Some M8 advantages

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Also, the M9 still has no flash sync socket, and also retains that stupid base plate - which further adds to my disinclination to upgrade. I use my Leica M8 for studio work with flash, and I often need to change batteries - which means gingerly removing the camera so as not to disturb the tripod it's mounted on. Both these faults could be addressed very easily without compromising the Leica M form factor whatsoever. Style over function ... sheesh!

Actually both these issues ARE addressable easily enough.

 

Studio flashes can be triggered by a wireless unit operating from the hot shoe - a PC socket would need protective circuitry (as fitted for example to Canon dSLRs) so is not as simple to sort as may be initially though - more circuitry = more space needed.

 

Tripod use is much simplified by using a Kirk dovetail adapter (small and light - I have one on my M8 all the time) and a suitable tripod clamp (Arca, Kirk, RRS, etc.). I've used 'Arca' compatible systems for years on all sorts of cameras and am baffled why anyone still considers a 1/4" Whitworth screw to be a viably usable method to constantly take a camera on and off a tripod head with.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Nicoleica]

- I wasn't aware that the m8's black version was any different than the m8.2 or m9 - can you elaborate?

 

The black M8 uses a black chrome finish, whereas the M8.2 is a black paint finish. The M9 is also a painted finish, but a different process as far as I am aware. I understand that the M8.2 paint finish is not renowned for its ability to remain on the camera. Time will tell how the M9 fares in this respect.

[roydonian]

- the 28 Cron is only one stop slower than the 35 lux. I agree, however, that it would nice to have a 28 lux in leica's lineup.

 

- You stated that you have no operational role for a 70mm noctilux, but also that 70mm is a useful travel lens - in my opinion that makes the noctilux a perfect travel lens for any situation - I could probably get away with bringing a noctilux and one wide to supplement it (the 21 or 24 lux seems perfect in this situation), and have a super low light travel setup. Do you disagree?

 

- There are wider than 28mm lenses available for the m8. The 18mm Super Elmar and the WATE both come in wider than 28mm. Voigtlander has 12 and 15mm lenses, Zeiss has 15 and 18mm lenses. I imagine that the 18mm super elmar would be the closest to the super angulon on the m8 (aperture wise). The voigtlander 15mm heliar would be the closest focal length wise.

 

>the 28 Cron is only one stop slower than the 35 lux. I agree, however, that it would nice to have a 28 lux in leica's lineup

 

Alas, what I have is the 28mm f2.8, so I ‘lost’ two stops. Being semi-retired and having blown part of my retirement fund on an M8.2, I’m not in the market for a replacement 28mm.

 

 

 

>You stated that you have no operational role for a 70mm noctilux, but also that 70mm is a useful travel lens

 

There is no contradiction here

 

“operational role” = working as a journalist

 

“travel lens” = hobby photography

 

 

I’m just back from a week in Venice, my first long travel experience with the M8.2

 

The Noctilux was the only 50mm lens I had with me, but I found that it was being used for its focal length rather than for its speed. It was never used at ‘full bore’, probably because the ability to increase camera sensor speed meant that I was never working in f1 territory. So I’m thinking that for the sort of travel I do, it no longer has a role, so can be sold off. Time will tell.

 

Getting it out of my camera bag when on holiday will cut the weight of my camera bag significantly as will a plan to replace the original 90mm f2 Summicron with a modern lighter-weight equivalent. I love the mechanical feel of the older 90mm, but my ageing muscles don’t like the weight of it.

 

I always used to joke than my eyeballs were 35mm focal length – the f2.8 Summaron was almost a permanent fixture on my M2 in the 1970s in the days before I became a journalist. And when I used a short zoom on my SL2 I used to check after taking a pic to see what focal length I’d used – most of the time it was around the 35mm mark.

 

But on the occasions when I went out in Venice with only the 35mm Summilux on the camera, I rarely found myself wishing for the 28mm.

