How good is the M8?

[Cruewell]

I have used an Olympus E-1 since I "went digital" and am now considering buying a Leica M8. This would be my first ever Leica. I am still undecided because I am not sure a Leica is still a Leica in the digital era. I'll explain myself.

While photography was an analogic issue, the quality, precission, excellent materials, care, etc. involved in making a Leica camera seemed to make all the difference in the world. I would always get the same response from Leica users, both regarding cameras and enlargers: amazing, awesome, incredible, try one and you'll never want to use anything else... It was cristal clear a Leica was worth it's price -if you could afford it.

But cameras have turned digital and become much more complex. Now it's not anymore about lens quality alone, there's also the digital sensor involved in creating an image. I see brands like Canon, who have put a huge effort into developing their digital SLRs and the quality of the images produced with their cameras is excellent compared with their competition. Canon is just an example. Their lenses may not be comparable with a Leica equivalent (summicron, elmarit, whatever is best quality) but their CMOS sensors are top notch and yield excellent sharpness, high ISO values with acceptable noise, good colours...

And so I look at the price of the M8 )plus some good lens to get started with) and I can't help but wonder: is its quality worth it like it was in the past? Would I not be getting an excelent camera and lens that will not yield their true potential because of hidden, electronic parts of the camera like the sensor and others I may not even know they exist?

Right before posting this thread I saw Guy Mancuso's pictures taken at ISO 640 as was quite impressed!

[umb]

Originally Posted by Cruewell

Right before posting this thread I saw Guy Mancuso's pictures taken at ISO 640 as was quite impressed!

You cannot judge the quality of a 10MP camera on downsized and compressed JPEG images presented in the web.

[jaapv]

In print? As good as it gets - At ISO 160 it is better than prints from 645 MF IMO. (I'm talking 60x40 at a good professional printing lab)

[pascal_meheut]

It's a dream camera.

[plasticman]

If you come to the Leica forum, where Leica enthusiasts hang-out all day and night, and ask that particular Leica question, you obviously want to buy the camera anyway.

But i guess you can wait around and get even more encouragement for a while, if that's what you need before unlocking the wallet...

[Cruewell]

Originally Posted by umb

You cannot judge the quality of a 10MP camera on downsized and compressed JPEG images presented in the web.

What I did was enlarge and enlarge and enlarge and enlarge some more one of Guy's Photos and compare with one similarly enlarged and covering an area with similar colour from my Olympus E-1 and shot at 400 ISO. I'm not sure if this allows for good comparison, but the M8 image looks way better regarding sharpness and noise. The difference is amazing.

[guy_mancuso]

I know this question gets bounced around all day and night. And everyone wants to know if it really can produce outside of web images and coming from many years in digital the M8 can certainly produce as well if not better than the DMR which i hold as the gold standard in 35mm. So when these questions get asked it is hard to quantify remarks from guys like me , Sean and many other M8 owners that have experience in digital and with many camera's. Simply put for Pro shooters we would not be delivering images to clients if it was not cutting it, I personally am a nightmare with quality issues, my files must be perfect for the advertising work and such. So honestly if i thought for a second it was not going to get the job done than I would not even consider owning it. Now i admit i am a huge Leica fan but only becuase of the quality of file, if it sucked i would own something else and that I can guarntee you of. I may have a place in my heart and soul for Leica but if it was not cutting it it certainly would not be in my bag.

[chrism]

Look through this thread for some really nice examples of the M8 files. There's a lot in the Photo forums too. The other question you have to answer is whether you will get on with a rangefinder after using an SLR.

Chris

[Cruewell]

Originally Posted by plasticman

If you come to the Leica forum, where Leica enthusiasts hang-out all day and night, and ask that particular Leica question, you obviously want to buy the camera anyway.

But i guess you can wait around and get even more encouragement for a while, if that's what you need before unlocking the wallet...

You're allowed to think that, but supposed not to say it! Don't you know sincerity is NOT a virtue anymore?

