Very interesting field review of the M8...

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But let's say you're a wedding photographer, where light is low and action is pretty fast. What will you really spend here?

 

If you're buying a 5d (a good choice just for the AF, IMO) and getting anything like the low-light capabilities of the M system (I mean that--the crop factor and the fast lenses are the key--not the ISO performance) you will spend more than most think on lenses.

 

Let's see for Canon here...

• wide, rectilinear, well-corrected prime? Hmmm. Not especially promising as Guy mentioned. Your only real choice from Canon there is the 16-35L 2.8 V2, which is still soft and actually not very well corrected... $1600 (I left off the 14mm 2,8 because it's just so soft)
  
• 35 1.4L -- need it for speed --$1120
  
• 50 1.2L -- need it for build, IQ and speed -- $1399
  
• 85 1.2L -- need it for speed, though the 1.8 might do $1759

So that's a pretty light kit, IMO, you still need a 70-200 IS IMO to do the job (and this is where the M8 falls down, actually)

 

 

Yep you can probably justify pricing in various ways. I worked in a camera store when I was a kid and I could almost always sell Nikon Fs, Leicas, Hassselblad, and other fine cameras as the best value. But it may be harder now.

 

I don't have any of the fast Canon lenses you mentioned other than the 70-200 2.8 IS. (I also have the 100-400 both of which are an slr only solution.) Nor do I have much interest in them. If my main concern was working in low light or with minimal depth of field, maybe the Canon would be as expensive.

 

That is why I said that those who buy Leica M8s know why they need it or like it. But their needs can't be projected onto the needs of others. My point was that one can shoot with slrs with less expensive lenses and bodies and this give Nikon, Canon and others a much broader base. I guess the Voightlander, Zeiss and other lenses are giving Leica owners some options although they need to be hand coded and the wides may not have the same possibility for cyan corner compensation. Maybe CV lenses have sold some M8 bodies for Leica so Leica ultimately benefits too. But Leica does not have a broad base.

 

Yes the 16-35 has its faults. (I have the first version and DxO doesn't support the new version yet.) Does it stop me from using it for most of my interiors? No way. If you were to tell me a few years ago that I'd be shooting my interiors on a 35mm format with a zoom lens I would have laughed. But you know what? Once I run those files through DxO, that lens is better corrected and has less C/A and vignetting than the Rodenstocks and Schneiders on my view camera.

 

The only advantage to shooting on medium and large format for me is resolution and that turns out to be less important than one would think. There is only so much important detail in a room. Once I can see every detail in the electrical outlet across the room, I'm more than covered. The main thing is that the digital files show no grain and look smooth. I really don't worry about it or I would have bought that 39megapixel back and some Digitars.

[nemeng]

I'm an "old Leica hand" and have a reasonably well paying job and... the M8 is rip-off expensive. There, I said it.

 

Yes I know high end 'Pro' digital cameras by others are expensive too. Another rip-off. Marketing types in black skivvies & rectangular spectacles gouging gullible photographers.

 

Although I can (barely) justify the expense of Leica lenses and film camera bodies by saying they'll be good for decades and still have some kind of resale value (eg. look at the M3), you cannot do that with the M8. Five years and it's a doorstop.

 

Do the sums and it works out to @ $AUD 1.2K per year. Not for yours truly. :?)

[ddp]

I'm an "old Leica hand" and have a reasonably well paying job and... the M8 is rip-off expensive. There, I said it.

 

Yes I know high end 'Pro' digital cameras by others are expensive too. Another rip-off. Marketing types in black skivvies & rectangular spectacles gouging gullible photographers.

 

Although I can (barely) justify the expense of Leica lenses and film camera bodies by saying they'll be good for decades and still have some kind of resale value (eg. look at the M3), you cannot do that with the M8. Five years and it's a doorstop.

 

Do the sums and it works out to @ $AUD 1.2K per year. Not for yours truly. :?)

 

hehe...nicely said....love the doorstop part. Face it, many DSLR's are going to be doorstops in 5 years. We live in a disposable society....

[hankg]

I'm an "old Leica hand" and have a reasonably well paying job and... the M8 is rip-off expensive. There, I said it.

 

Yes I know high end 'Pro' digital cameras by others are expensive too. Another rip-off. Marketing types in black skivvies & rectangular spectacles gouging gullible photographers.