 

 

 

>in my opinion that makes the noctilux a perfect travel lens for any situation - I could probably get away with bringing a noctilux and one wide to supplement it (the 21 or 24 lux seems perfect in this situation), and have a super low light travel setup. Do you disagree?

 

I seem to recall reading about someone who did a long period of travel armed only with an M fitted with the Noctilux back in the pre-digital days. 21mm is a focal length I’ve used rarely, but when I needed it, I really did need it (for example, when shooting Egyptian temples and pyramids). I often used a tiny Russian f5.6 Russar which added little to the weight of my camera bag.

 

Had I the prospect of working for another decade or more, the 21mm ‘Lux might have been on my shopping list

 

(Some time ago, the Leica CEO dismissed the effects that the cropped sensor has on field of view by saying that all the M8 user has to do is to step back a few paces to compensate. I’d love to have put him in the cramped confines of the turret of a main battle tank or an ancient Egyptian tomb and asked him to demonstrate the trick. Even if he personally could walk through armour plating or stone walls, the filter factor caused by having several inches of steel or limestone in front of his lens might have posed problems.)

 

 

 

>There are wider than 28mm lenses available for the m8.... The voigtlander 15mm heliar would be the closest focal length wise.

 

I’ve thought about that one, but in the short term, my limited funds will probably be devoted to getting a lighter 90mm Summicron.

 

Best regards.

[pgk]

I DO use an Arca-Swiss quick release.

 

My gripe is that I spend several hours setting up still-life shots and also combine multiple shots in layers in post-production that need identical alignment - that's identical not close. Taking the camera off the tripod (well, the top half of the camera!) is not conducive to accurate, reproducible shots.

 

You could argue that the Leica M8 is not, then, the ideal camera for this type of photography.

 

I would say that you have a very specific requirement never envisaged by Leica and for which the M series cameras are not perfectly suited. In the vast majority of tripod mounting requirements an Arc type dovetail on an M and appropriate clamp are more than satisfactory - even if the camera has to have a new battery put in. Personally I see no problems with the baseplate design - it allows access to both battery and SD card without the need for two covers/doors/latching systems and so is a simple and quite elegant solution whilst carrying on a traditional aspect of Leica rangefinder design.

[lct]

....I'll try to stick to as much factual stuff as possible...

I'm sure you've tried. As i said above, there are differences that are matters of facts. The point is not to know if we like them or not in the first place. The point is to stick to facts. Then the reader can decide if they are relevant to him/her or not.

For some people, different DoFs are not relevant for instance. For me they are. For some people, it is acceptable to have to use a big $6K Summilux 21mm to get 28mm FoV at f/2. For me it is not. For some people, the inability of crop RFs to get 21mm FoV at f/2.8 with anything else than a monster lens is not relevant. For me it is.

Now who cares really? Those are just matters of tastes. But, again, facts are facts and our duty here is to state them as accurately as we can.

[Angelos Viskadourakis]

I'm sure you've tried. As i said above, there are differences that are matters of facts. The point is not to know if we like them or not in the first place. The point is to stick to facts. Then the reader can decide if they are relevant to him/her or not.

For some people, different DoFs are not relevant for instance. For me they are. For some people, it is acceptable to have to use a big $6K Summilux 21mm to get 28mm FoV at f/2. For me it is not. For some people, the inability of crop RFs to get 21mm FoV at f/2.8 with anything else than a monster lens is not relevant. For me it is.

Now who cares really? Those are just matters of tastes. But, again, facts are facts and our duty here is to state them as accurately as we can.

