beyond its weight, in my books. It's actually better for wide ranging light than the DMR--and I love my DMR.

So now I've got two dSLRS left... the DMR and the 5d.... and I bet both of them become more and more "special purpose" for me. Not to mention the M8 goes with me pretty much everywhere, too. That I really like.

[Francisco Massanet]

Guy: I'm already 69 (a retired man) and come from Spain. It's for me a huge pity not to master English to be able to express my thoughts with english manners, but I'll try it.

Happies 60s, 70s, 80s, and so on.

My father bought me my first M3 when I was fourteen. I had to convince him with my best arguments. Since then I have never abandoned my dear Leicas.

But until now with my silver M8, as you say, I coud'nt be able to discover what Leica lenses are capable to fix in an image.

I agree with the most of your messages. Thank you for your contribution.

Bye, Francisco.

[squiff]

wow-ive clearly finally found a thread written and contributed to by people who actually own the m8. i own one and am thrilled, beyond expectations by this machine. i've only really seen the ir thing a few times cause i dont shoot much indoor mixed lighting stuff. with my other leicas i shot mostly bnw. regarding high iso...the first day i had the m8 i went out to the vegas strip and shot at 640 iso. i realized i had only shot one roll of film in 20 years that was over iso 400. 1 roll of 1600, hated it never did it again. I was an apx100 velvia50 guy mostly and thereabouts. when i hear complaining bout high noise high iso shots from folks who dont even have an m8 yet it makes me want to explode.i would never think of iso 640 in film, now i dont hesitate-looks fantastic, especially bnw. what happened to my dear diversion the leica forum? so much whinging. im lovin this machine.

[j. borger]

FRom the first day i had the impression the M8 attracts more people from DSLR line-ups than from film M's ...... why?? .. superb quality in a small package!!
Hardcore film M users are too conservative a crowd to make the M8 profitable ... They stick to 10-20 year old M cameras and pre-asph lensdesigns .... Leica knew that all along.
That's why they went beyond the obvious with the design... knowing they had to come up with a camera that rivals or surpasses high end dslrs in the imagequality department... what other reasons would there be to justify lens-prices that are double the price of Canon/Nikon top-line.

By attracting these other/ new customers it's only obvious there is a shift in usage of the camera beyond the traditional reportage ..... i still remember a lot of people laughing when the M8 specifications came out and they read it had the ability to shoot studiowork directly coupled to the computer .... not that strange a choice after all.

For high iso performance .. ...i use the M8 routinuously at Iso 1250 and even 2500 for B&W because the files look less 'clean' and for some applications better that way.
It is indeed like Sean pointed out in one of his early reviews: MF look at lower iso & 35mm look at higher iso.

[abrewer]

Originally Posted by j. borger

FRom the first day i had the impression the M8 attracts more people from DSLR line-ups than from film M's ...... why?? .. superb quality in a small package!!
Hardcore film M users are too conservative a crowd to make the M8 profitable ... They stick to 10-20 year old M cameras and pre-asph lensdesigns .... Leica knew that all along.

Ouch!



Thanks.

Allan

[rob_x2004]

Ehhhhhh..I need a synopsis.

[Eoin]

I find you can get acceptable results with high ISO's

ISO 2500

[adan]

More or less how I've worked all along - or at least for the past 6 years (counting the year of Contax G). For me, RFs were simply a more compact way to handle any lens from 21-135, and SLRs were for the times that that range was insufficient or I needed closer focusing (which was rarely).

If anything, the M8 is opening up low-light opportunities for me because I'd quit using film above 100 ISO for the most part, and now I have comparable quality up to 320, and close-to-comparable quality up to 1250 (so long as I'm careful with exposure and lighting).

I'm ready to start doing news/documentary again, as well as the low-ISO travel work I've been doing for a decade.

1250 DNG color with the 15mm....

[erl]

Originally Posted by rob_x2004

Ehhhhhh..I need a synopsis.

Rob, a synopsis won't help. You need an M8, mate!

They are bloody marvelous. Mine goes back to Germany tomorrow. Sob!! But it will return, even better. I just can't believe the fabulous files, wonderful tones, etc. Just beginning to get the feel of it and it has go back to the Fatherland, all for the better.