 

Although I can (barely) justify the expense of Leica lenses and film camera bodies by saying they'll be good for decades and still have some kind of resale value (eg. look at the M3), you cannot do that with the M8. Five years and it's a doorstop.

 

Do the sums and it works out to @ $AUD 1.2K per year. Not for yours truly. :?)

 

Works out to about $80 USD a month that's less then the cost of a lot of peoples digital cable bill here. Welcome to the world of digital, your PC, iPod, cell phone and video game console will all be landfill in 5 years.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Andrew i had a million responses but i will just let them pass like gas:D

 

I do have to agree with Hank and Dan here and let's face it you know that too

[okram]

I don`t think IT is expensive.

Please, Leica, make it as good as it is, whatever the price.

Please don`t make IT cheaper.

[DaveSee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...in response to Jaap's "if you whine, you can't afford it" comment...

I hope that comment was in jest. There are plenty of young (and less affluent) photographers that would love to be able to use Leica gear - but they simply cannot afford the cost. M8, 50, 28 and 90. Run the numbers...it took me long time to get to where I am in the M system.

And a few /old/ and less affluent folks too Seriously though: one may buy a USD300 Bessa body, and a USD2500 Leica lens(this is the "it's all about the glass" approach), or a USD5200 Leica M8 and a USD400 CV lens(for those who must shoot digital)... as two examples of how we less affluent could start building a kit, today. And then there are a few of us older folk who started many years ago, and therefore less affluent wrt cash , with "investments" over time that have a lot of value today... something a younger photog must already know, no? I failed to mention the USD300 body + USD400 lens combo for those starting today with RF gear... and this lens could be used on the M8, and the body serves as back-up!

 

rgds,

Dave

[Jamie Roberts]

@ Alan-- you're absolutely right about what makes someone need an M8 as opposed to something else. It's all about time and context for me. Low light and ease of handling are, really, paramount for someone who does the stuff I do, and the M8 is perfect for that.

 

BTW--and FWIW--I've never really been able to correct for Canon wides when people's heads are involved. Buildings yes, brides head, no

 

It just never looks right, even using all the technology available; the 16-35 was bad enough; the 24-70L is if anything, worse at wide end!

 

When I bolted an old 21mm f2 Oly on the 1ds2 with an adapter, it was a revelation in terms of shooting wide.

 

My point is that the inexpensive CVs on the Leicas are really fabulously well-corrected, with mild and correctable barrel distortion. I understand their limitations, but for inexpensive lenses they are a true steal.

 

The Canon zooms unfortunately have a lot of so-called "moustache" distortion, and with people's faces--well, anything *can* be done in PS, but sometimes you just don't want to work with that. I'd rather use a Leica 28 R on my 5d instead (I wish the Leica 19 fit, but I'm not ready to shave the mirror yet). But talk about good used prices right now--old R glass is a steal too!

 

But I hear you on DxO--it's amazing, too, and on relative resolution.

 

@ Andrew--any camera that prints as well and as large as the M8 will not be a doorstop in 5 years, because the practical limits of resolution (as Andy notes) are rapidly being reached.

 

Even colour depth is for editing down to 8bits--it will take a revolution in printing to catch up with what the M8 can deliver right now.

 

So I don't think it's crazy at all for anyone to consider the M8 as a long-term picture making machine.

 

It will make just as good an 8 * 10 as anything else will in 5 years, though it may take some more knowledge to get it.

[sean_reid]

I guess the Voightlander, Zeiss and other lenses are giving Leica owners some options although they need to be hand coded and the wides may not have the same possibility for cyan corner compensation.

 

Hi Alan,

 

They need to be hand coded but the LTM lenses can use the Milich adapters and owners can then paint the codes in to the indentations. That's fairly simple and durable. The CV and Zeiss wides do have the same potential for cyan drift correction (it isn't just the corners) *except* for the 12 which is wider than anything Zeiss or Leica make. I've been testing for this, as you may know. The others are fine. In fact, the CV 15 sees a better cyan drift correction with 1.102 than does the WATE set to 16 mm.

 

I do hope that this expanded lens flexibility will be good for M8 sales. I can say for sure that its good for photographers.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[ddp]

...in response to Jaap's "if you whine, you can't afford it" comment...