 

Most working photographers have the knowledge and experience to work with various formats and various lenses for various results ,for photographers who work with only one format in their entire life i understand that can be annoyed of using a lens that says 28 mm and give them different FOV than the one only they had experience,i have 28mm for medium format,for APS ,for APSC,for 24x36,for 16mm film ,for 35 mm film,for 2/3 broadcast cameras they are all 28 and give various Fov's in various formats,today i shot with a 50mm on my Hasselblad a 45mm on my BRONICA RF,a 50 mm on my CANON 5D they were all 50mm with various FOVS in each format some were big and heavy and some were feather weight,that is life in photography. The principle is FOV is related to the format-for any given focal length- not the focal length itself as a number and is a fact for the last hundred so years of photography and basic physics.:rolleyes:21 lux and 28 cron are wonderfull lenses in all M cameras.For most hand held moving shots of photographer and subject a greater DOF will vastly benefit the capture,after all using Hyperfocal distance and DOF scale was and is the best technique of street photography with M camera,in order to get sharp image by prefocusing ,raise the camera ,shoot.

 

Regarding accuracy.

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Most working photographers have the knowledge and experience to work with various formats and various lenses for various results ,for photographers who work with only one format in their entire life i understand that can be annoyed of using a lens that says 28 mm and give them different FOV than the one only they had experience

 

There are no educational or experience requirements, and no examinations needed to proclaiming oneself a professional photographer, so one really can't accurately generalise to "most working photographers". I know many successful professional photographers who are quite dogmatic and inflexible in their thinking with regard to their equipment. Much of that derives from a fear of straying from what they learnt as apprentices (probably under a dogmatic mentor).

 

That said, LCT makes some irrefutable points. Whilst every so-called "full-frame" FOV save 12mm can be effected by substitution on an M8, if one's needs (or one's straw men ) are exceedingly rigid, a so-called "full frame" Leica M is worth a king's ransom, (and the M9 certainly costs it ). For the rest of us, an M8 will suffice. We should be rejoicing (I know I am) that the M9 has finally arrived, and the whining for a full-frame has finally ceased.

[coup de foudre]

EPSON R D1 cannot compare to M8 as is a completely different class overall.

Of course upgrading from EPSON RD1 to a LEICA M9 will be a socking experience but is absolutely not for a skilled M8 photographer.

 

i haven't even got to end of this thread (been away) but that is absolutely the biggest load of bollocks i have ever heard!!!

 

i own an Epson R-D1 and i own a Leica M8 so you cannot say i don't know what i'm talking about. i use both cameras. i LOVE my R-D1; the same cannot be said for the M8 -- that's more a love/hate relationship.

 

each and every camera has its pros and cons, but to say that the R-D1 is in a different class... you are as full of it as those who are claiming the M9 is so vastly superior to the M8.

 

for the record -- my M8 will be sold in a heartbeat the second i have enough money for the M9... the Epson will have to be pried from cold dead hands.

[lct]

...using Hyperfocal distance and DOF scale was and is the best technique of street photography with M camera,in order to get sharp image by prefocusing ,raise the camera ,shoot....

I've been doing this since my first M4 at least. Was in 1971 if memory serves. Oh no, it was even earlier. I had a beautiful Agfa Silette in my youth and it had DoF markings as well.

Now you agree that the M9 has a shallower DoF than the M8, right? So you agree that this is a difference between them, don't you?

 

[Angelos Viskadourakis]

i haven't even got to end of this thread (been away) but that is absolutely the biggest load of bollocks i have ever heard!!!

 

i own an Epson R-D1 and i own a Leica M8 so you cannot say i don't know what i'm talking about. i use both cameras. i LOVE my R-D1; the same cannot be said for the M8 -- that's more a love/hate relationship.

 

each and every camera has its pros and cons, but to say that the R-D1 is in a different class... you are as full of it as those who are claiming the M9 is so vastly superior to the M8.

 

for the record -- my M8 will be sold in a heartbeat the second i have enough money for the M9... the Epson will have to be pried from cold dead hands.

 

my sympathy.

[Angelos Viskadourakis]

I've been doing this since my first M4 at least. Was in 1971 if memory serves. Oh no, it was even earlier. I had a beautiful Agfa Silette in my youth and it had DoF markings as well.