Xmas without my M8 --- yikes.

Cheers,
Erl

[rob_x2004]

Stiff cheese on having to send the M8 back to the Fuh...Fath.......Germany. Yea I worked out a while ago it would be a pretty good sort of camera, even if it is manufactured by a bunch of...well, anyway when hasnt that been the case?

Merlin eating Christmas beetles? Cills and Pris are scoffing thirty or forty every night. I figure it a better option than having another one get inside my ear at five past two AM. Moon balls Erl, you got to get one or two for Merlin? Great stuff. Late night play time.

Have a great night Erl.

[tom0511]

Guy,
dont have my M8 yet but actually I expected and hoped for the positive things you described (microdetail, sharpness,...)
Otherwise I could have just stayed with my rd1

[Peter Branch]

At last a thread that gets to the root of why the Leica M is an unrivalled classic and in its latest incarnation deserves to continue that tradition.

Back in 1959 I started with a IIIf and a 50mm f/1.5 Summarit and progressed via a Canon VI T body with a small collection of Leica and Canon lenses to an M5 with a good set of lenses. We think the problems with the first release of M8s are bad but Leica never managed to get the shutter on my M5 to run evenly. I needed a built in exposure meter so progressed via R3 Mot, R4, R6.2, to eventually the joy of using an M6ttl. The point is that for a very wide range of uses the rangefinder was much more than just adequate and in many applications it was superior to the SLR both in terms of the results and the ease of use where size, weight and noise are important considerations. OK it’s not much use with lenses longer than 135mm and certainly not really suitable for real close-up work but for everything else it often excels.

I have done a lot of travel photography and other than for specialist wildlife pictures the M takes a lot of beating. The SLR was cheaper and easier to make, certainly as designed and built by Japanese companies, and this is an important factor; most professionals simply did not wish to risk the cost of a Leica whilst working. But there were, and are, serious professional photographers, in for example the fashion and combat zone fields, for whom the M camera was, and is, the first choice.

Now we have the M8 and here I tend to support Ervin Puts with his view that the camera, once one gets used to its characteristics, is a masterpiece with a surprisingly limited number of compromises. Surely the Leica engineers were right to insist on getting the very best from their lenses – they have succeeded beyond the expectations of all those who now own the camera; but perhaps not the armchair critics. The banding problem, for those who have it, will be eradicated and be lost as a footnote in Leica history.

The bigger lesson for Leica is that public offers of compensation, like the reported 30% discount on a lens, which are based on the assumption that the world in commercially homogenous are bound to fail. If it is going to happen it is going to have to be country by country and it will take weeks to sort out the detail.

The IR problem is strange because Leica obviously knew the issues involved and came to the conclusion that it was not nearly as important as it has turned out to be. It was one of the trade offs deliberately and knowingly made to maximise lens performance. Perhaps we will never know the answer to this mystery. I bet they would make the same engineering decisions again but be a bit more careful about their launch publicity. We now all know what the issue is and a proven solution is soon to be available; it is not the end of the world. Those who rant and rave against the cost/performance of filters but seem willing, at least conceptually, to spend very serious amounts of money on the system tend only to annoy me. Councils of perfection are easy, cheap and useless - we have an outstandingly good product being pilloried in some quarters because it is not perfect – crazy!

In the end when all the sound and fury has died down the camera will sell on its merits. It is everything than previous M cameras have been and a whole lot more in addition. I refused a refund and I’m going to enjoy it when it comes back from Solms.

[Riley]

Not real sure about that. Im thinking reportage is pretty well dead anyway. At least the reportage of the people like Rosenthal, Cartier-Bresson or even Robert Capa or Neil Davies. Remember this was at a time when photo magasines were the dominant tool for popular imagery. While these people saw history even made history who now remembers well the speed graphic or null-serie that isn’t into some sort of photographic trivial pursuit. Not that it’s a pursuit not worth having.

A good friend of mine and comrade in arms went pro many years ago, and found himself in Afghanistan way before such things would have seemed interesting. He lived and traveled with Mojha Hadim at a time when the Soviets were lords of Afghanistan.