 

And a few /old/ and less affluent folks too Seriously though: one may buy a USD300 Bessa body, and a USD2500 Leica lens(this is the "it's all about the glass" approach), or a USD5200 Leica M8 and a USD400 CV lens(for those who must shoot digital)... as two examples of how we less affluent could start building a kit, today. And then there are a few of us older folk who started many years ago, and therefore less affluent wrt cash , with "investments" over time that have a lot of value today... something a younger photog must already know, no? I failed to mention the USD300 body + USD400 lens combo for those starting today with RF gear... and this lens could be used on the M8, and the body serves as back-up!

 

rgds,

Dave

 

Dave - to most hobbyists, students and enthusiasts a Nikon D200 with kit lens is pricey. New Leica M gear is simply mind blowing to the average person. Granted, I am seeing more and more soccer moms with DSLR's shooting stuff...but to most people spending that kind of cash on gear is nutty.

[wstotler]

Works out to about $80 USD a month that's less then the cost of a lot of peoples digital cable bill here.

 

I like this analysis--with my lenses it works out to about USD $150 per month for five years. Nice. That makes my total per-photo cost about $0.12 each over five years. Presuming an average of 1,200 photos per month. (Which is low for the amount I've been shooting with the M8.)

 

I can live with that because film rolls of 36 exposures are about $6 over the counter and can be processed cheap for another $6, which works out to $0.34 per print. And what you shot is what you get, unlike with digital.

 

And nevermind that I really do feel like I can pull images out of the M8 that I couldn't pull out of the Digilux 2 or, frankly, any of the other cameras I've owned. There's something to the M8 "rangefinder" thing for me, anyway, that a DSLR just can't get at--for me.

 

Is the M8 expensive? You bet. Painfully expensive. But maybe that makes sure the user has incentive to really get good with the camera. And use it. A lot.

 

 

Dave - to most hobbyists, students and enthusiasts a Nikon D200 with kit lens is pricey. New Leica M gear is simply mind blowing to the average person. Granted, I am seeing more and more soccer moms with DSLR's shooting stuff...but to most people spending that kind of cash on gear is nutty.

 

Yeah, people do think there's a craziness factor to the cost. But they never question the quality of the results--even those people who don't take a lot of photos. I've had a few people ask "is it worth it"? I just answer, "To me." I can tell you about the instant frustration of several "soccer moms" I know who use point-and-shoot cameras when they've later seen my shots of the same scenes they couldn't capture. Especially in low light. Same goes for one of my relatives who recognizes that I'm pulling shots that make her happy out of the M8--even when compared to the professional photog she's paying money to for studio time. (I've suggested she find a better photog, BTW.)

 

And a guy I work with (who recently upgraded to the semi-pricey professional line of Canon glass for his camera) is consistently frustrated with not being able to match my shots. I tell him it's the eye (which is part of it) but the other part is the glass and camera itself because I'm still learning and, frankly, most of my shots aren't *that* good. The point here is that he thought I was crazy to pay that kind of money. Intellectually he knows I'm able to get shots out of it--somehow--that his Canon can't. And he really likes the shots from the M8. But from his gut it's just "too expensive." (And he shoots a lot of sports so I've pointed out that he has the appropriate rig for that.)

 

So, it is crazy. Sometimes good stuff just costs more than anyone thinks is reasonable. They wouldn't pay it. But they like the photos from it.

 

I've been through similar round-and-round discussions with people about Apple's products. They just think they cost too much. Oh, well. Pay up if you want them. It's how it is. I'd like to believe that the amount of money Apple's saved me over the years through workflow streamlining and lack of issues more than pays for my M8.

[carstenw]

I don't think that the M8 is *too* expensive, because I am happy with the value I am getting. I do see how it is too expensive to most people though. Most people who go beyond P&S cameras buy something like a 400D with the kit lens, and never even get a second lens. I see these people out in force every weekend.

 

True enthusiasts don't fit into this crowd though, and even if you have to save a couple of years to get the M8, and start out with a small handful of CV lenses, there are ways to do it if you really want to. Upgrading with time is a real option with this system. We see many people here who have bought their kit over years, or even decades, as the money comes. This system does not go out of date as quickly as other systems.

 

Pros don't really have any excuses, IMO. It simply comes down to 1) needs and 2) results. The rest is just a spreadsheet figuring out how, if the needs are met. The results are surely there, although the spotty reliability record in the past (it seems to have stopped...) is worrisome.