Now you agree that the M9 has a shallower DoF than the M8, right? So you agree that this is a difference between them, don't you?

 

]

 

what ever you like lct.There is nowhere in the whole forum a single post that says that M9 does not have a shallower DOF compared to M8 as a result of the larger sensor area with the same lens at the same f stop focus at the same distance,on the contrary,that is exactly the point..There are also many other differences ,many pointed out in this and other threads.

 

why ask repeatedly the same??? i thought this thread was about some M8 advantages,for most of my work larger DOF is needed and is most useful ,especially in the street,if you like the opposite

you have a solution but this is not a plus for others is a minus,is a matter of personal style and needs.If i see no advantage i dont right in that thread.Free to start a thread with M8 disadvantages,or a comparison thread,but this is not the one.-as far as i can understand.

 

PS :so far none of Leica products/solutions disappointed me,on the contrary,all my money spent on Leica are well spent and give me great joy.

[MikeMyers]

I think many of read things differently. For example:

 

"EPSON R D1 cannot compare to M8 as is a completely different class overall.

Of course upgrading from EPSON RD1 to a LEICA M9 will be a socking experience but is absolutely not for a skilled M8 photographer."

 

 

I don't know if I'm reading this properly. For example, "socking"???? When I read it, I assumed he meant to type "shocking".

 

I assumed the guy who wrote that just meant the RD1 and the M8 are quite different, and it's difficult to compare them. Having used both, I'd sort of agree.

 

I assumed he meant that it would be more difficult to go from an RD1 (1.5 factor and very different camera controls) to an M9 than for an M8 photographer to change to a M9. I'd certainly agree to that, and I know it would take a while to learn how to go from an M series camera to the RD1.

 

(I dislike the word "upgrade", as that depends more on the person using the camera than the camera itself. One person's "upgrade" might be exactly the opposite to someone else.)

[jamriman]

i haven't even got to end of this thread (been away) but that is absolutely the biggest load of bollocks i have ever heard!!!

 

i own an Epson R-D1 and i own a Leica M8 so you cannot say i don't know what i'm talking about. i use both cameras. i LOVE my R-D1; the same cannot be said for the M8 -- that's more a love/hate relationship.

 

each and every camera has its pros and cons, but to say that the R-D1 is in a different class... you are as full of it as those who are claiming the M9 is so vastly superior to the M8.

 

for the record -- my M8 will be sold in a heartbeat the second i have enough money for the M9... the Epson will have to be pried from cold dead hands.

 

I agree 100%. I also own both.

[lct]

what ever you like lct.There is nowhere in the whole forum a single post that says that M9 does not have a shallower DOF compared to M8 as a result of the larger sensor area with the same lens at the same f stop focus at the same distance,on the contrary,that is exactly the point..There are also many other differences ,many pointed out in this and other threads.

why ask repeatedly the same??? ...

Because some posters here, including you sorry, gave me the feeling to be unable to face facts as they are. I'm happy to see that we can agree on one point finally.

[Angelos Viskadourakis]

Dearest lct i really lost you,more clear and again:Regarding DOF the M9 model recording in a 24X36 sensor has a thiner Dof in comparison to M8,for you is a plus for me and other photographers is a serious minus ,as we move and our subject moves most of the time-street photography- and we need and work with DOF in order to achieve sharp images on the move, so M8 dof works greatly to our benefit-even though the dof difference between the two cameras is not that big as you will soon realise-so i dont consider a plus not even for static or studio shots.I think you have to find another plus to support your decision .

Again as this thread is about M8 advantages if you dont find any advantage no need to post-i recommend the creation of other threads in my (see) previous post.

 

PS.I have thin DOF with out of focus BG even with DLUX4.If you see any advantage in M8 pls right if you see none pls open another thread ,is not productive to distract threads with irrelevant posts.This is not a thread of DOF comparisons.