Seriously, you being Leica enthusiasts also makes you good critics. And I want to know what people with hands-on experience think both about the camera's performance and about it's future. Haven't you people had similar thoughts before buying your M8's? Is this the forum with the wealthiest members, second only to Ferrari Lovers Forum?

In years past, a Leica was an excellent investment for many years, even a second hand one, but now, with digital cameras doubling sensor size every 3 years and technology evolving fast (this leaves us consumers completely in the hands of manufacturers' market strategies), who knows what future awaits the M8.

Imagine Microsoft buying Leica and delivering camera updates (and thus making previous versions obsolete) at the same rate they did so with Windows? Nightmarish, huh? Wait, drop the gun, I'm only joking!!!

Forgive my ignorance, what is a DMR? And a PMA?

I think I will like a rangefinder. I'm trying to add a link to an example of my work -I think it suits the M8 fine- but it's not working; I'll try figure out what I am doing wrong.

[umb]

Originally Posted by Cruewell

What I did was enlarge and enlarge and enlarge and enlarge some more one of Guy's Photos and compare with one similarly enlarged and covering an area with similar colour from my Olympus E-1 and shot at 400 ISO. I'm not sure if this allows for good comparison, but the M8 image looks way better regarding sharpness and noise. The difference is amazing.

The M8 is certainly better than the E-1 which is ... how old? - has only 5MP and a much smaller sensor.

If you compare I think it makes only sense to do this with equipment featuring the latest in technology. Thus speaking, I would also wait for the coming up PMA, their may be some "surprising" jumps in technology from the market leader.

[Bob Ross]

Originally Posted by Cruewell

What I did was enlarge and enlarge and enlarge and enlarge some more one of Guy's Photos and compare with one similarly enlarged and covering an area with similar colour from my Olympus E-1 and shot at 400 ISO. I'm not sure if this allows for good comparison, but the M8 image looks way better regarding sharpness and noise. The difference is amazing.

I have and E-1 and an M8 and my observations are that, yes the noise levels of the M8 are quite a bit better, the tonality is retained, the files can be pushed around the same and the images are natively sharper. Both cameras handle well and compliment each other. The added DOF of the E-1 is good for macro and some tele work and the larger file size and image quality of the M8 is good for large prints. For ultra wide work, I actually prefer the E-1 where I can see the distortion and work with it. The M8 is small, light and straight to the point. The E-1 is probably quieter. It is sort of like a Nikon F2 plus an M6 comparison for size and weight.
Bob

[wparsonsgisnet]

Jose,

First let me issue a disclaimer: I shoot professionally and have been using Leica M's exclusively since 1970. I also have used the Digilux-2 since Feb of 2004.

Now, let me put it this way:

This camera is so good that it will become a REQUIRED device for every professional digital photographer within 2 years.

It will not replace the monster Canon sports photog tools that are visible in the corners of every sporting event on TV, because it's not a reflex camera and therefore can't take 200mm and up lenses.

For everything else, a rangefinder that uses Leica lenses blows away any other combination.

Canon uses a full-size sensor in their pro digicams. Leica cannot do this, so will always give away points for digital noise. Canon gets to have a larger pixel, so the noise will always be lower.

However, Leica's M lenses are so good that it's a trade-off at the higher ISO's. I don't see enough noise in the lower ISO settings (160 thru 640) to give any points to the Canon sensor. BTW, the M8 ISO settings are too conservative. They equilibrate to:
200, 400, 800, 1600, and 3200.

In my opinion, pictures from any camera other than a Leica have a flatness to them. The images I see from Leica lenses, even reflex lenses, are "rounder." This makes them more interesting, visceral, and realistic to my eye.

Run, do not walk, to buy one of these cameras that is a beautiful on the inside as the outside. Why stop there? get two.

You will never regret the purchase.

[umb]

Originally Posted by wparsonsgisnet

This camera is so good that it will become a REQUIRED device for every professional digital photographer within 2 years.

???

Like the M6 has been a REQUIRED device for EVERY professional photog when they where shooting with film? You can't be serious.

