psss Posted April 18, 2008 Share #41 Posted April 18, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) i just had the oportunity to compare a D3 (with 24-70) to my m8 (with CV 50 1.5)....my findings: the m8 beats the D3 in resolution, i would say easily....i shot an outdoor scene, compared a chainlink fence, a streetsign, detail on wood in the distance...detail in dark shadows....both files unsharpened, no camparison....even with sharpening, the detail just wasn't there.....dpreview posted their D3 review today and compare it to a 5D and find a little less detail in the D3.... this did not really surprise me, but i thought the D3 would be even with the m8.... the surprises were: i shot the first shots with in camera meters....the m8 exposure was a lot better!!! the m8 held the highlights a lot better then the D3 (even with manual exposure) and generally rendered the blown highlights (sun reflection on cars) much nicer... noise comparison at base iso is also in m8 favor!...until you hit 400 when the D3 starts to blow it out of the water.... manual focus is still hard with the D3 although the finder is great....AF is superfast but after reviewing the files seems to be all over the place...i shot the same scene without taking the camera off my eyes, same framing, focus is different in almost every shot....this might be me, maybe i did something wrong (would not know what, but....) which is another "problem"...there are so many options and menus and settings....i felt a little lost...so did the salesperson btw....he kept apologizing because he could not find the setting i asked for...of course a couple of days of use and reading the manual would take care of that.... the screen is totaly amazing.... i really wanted to like the D3...so many features i would really like to have....but all in all i need imagequality at low iso more then anything...and the m8 is just better, if it would have been a draw, i would be with a D3 right now.... the speed of the D3 is mindboggling...absurd...camera feels nice, options are crazy....high iso really amazing.... dpreview calls it the maybe best DSLR to date...and it very well might be....as an allrounder, it will do everything....very well...for me it does not do the things well enough i need the most..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 18, 2008 Posted April 18, 2008 Hi psss, Take a look here M9 Redux. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jimrivers Posted April 18, 2008 Share #42 Posted April 18, 2008 To me the issue with the M8 is that it does not live up to the standards of Leica. Leica was known for having the highest standards in quality and German engineering. I have used them since the 60’s. I started with the M3 and my last film camera was the M6. I believe Leica has harmed itself with M8. My first M8 was bad right out of the box. I have had most of the problems that other have had with the M8. Things like lens focus problems, camera hang-ups etc. My feelings about the M8 after using it for about a month are this. The overall picture quality is about on par with a Canon 40D. I also feel the build quality is about on par with the 40D. If you compare speed, start up time, battery life, then the Canon comes out on top. The shutter noise is about the same. And so everyone here says comparing the M8 to a DSLR is unfair. So what is unfair about expecting a $5500 M8 to be better that a $1000 Canon? And the M8 is the flagship product of Leica? Instead of defending the M8, this forum should be demanding that Leica put out a better and more trouble free product. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted April 18, 2008 Share #43 Posted April 18, 2008 I defend the M8 because it is Leica's first in-house digital camera. It is a great start, the next digital M will be better. You forget that the D30, D60, 10D, 20D and 30D were all predecessors of the 40D. How much was the D30 when it came out? Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimmy pro Posted April 18, 2008 Share #44 Posted April 18, 2008 To me the issue with the M8 is that it does not live up to the standards of Leica. Leica was known for having the highest standards in quality and German engineering. You want Leica to design a digital camera that lives up to myths and legends created 50-75 yrs ago when cameras were made of springs and gears? Good luck with that. James Provenzano Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy Posted April 18, 2008 Share #45 Posted April 18, 2008 I defend the M8 because it is Leica's first in-house digital camera. It is a great start, the next digital M will be better. You forget that the D30, D60, 10D, 20D and 30D were all predecessors of the 40D. How much was the D30 when it came out? Jeff Very fair point. I bought the Nikon D100, and was, at the time, pretty pleased with it. It took the D200 to make me realise how bad the 100 was. I really think Leica have done better in many ways with the M8 – for all its faults – than Nikon did with the horribly plasticky D100... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psss Posted April 18, 2008 Share #46 Posted April 18, 2008 Instead of defending the M8, this forum should be demanding that Leica put out a better and more trouble free product. i understand your frustration with the m8 considering your bad experiences.... but i have a completely different experience with both my m8 bodies....no problems at all..nothing.... and like i said in my last post, i just compared it to the D3 and for me (i am only interested in maximum file quality at lowest iso) the m8 came out on top...i never used a 40D but i am pretty sure it is not better then a D3, so i am not sure how you come up with that comparison....unless you take lack of AF, programs and other conveniences that the m8 will never have (and should not have) into consideration.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSL Posted April 18, 2008 Author Share #47 Posted April 18, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Very fair point. I bought the Nikon D100, and was, at the time, pretty pleased with it. It took the D200 to make me realise how bad the 100 was. I really think Leica have done better in many ways with the M8 – for all its faults – than Nikon did with the horribly plasticky D100... You're comparing the "professional, top of the line" M8 with a D100 and D200, both of which are advertised and sold as "prosumer" cameras, meaning they're not top of the line? You're not exactly complimenting the M8 with that comparison. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimrivers Posted April 18, 2008 Share #48 Posted April 18, 2008 I want to point out that Leica did not need to invent the Digital camera. By the time Leica got into the game, there were many excellent products on the market. They should have purchased some of them. They could then dissect those to find out what made them tick. So where Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc were starting from scratch, Leica should have been given a good head start on their design. You know like try and improve on what was already being done. Canon or Nikon and others did not seem to have a big problem in turning a film camera design into a digital camera so why did Leica seem to struggle with it? Nikon was not known as an electronic company so they must have gotten some good talent to design their digital camera. Could be they copied a Canon unit. So to say Leica has done well on their first try is deceiving. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSL Posted April 19, 2008 Author Share #49 Posted April 19, 2008 AF is superfast but after reviewing the files seems to be all over the place...i shot the same scene without taking the camera off my eyes, same framing, focus is different in almost every shot....this might be me, maybe i did something wrong (would not know what, but....) which is another "problem"...there are so many options and menus and settings....i felt a little lost...so did the salesperson btw....he kept apologizing because he could not find the setting i asked for. As I said of the D3 in my first post, "It has a lot of buttons and a lot of complicated features that people on these threads seem not to be willing, or perhaps able, to deal with, but that complexity and the fact that you can use a zoom lens add up to tremendous flexibility." Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSL Posted April 19, 2008 Author Share #50 Posted April 19, 2008 Actually anyone who is not an Athlete in decathlon, will suffer from camera shaking short after trying to frame with a 2kg heavy camera, and another 10kg bag with goodies hanging from his shoulder...Maybe thats the reason for all the low noise high iso, and fast autofocus Actually that's one of the arguments for a DSLR with a zoom lens and a really good battery. I shot pictures all day at Epcot and didn't carry anything other than the D3 with a 24-120 VR zoom attached (Not the sharpest lens on the block, but a great walk-around lens). With the DSLR you don't need a 10kg bag over your shoulder with your extra lenses and batteries. I started with a fully charged battery and at the end of the day the battery was reporting about an 80% charge. Another thing: if you've carried the DSLR for a half hour without shooting, you don't have to pause while you "wake up" the camera. It goes into hibernation almost immediately after a shot, which is one of the reasons the battery hangs on so long, but it's out of hibernation in a tiny fraction of a second when you push the shutter button half way -- or any other button on the camera for that matter. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psss Posted April 19, 2008 Share #51 Posted April 19, 2008 As I said of the D3 in my first post, "It has a lot of buttons and a lot of complicated features that people on these threads seem not to be willing, or perhaps able, to deal with, but that complexity and the fact that you can use a zoom lens add up to tremendous flexibility." if you use a quote, please don't edit it by cutting it short.... but you are absolutely right, a D3 with a 24-70 zoom should cover almost all photographic needs...it blows away 35mm quality and gives the shooter a flexibility which is hard to compete with....but the m8 was never about to compete with this in any way! i find it amazing that people complain that development seems to have stopped for the m series...of course! how about no AF! it is a completely different camera, for different needs... but i am a professional photographer and such a camera has to be good at something and has to fit my workflow...the m8 fits that and it gives me better files then any DSLR (i wanted to compare a dsmkIII as well, but they did not have one to play with...but so far what i have seen does not get me excited) what is really funny to me is that the m8 (as a leica) gives me a certain credibility that DSLRs cannot give....in my work environment it is often not enough to shoot with DSLR (which is BS, but the client only knows big cameras and they think they get better shots if they see a hasselblad) the m8 is something they haven't seen, but the leica "aura" still has a certain credibility, so they feel they get their money's worth.... anyway...i truly feel that the D3 is a great camera but just not good enough for me...for most people i am sure it is the much better solution... i read today that the D3x is already being tested, i am assuming it will have 20-24mpix....still does not really get me excited....a m9 FF 15-18mpix with full 16bit DNGs 2fps with a larger buffer is much more my style....i would never have to touch MF again... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted April 19, 2008 Share #52 Posted April 19, 2008 Moderator: We need a new emoticon in our repetoire. Can we please have one that shows a head banging repeatedly into a brick wall? Then, insert it several times at the beginning and end of this post. The hypothetical question posed here is ridiculous. "Would you buy ..., if, or what if it had ..., and what if it could do...????" Bottom line, that camera doesn't exist. It is vaporware. The M8, on the other hand, is here right now. It's what we have. The reality is that, despite some problems, many of us love using the M8 for a variety of reasons that range all the way from carrying ease to image quality. I've used Leica M systems professionally for 25 years. I've also used Nikon and Canon systems throughout because there are some kinds of photography rangefinders are not best suited for. When I consider the more than 30 film and digital cameras I've owned and used over that period, the two that give me the highest pleasure quotient--and a large part of that is image quality--are the M6 and the M8. Whenever any camera maker, be it Leica, Canon, Nikon, Sony or whoever, comes out with a new body that works with my M lenses, I'll certainly look at and consider it. But for right now, the M8 works for me, satisfies me and fits my style and workflow; and my strong preference is to be out using it--not talking about it's shortcomings. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted April 19, 2008 Share #53 Posted April 19, 2008 Second: how can we compare a 100 years of Leica glass to Nikons 50? and Third: how can we compare a German optics company to what has become a Japanese electronics company? I don't have a Nikon digital camera so this is not personal. From Wikipedia: "Nikon Corporation was established in 1917 when three leading optical manufacturers merged to form a comprehensive, fully integrated optical company known as Nippon Kogaku Kokyo K.K. Over the next 60 years this growing company became a leading manufacturer of optical lenses and precision equipment used in cameras, binoculars, microscopes and inspection equipment. During World War II the company grew to 19 factories and 23,000 employees, supplying items such as binoculars, lenses, bomb sights and periscopes to the Japanese military. After the war it reverted to its civilian product range with a single factory. In 1948, the first camera with the Nikon brand was released, the Nikon I." So Nikon has more than 90 years of optical experience (More if you count the companies that formed it.) But why would it matter how old a company is or what its traditions are? We're using their current gear not their old gear. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted April 19, 2008 Share #54 Posted April 19, 2008 if you use a quote, please don't edit it by cutting it short.... a m9 FF 15-18mpix with full 16bit DNGs 2fps with a larger buffer is much more my style Sorry about the edit but… I want one too. Better still, at the same size, weight and price as the M8. Tom Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diogenis Posted April 19, 2008 Share #55 Posted April 19, 2008 Actually that's one of the arguments for a DSLR with a zoom lens and a really good battery. I shot pictures all day at Epcot and didn't carry anything other than the D3 with a 24-120 VR zoom attached (Not the sharpest lens on the block, but a great walk-around lens). With the DSLR you don't need a 10kg bag over your shoulder with your extra lenses and batteries. I started with a fully charged battery and at the end of the day the