He was seriously wounded when a single round from long range soviet artillery was guided in from a distant OP killing two others, and had a grueling 28 day extraction across goat tracks and ridges in the most hazardous topography in the world, now likely inhabited by Osama bin Ladin. He lived to tell the tale but only just, his photography was published from his trusty M6 in a national magasine here in Oz.

Do you know who he is by that story, because I really would doubt that. Did anyone know about his M6's, well no, because they no longer publish a photograph in popular press with Capa Leica F:2.8 1/100th.

Having said that, it is clear there is now a road for the Leica M to move on with, for this is evolution not revolution. The transition is complete and the M is now digital, and while the teething of this machine has been with some pain, no less than torture, this seems to be how all great things come. And even in this I somewhat precipitate from the clouds of discussion here and elsewhere in images not yet seen but are sure to come.

From such a step the uncertain future of Leica now begins, for this simple little camera is so very different from the professional crop of cameras now extant, it is the logical road, it is the right road, and I hope they win. As to Leicas strategy and pricing, lets hope thats right too, for there is no mistake that its a dam expensive camera, but aligned with that all the more desirable.

I think that acid test will be this, when one or two of the photographic giants emulate the Leica M and regain there own history in digital rangefinder. If and when it comes, it will be beautiful, it will be expensive and it will be following in the shadow of Leica, just as it has always been.

[osera]

Originally Posted by Francisco Massanet

But until now with my silver M8, as you say, I coud'nt be able to discover what Leica lenses are capable to fix in an image.
.

I think that this is a very good point, Francisco, and I am finding similar for myself. I had used film M's for years, and like using them. But now I have the oppurtunity to explore the lenses more quickly and more thorougly. I can examine the images more closely and with more processing tools than I ever had access to before. And I can observe and participate (to a small degree) more readily in the technical discussions of those more expert.

And so I see myself at the start of a new era (for me) of understanding of what this equipment can do.Not that different than putting digital behind other lenses (Canon, Nikon, Leica R, etc) I suppose, but now with this wonderful M glass!

This is all "just" part of the technical part of photography, but I find that improved technique can improve the way I attempt to express what I am seeing.

Reportage in all its forms was the main "thing" for the M, but I think there were a good number of people doing other artistic imaging with film M's . No idea, though, if it was being used much for your type of commercial work with film, Guy.

[fotografz]

Guy, I'm not going to harp on where we disagree about this camera. Enough on that.

I do agree that the M8 offers more to those who select it as their only camera or as their primary camera. If you don't have other choices, the M8 does an excellent job beyond what we have come to expect from a M Rangefinder.

The 1/8000th max shutter has brought many M lenses out of the dark, especially the Luxes. F/1.0 Nocti or f/1.4 of a 75 is something to see in a sunny scene (as anyone with a Canon 50/1.2L or 85/1.2L can attest). The 1/250th sync. has made it more useable for outdoor fill flash, and some fast action studio applications.

It's a good camera. I like it, and have ordered a second one for my wedding business. If it proves itself as being as reliable as my Canons over the next year, I'll sell off the 5D.

However, nothing Leica makes can replace my rocket sled fast 1DsMKII with IS glass, or the next "earth shaking" iteration of that camera coming soon ... ( just to keep things in perspective : -)

[Francisco Massanet]

I think that many others like me, only "amateurs" for years, can't bear with the speed of the technologie, but our eyes are very used to distinguish the quality, the beauty and many details in the images, even in those of de pros.

Also the envy, jealosy and the need of many "masters" of this world to demostrate that nobody than them can't do anything well done.

Bye, Francisco

[geoffreyg]

Originally Posted by osera

I had used film M's for years, and like using them. But now I have the oppurtunity to explore the lenses more quickly and more thorougly. I can examine the images more closely and with more processing tools than I ever had access to before. And I can observe and participate (to a small degree) more readily in the technical discussions of those more expert.

And so I see myself at the start of a new era (for me) of understanding of what this equipment can do.

Reportage in all its forms was the main "thing" for the M, but I think there were a good number of people doing other artistic imaging with film M's .