[AlanG]

...BTW--and FWIW--I've never really been able to correct for Canon wides when people's heads are involved. Buildings yes, brides head, no

 

The Canon zooms unfortunately have a lot of so-called "moustache" distortion, and with people's faces--well, anything *can* be done in PS, but sometimes you just don't want to work with that. I'd rather use a Leica 28 R on my 5d instead (I wish the Leica 19 fit, but I'm not ready to shave the mirror yet). But talk about good used prices right now--old R glass is a steal too!

 

But I hear you on DxO--it's amazing, too, and on relative resolution.

 

 

Jamie, you probably know most of this...

DXO autmatically corrects for the lens distortion of supported camera/lens combos to eliminate barrel, pincussion or more complex distortorion.

 

But are you aware of this?...

For distortion at the corner of the frame caused by close perspective - such as round objects being stretched to oblong, DxO has three adjustment sliders for this type of geometric correction called volume anamorphosis correction. I am not sure why these user adjustable controls only work on the supported lenses. (It would be great for Leica and other users if the DxO program could work in a totally manual mode for unsupported cameras and lenses.)

 

And then there is DxO lighting...

It's at the point where I couldn't work any other way.

 

Back to the M8. There are a lot of reasons why people buy and use cameras just because they like them. If they can afford the equipment, they don't have to justify the cost to anyone. (Luckily I never had to try to justify the cost of a sports car to anyone either - not like I'm driving a Lamborghini or anything exotic.)

[DaveSee]

Yes, this justification puzzle Here's a picture pushed through FOSS, with no interactivity with a human, an extension of 1.102 through Linux and a 5 year old 1.6 GHz laptop. The M8 is the most expensive piece of this puzzle, and the one most "in touch" with the image making process.

 

rgds,

Dave

[sean_reid]

Five years and it's a doorstop.

 

I heard similar comments in 2002 when I bought my Canon 1Ds for $7200. In fact, that kind of observation has become one of the cliches of the digital age. Well, here it is 2007 and a 1Ds is still a very useable camera for all kinds of assignments and its file quality is better than many current DSLRs. So, I'm not so sure the "doorstop" analogy will be true for the M8. It will probably depreciate as my 1Ds did and there will probably be a new M model that surpasses the M8 in various ways. But that won't make it a doorstop. Let's come back to this question in May of 2012. I think some people may be surprised at how usable an M8 will still be then. In fact, I'll bet a DMR will still be quite usable for professional work in 2012.

 

Being digital doesn't necessarily make a camera useless over time. As digital cameras mature, that is becoming less and less the case.

 

And, as I've recently been reminded, we know not the hour nor the day our lives will be finished. Waiting for the next great digital camera won't do us any good if we aren't here to enjoy it. If a person can get together the money for an M8 and really wants one, he or she should buy it and use it every day. A bird in hand is better than one in the bush, even if the latter has more mega-feathers, a 16-bit beak, larger food buffer, etc.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Hell i'm afraid to book a job next year because you never know when you will check out yourself, my theory enjoy it while you have the chance or your wife will spend it. ROTFLMAO

[andybarton]

Let it be known that no-one, absolutely no-one, who steps onto the slippery slope with "Leica" written on the top of it, is under any illusions about where it will lead them, either cost-wise, or, potentially, quality-wise.

 

I wanted a Leica when I was 15.

 

I was over 40 when I could afford my first proper one.

 

I knew what I was doing, but wasn't necessarily prepared for the outcome

[sean_reid]

Right, or...enjoy your life now and let 2012 bring what it may if you're still around. If I was always worried about digital obsolescence, I would have missed out on many very enjoyable cameras.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[ddp]

There should be no reason why an M8 won't produce as fine an image in 2012 as it does now - BUT as a Nikon DSLR user, I know that the D1 from 2000 is a magenta riddled dinosaur. The D1X isnt quite as bad today...but the D2H is holding up better. D2X is still fine for most of what we do at the office. What I'm seeing though is just how much server space we're taking up now as opposed to 5 years ago. That's tougher to deal with on a few fronts.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[mitchell]

I love my M8, and I'm very happy to see it being used by pros. Leica has made a great camera that is the best solution for a significant number of users (who can afford it.) A percentage greater than the M film cameras could claim. ( Digital has concentrated the field. There aren't very many portable digital pro competitors out there.)

 

So Leica has the horse to ride, and become a bigger factor in the marketplace. The rest is up to marketing, continued development, and the myriad other aspects of running a successful business. They've had some stumbles out of the blocks, but now are gaining. Long live Leica!

 

Best,

 

Mitchell