M8 or M7 or even M6?

[fursan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Arguments ( sane and valid ) can be made for either the M8 or a film Leica.

 

In such matters go with your heart rather than your head! Isn't going the leica route exactly

that?

 

Regards.

[Advertisement]

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

[smgorsch]

I've had the M8 for a couple of years now and just purchased an MP. I would say that, overall, one can get "optimal" results from an M8 with less of a learning curve and equipment burden than I think is required from film. For an M8 one just needs to learn the camera and a software program like LR -- then printing A2 is trivial

 

For film & great prints, I gather, optimally you'll process the film yourself (tank/developer/know how), need a scanner if you want to digitize it (and learn how to optimize your scanner), and then a wet print setup for nice silver-gelatin look. I would guess these prints are in many ways more pleasing but non-trivial getting there.

 

Having said that, I love my MP and hope to get "pretty decent" prints with commercial developing and scanning.

 

stefan

[Nikkor AIS]

 

Taken on Leica M7 with 50 Noctilux @ f8/11 on Ektar

 

One thing that I never hear mentioned is how much less time film takes on the back end if you drop it off at the lab and get it scanned. It takes me way longer to process digital files compared to the same image in film. And the color I get with film is way closer to what I saw when I took the picture. Like I said in my world there is room for both but for my Leica M system I have zero interest in going digital. Now, if I could find a M9 that might change:p. but for now the lecia M8 with the cropped sensor is not my cup of tea.

 

 

Gregory

[cheewai_m6]

. but for now the lecia M8 with the cropped sensor is not my cup of tea.

 

 

Gregory

 

that alone is enough to convince me to not to go m8. that + ir filters.

[IdeaDog]

Get an M camera, "any" M camera and a box 50 rolls of XP2. Get out there and shoot. make mistakes, have some fun.

 

Yes. And dare I, in this forum, suggest the Zeiss Ikon as an excellent option? I have an M8, an MP, and a ZI and the Zeiss is a very fine camera. (The debate of M7 vs. ZI has happened elsewhere, so let's let that rest.) The Zeiss has a different feel than a Leica M, but a very pleasing one. Perhaps worth handling one in person?

[kemal_mumcu]

Do I need a digital M8?

 

For years now i have literally been thinking of Leica cameras every day, visiting this site on a regular basis drooling over the images I see here and those lucky enough to own a real Leica M...

 

All I can say is that its time to get it out of your system and bite the bullet now and just get one already.

 

My suggestion? Go classic. Get an M6 and a Leica lens and just shoot.

[Xmas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes. And dare I, in this forum, suggest the Zeiss Ikon as an excellent option? I have an M8, an MP, and a ZI and the Zeiss is a very fine camera. (The debate of M7 vs. ZI has happened elsewhere, so let's let that rest.) The Zeiss has a different feel than a Leica M, but a very pleasing one. Perhaps worth handling one in person?

 

Hi

 

If you are a tactile sensitive sort of person or you need the eye relief/exit pupil, you need to try all the cameras in the shop. It is typical that e.g. two M2 will have a different feel depending on when last serviced or who last serviced by. You might need to try the camera with the/a 'magnifier'.

 

If you are buying one body you need to worry about reliability as well, M8 do seem to have more initial problems, e.g. with focusing, or the customers can snag them easier.

 

For example my mate handed me his CV body and said what is wrong with the rangefinder, nothing I said they all do that .- It was the position of the eye problem. He had an M4 the next time I saw him.

 

Noel

[smgorsch]

 

Taken on Leica M7 with 50 Noctilux @ f8/11 on Ektar

 

One thing that I never hear mentioned is how much less time film takes on the back end if you drop it off at the lab and get it scanned. It takes me way longer to process digital files compared to the same image in film. And the color I get with film is way closer to what I saw when I took the picture. Like I said in my world there is room for both but for my Leica M system I have zero interest in going digital. Now, if I could find a M9 that might change:p. but for now the lecia M8 with the cropped sensor is not my cup of tea.

 

 

Gregory

 

Greg, love your samples but i have to disagree on 2 counts. First, digital is certainly faster overall. I can go from shooting a portrait to a decent print (w/ good tones in 10-15 minute). Secondly, I don't understand the prevalent condemnation of the M8 on the basis of it's cropped sensor. The M8 is more than adequate for prints up to A2 (I have many), or A3 if you are further cropping the image. The advantage of FF, IMHO, is only that one can take a severe crop to a large print more easily -- and, of course, people who are accustomed to FF don't need to change their perspective.

 

stefan

[biglouis]

One argument which may convince you to go M6, M7 or M8 is that prices have never been more depressed. There is a lot of second hand kit in London shops from people who have traded in their M systems as a down payment or part payment for the M9.

 

Surprisingly M6s seem to be at a premium over M7s in my opinion. I don't mean they are more expensive but the price differential is very low.