[Cruewell]

Originally Posted by chrism

Look through this thread for some really nice examples of the M8 files. There's a lot in the Photo forums too. The other question you have to answer is whether you will get on with a rangefinder after using an SLR.

Chris

So if I befriend Guy I can borrow his M8????

Nice, fresh pictures. I was raised to believe you could not shoot a truck at 75 mph with a Leica rangefinder!! Now my world is crumbling!
Let's see if these links works now... Just wanted to show I think my style is suited for rangefinders...

[umb]

Originally Posted by wparsonsgisnet

In my opinion, pictures from any camera other than a Leica have a flatness to them. The images I see from Leica lenses, even reflex lenses, are "rounder." This makes them more interesting, visceral, and realistic to my eye.

Almost 3-dimensional, yes. You'lI usually feel tempted to walk around the picture to see how a subject photographed with LEICA looks from behind.

The only thing I'm asking myself is how the vast majority of all professional photogs not using these super-cams can live with such a handicap. Poor guys!

[wparsonsgisnet]

Originally Posted by umb

???

Like the M6 has been a REQUIRED device for EVERY professional photog when they where shooting with film? You can't be serious.

The ability of the M8 to produce a 40-inch print is a little different from that of the film M's. This particular camera can produce tremendous detail. So much so, that it is set apart from film cameras.

So, I am serious. I am trying to figure out how to finance a second one.

Have you used one?

[wparsonsgisnet]

Originally Posted by umb

Almost 3-dimensional, yes. You'lI usually feel tempted to walk around the picture to see how a subject photographed with LEICA looks from behind.

The only thing I'm asking myself is how the vast majority of all professional photogs not using these super-cams can live with such a handicap. Poor guys!

Are you not saying the same thing that I am? That this camera will become required for pro's?

Originally Posted by wparsonsgisnet

This camera is so good that it will become a REQUIRED device for every professional digital photographer within 2 years.

If the photographer isn´t choosen by his creativity but by the equipment he owns, the client will always prefer a 39MP 36x48mm medium format back over a 10MP 18x27mm sensor.

So if you want to convince by telling "I have the best of the best" better buy the Hasselblad H3D39!

[Eoin]

If one is to put this into perspective putting down €4K for a camera body and between €2K-€3K for each lens, the reality is the gamble with the body. The other 60-70% of the outlay is reasonably safe in the glass which can be used with film M's or sold on.

So for €4K you get a 10MP 1.33X crop body with very basic heavy centre weighted metering with AV or Manual modes. No bells or whistles. But believe me I don't know if it's solely the lenses or the CCD sensor but the images are outstanding.

All rational thinking would suggest that such a large outlay of cash that the offerings from other camera manufacturers in this price bracket deliver better functionality and equal quality. From experience they are tools for a more hetic photography situation or style, while leica on the other hand can handle the hectic but forces a slightly more considered refined style.

I used to labour in my love of photography but now it's a labour of love, if you understand what I mean.

[bsmith]

Originally Posted by wparsonsgisnet

This camera is so good that it will become a REQUIRED device for every professional digital photographer within 2 years.
For everything else, a rangefinder that uses Leica lenses blows away any other combination.
.

Let's not get carried away. The M8 produces a really good file, and the M lenses are superb, and there are certainly many "rangerfinder" shooting advantages. But that said, a Canon 1Ds mk2 with Canon's prime lenses out performs it in MOST "commercial", "photo shoot" situations. The Canon 35mm 1.4, 50 1.2, 85 1.2, 135 2.0 are outstanding lenses. The full frame 17mp sensor with these lenses simply capture considerably more detail. Period.
Try shooting a "studio lit" group photo with a M8 and a 1Ds side by side at ISO 160. The Canon image CLEARY has more detail because the the sensor is very good AND it's17mp. I love my M8 and will probably buy a second one for travel and "rangefinder" shooting situations. But when it comes to producing the best quality commercial work to feed my family, I'll always grab the 1Ds. The M8 is a lot of fun and a really good 10 mp, but it doesn't "blow away" all competition. Let's hope the next digital M is a 20 mp.