Some 30 years ago, I was into photography, and systems. With a full Nikon setup, and all that. I walked into a photo dealer in Europe, traded it all for an M2 and a 35 mm Summicron. That was the only camera I shot with for some 20 years - until medium format work caught my attention.

I gave up on the M2 because of two reasons - with glasses, I got tired of trying to see the composition through a rangefinder. Also, the print output was a bit thorny - contact sheets didn't do the trick, larger prints didn't have the refinement I wanted, and slides (favored way) were sitting on the shelf.

But it had a tremendous advantage for manyyears - with ISO 200 film, you could travel anywhere with it, handhold it in dark interiors (1/8 or 1/15 worked) and have a "one camera for all". Travelling, you could record, reportage if you will, but also art shots because of the wonderful qualities of the lenses.

I'll confess to a love of medium format, with that big screen to compose off of and big negatives. But in a digital world, MF gets too expensive ( for serious amateur) and its still big stuff to haul around.

The DMR has opened up the Leica way once more, with its superb lenses and color rendition. Its like an old friend, refound, where you get amazing things from it.

The M8 suggests (promises? delivers?) even more of the same. Imagine getting that quality of the DMR with the portability of an M. And that ease of focus, easy handheld shots....It seems a bit unnatural, even. Can such a small thing give such quality?

Well, for many years the M2 did just that. In a new world, the M8 seems like it is just the ticket. I don't think its reportage, or any of the things exactly as we used to do - except it kind of is. It takes that edge, which we used to explore with the M - to get the moment, in the world, out and about, and capture it well - and allows us to go further.

Now we can go deeper into those moments - into what was once impossible. Finding quality images where the light was not enough, or where we used to find unacceptable image trade-offs of portability, low light, conspicuousness, etc. We are able to go where we couldn't go before.

What this gives us is a new avenue, no, maybe its just an older avenue rediscovered and rebuilt. It won't replace the DSLR's and their speedy autofocus and huge lenses. But it will (for those of us interested) get us out and about, and help us find new images again in places we thought we had already plumbed.

Imagine, handheld work, small camera, and this quality.

For that, a hearty thank you.

Now for that eyeglass problem....

Geoff

[ddp]

Guy - interesting perspective. Although I will say that for myself, I've never seen the M line as being limited to reportage. I use them for both personal & professional work (when clients have no qualms with or want film) - now some of my style when shooting event work is closer to photojournalist than event guy, but I've used the M's with flash and studio strobes.

What I can certainly see here with the M8, is a digital camera that gives long time M users the ability to go head to head with the big boys. To many, the DMR wasn't an option as some M folks simply don't shoot with SLR's. The M lenses are simply amazing...as if I have to even state this. So why not use it for studio & commercial work? Outside of being able to handle what a DSLR with a 400mm 2.8 can do at a soccer game, the M system is quite capable.

I'm looking forward to seeing what you can get out of it Guy from a commercial standpoint, in additon to what Marc can get out of it for wedding work.....

[guy_mancuso]

Geoff and Dan, you guys hit on exactly what my thoughts are. Marc no question on the MF stuff also , i need one and i know it . But what i am finding is the M8 has more to it than meets the eye and that is something that we may not have thought about. This is what is exciting me is i can actually shoot something that once was ruled by the DSLR . Now certainly it has it's limitations but the micro contrast and sharpness that i am seeing in the files is just amazing. i look at my 30 inch display and what how the ...... this camera can produce these images when I don't see this kind of quality coming out of the DSLR's. I mean i love my DMR and the 180 F2 can't be touched and the R lenses are wonderful but the thought of a lightweight , small package is exciting. I'm at the airport heading for Yosemite for the weekend with other shooters and normally i would have a roller bag and a Domke stuffed in my lugage just to get there. Today i have a Artisian bag no bigger than a small Domke with 2 M8's and 7 lenses or 8 lost count. But the cool part is the files will match or exceed the DMR. Now that just gives me a ................. can't say that but you know what i am saying. this is flat out exciting to me. I will start a thread as 5 of us get going shooting different gear and doing some comparisions .