 

Sadly, it is not a good time to get a M9 - expensive and unavailable.

 

LouisB

[tobey bilek]

I have no problem with what you are doing if you like a rangefinder camera. There are none better now, never were, never will be.

 

If you think the image quality of 99% of what you see here can not be done with a Nikon digital, you are wrong. Where Leica will shine is with 90 APO 75 2.0 35 and 50 1.4 lenses used open or nearly open. They get sharper files with the M8 because there is no AA filter, but that causes other issues. Nikon files can be sharpened to match. All digi files need sharpening anyway, even Leicas.

 

Color saturation and contrast is photoshop.

 

As far as film goes, my D200 Nikon at 100 ISO out performs any 35mm color film. My D700 is even better, infact an 8 x 10 looks like a contact print.

 

There are no more good dedicated film scanners unless you want a drum scanner for $20,000. Buying used if not the way to go. They can be all used up inside and look great because they sat on a desk.

 

Commercial scans are way too expensive for good ones.

 

An Epson flat bed of recent vintage will make fine scans or the internet. I would not make prints from them.

 

Hope this helps with your decision.

 

One last thing, all things considered, digital is not cheaper when you start adding up capable computers, software and whatnot. They never seem to be one time purchases either.

[Xmas]

never will be.

 

in fact an 8 x 10 looks like a contact print.

 

There are no more good dedicated film scanners unless you want a drum scanner for $20,000. Buying used if not the way to go. They can be all used up inside and look great because they sat on a desk.

 

 

Well 15 years ago, without the MP, CNC or moulded aspheric elements maybe agreed with your 'never' but today who knows. I'd a said then my M4 was the last of the breed.

 

I serpia tone 8x10 AgBr but they dont look like contact prints from a 8x10 cam to me, perhaps I'm doing something wrong...

 

Why do I need a high quality scanner, that would make my prints look like they were from a DSLR?

 

But to be fair at 8x10 my shots are limited by subject and camera movement anyway, so I may be being cavil.

 

Noel

[biglouis]

I

 

As far as film goes, my D200 Nikon at 100 ISO out performs any 35mm color film. My D700 is even better, infact an 8 x 10 looks like a contact print.

 

An Epson flat bed of recent vintage will make fine scans or the internet. I would not make prints from them.

 

Tobey, I'm surprised no one responded to you on this post.

 

I agree that from a technical point of view digital cameras have already surpassed film at a pixel peeping level. At that level there is no contest.

 

But what digital cameras lack, without post-processing, is any texture in the image. Exposed correctly all serious digital cameras produce the same homogenous feel - it is then up to the photographer to post process in colour, sharpening etc etc.

 

This was bought home to me when I saw the exhibition of James Ravilious' work in London a couple of years back. Up close you could see that the pictures were grainy, irregular patches of black and white dots, some of which were not even in focus but step back a metre and they merged into a beautiful collage to produce an image with wonderful texture.

 

Not sure you get the same thing with digital.

 

LouisB

[Nikkor AIS]

Stefan: Thanks for the kind words about my pictures. Glad you like them. My problem with the M8 is how it "acts with lenses like my 21 Super Angulon , which is really bad on the M8/M9. I could show example's but I would rather not. The crop thing on the M8 would mean I would lose my beloved vignetting on my Noct . I feel like Im missing something with cropped sensors., because basically I am. I kind of like the whole 24-36 mm format. In my minds eye I know what everything is from my 8mm to my 800mm . With a cropped sensor it just makes my head hurt trying to figure out how much Im losing when I have 15mm,21 mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm...00

 

It's not that hate digital as I carry a couple D3 with me pretty much when ever I leave the house. It's just that I don't think the M8/M9 live up to the Leica M3/M6/M7 Im using for the M system. I cant stand the menu's or the feel/sound of the shutter compared to the film leica. I bought a M3 with the intention of getting my feet wet with the Lecia M system and now three film bodies later and 5 lenses later I have zero interest in the the Digital M8/M9. The fact that I couldn't get one , than I got to test one and it was horrible with the 21 Super Angulon. And than I couldnt get one . They( Leica) just sapped the enthusiasm out of me for the digital M. They ruined it for me. So Im back buying film , shooting film, loving film. The joy of using these camera's is hard to put into words. All I can say is sometimes when Im down just holding my M3 with a 35 summilux makes me smile. And you got to like that.

 

 

[j. borger]

IAn Epson flat bed of recent vintage will make fine scans or the internet. I would not make prints from them.

 

In fact i think prints from Epson scans look a lot better than expected from pixelpeeping them at 100%. Same with the showing of grain in the prints: a lot less than you would expect from on-screen viewing of the files.

In my opinion prints from 35mm Epson scans look great up to A4 and 120mm scans (at least) up to A3+.

 

Prints from scans just never looks like prints from digicams.

 

What you prefer of course is personal.