[cookedart]

Dearest lct i really lost you,more clear and again:Regarding DOF the M9 model recording in a 24X36 sensor has a thiner Dof in comparison to M8,for you is a plus for me and other photographers is a serious minus ,as we move and our subject moves most of the time-street photography- and we need and work with DOF in order to achieve sharp images on the move, so M8 dof works greatly to our benefit-even though the dof difference between the two cameras is not that big as you will soon realise-so i dont consider a plus not even for static or studio shots.I think you have to find another plus to support your decision .

Again as this thread is about M8 advantages if you dont find any advantage no need to post-i recommend the creation of other threads in my (see) previous post.

 

PS.I have thin DOF with out of focus BG even with DLUX4.

 

Technically most would say that wider DOF is not really an advantage because there is always the option to stop down.

 

The only case I can think of to the contrary is night shooting, where wide open is the only choice and you have to take or leave whatever DOF your camera gives to you - in this case having wider DOF might be an advantage depending on taste.

 

One thing that I think is a tad bit of a misnomer in this conversation - DOF is not really affected by sensor size - but compression is... that is to say, if you had a 35mm lens on the m9, and the same 35 on an m8, you would have to step closer with the m9 to achieve similar framing. Because of this, it is easier to blur the background because you are closer to your subject, hence, the compression of the scene is greater. However, my understanding is that this same lens will exhibit the exact same DOF on both cameras, that is, the width of the area in focus will remain the same. I think this is an important distinction to note because in order to achieve this greater background blur, and similar framing, you have a shorter subject working distance on the m9 than the m8. For common uses like street shooting and portrait work, having a little bit of extra breathing room is desirable.

 

I think this link demonstrates this very well:

 

Full Frame vs Crop Sensor - Depth of Field Myth | Have Camera Will Travel | Gary Gray

 

Another way to think of it is that the 1.3x M8 is literally cropping a section out of the middle of the lens. If you cropped your picture you wouldn't be gaining any DOF whatsoever. But because in real life, with the m9, you are physically moving closer vs. cropping, the compression and perspective of the entire scene changes, and in particular, it becomes easier to isolate a subject from the background. This is particularly why telephotos can have such extreme, smooth blur - they compress the field of view to a high degree.

[lct]

...DOF is not really affected by sensor size...

DoF is affected by sensor size because it is based on it. More precisely, film or sensor size determines the value of the circle of confusion (CoC) upon which DoF is based. This explains why the CoC of the M8, for instance, is 1.33x smaller than that of full frame cameras. Because the diagonal of the M8 sensor (32.45mm) is 1.33x smaller than FF ones (43.27mm).

[Nicoleica]

DoF is affected by sensor size because it is based on it. More precisely, film or sensor size determines the value of the circle of confusion (CoC) upon which DoF is based. This explains why the CoC of the M8, for instance, is 1.33x smaller than that of full frame cameras. Because the diagonal of the M8 sensor (32.45mm) is 1.33x smaller than FF ones (43.27mm).

 

I'm feeling brave today, so I'll risk being burned on a bonfire by asking 'Isn't this the other way around?'

 

If the actual CoC is determined by the lens resolving power and the laws of physics, then won't a smaller sensor actually appear to magnify the CoC on an image enlarged to the same size as one produced from a larger sensor? (All other factors such as lens, f-stop, point of focus, distance from subject, etc. being equal.)

 

For example, a 1mm circle on an M8 sensor would be 1.33x larger than a 1mm circle on an M9 sensor when both have been enlarged to the same size image.

 

Though I can understand that this may appear differently if one were comparing images showing the same field of view, as the camera positions would have to be different then, and focus and perspective would be altered.

 

I shall now crawl back into my bunker, and make a mental note to keep well away from Lewes tonight.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Gerard]

Aaarrgh; my head hurts. I think I've inadvertently entered one of those 'circles of confusion'.

 

 

[Nicoleica]

Aaarrgh; my head hurts. I think I've inadvertently entered one of those 'circles of confusion'.

 

 

 

There are a few of those in and around Somerset!