battery was reporting about an 80% charge. Another thing: if you've carried the DSLR for a half hour without shooting, you don't have to pause while you "wake up" the camera. It goes into hibernation almost immediately after a shot, which is one of the reasons the battery hangs on so long, but it's out of hibernation in a tiny fraction of a second when you push the shutter button half way -- or any other button on the camera for that matter. Russell, You admire electronics way too much. Please, demystify them it will do you good. Hibernating in such a way was Nikon's answer for power preservation. They solve the problem. good. It's NOT a feature, it was a necessity originated from having to deal with all these electronics and micromotors. Complication is not a good thing. An engineer should approach his goal and solve it, the simplest way. Because everything else will fail.. Basically, what you admire is a bunch of resistors, capacitors, coils and transistors (building blocks) that are interconnected in a certain way, because thats what it is. You forget entirely that a camera as a machine, also needs great mechanical precision, and optical perfection. Japanese master the electronics section. Fine What about the rest? What is more valuable? A seiko kinetic (with hybernation ) or any model of watch from Vacheron's line? Why? Which one is harder to built/engineered? Who has the heritage in creating good optics? Thats all you will eventually need in order to built a camera. Edit: another example: Just take a look at maybe one of the simplest components a camera can have: its shutter release button (not just a shutter in modern cameras but anyway). Then compare the feel of it on the Leica and the rest. On the Leica, it is a joy to push that little button, but not so on the Nikons or Canons. I know it is just a stupid button in the end, but it is made in a way that it advertises "Push me" ... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted April 19, 2008 Share #56 Posted April 19, 2008 By the time Leica got into the game, there were many excellent products on the market. They should have purchased some of them Why don't you drop a line to Leica and tell them this? I'm sure it has never occurred to them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johM8 Posted April 19, 2008 Share #57 Posted April 19, 2008 Waiting M9, only reason I did not buy M8, we tested it with few friends, but we were not able to take unshaken pictures with shutter speed ..1/8, 1/15 ... what was able with M6, M8 was also quite noisy I live in so "low light-dark country" that those are the most needed shutterpeeds for me....anyway there something about M8 pictures (lenses + leica influence), those look great, seen many gallerys, pictures and I think that those were only possible to take with leica. I really would like to have smaller pro camera than my 1DsMKIII, it's too big to carry with and if you rise it, to take picture, everybody get freeze , it' like a weabon In the strees there are so many that you see right away that those are afraid "where are you taken those pictures..." I hate it I love it, but I cant carry it with. The Camera I really loved was my Mamiya7 with 43mm lense joh cameratuning.fi virtualtour.fi Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johM8 Posted April 19, 2008 Share #58 Posted April 19, 2008 ....anyway there something about M8 pictures (lenses + leica influence), those look great, seen many gallerys, pictures and I think that those were only possible to take with leica. forexamble these, just lovely. These are not possible with pocketcamera +Anablog: Leica M8 アーカイブ Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted April 19, 2008 Share #59 Posted April 19, 2008 I agree with Jaap about Sony. They're rarin' to go, and they have the technological savvy to go all the way. The only thing they don't have at this point is a great stable of standard (FX) coverage lenses, but with computer design and automated aspherical lens-grinding they'll be able to overcome that problem pretty quickly. Okay, here's a pop quiz: Suppose someone, let's say Sony, comes out with a digital rangefinder. This rangefinder handles M-mount lenses. It's about a third larger than the M8 but doesn't weigh any more, and has a slightly odd protrusion for the lens mount. It has the same sized sensor as the M8, but it has a combination sensor and firmware that'll get you a reasonably low-noise 6400 ISO, same as the picture I posted above. It doesn't require an IR filter on your lenses, but pays for this with a very slightly lower IQ. The camera doesn't require "coding" of short lenses, doesn't give you green bands, has exceptional WB accuracy, doesn't lock up, has a battery you don't have to take out periodically to "reset" the camera and that'll let you go shooting for a couple hours every day and not require recharging for a week. On top of all this, Sony has very reliable, very quick turnaround on maintenance for this camera, even though it rarely needs maintenance. But this camera doesn't have a red or black Leica badge and doesn't look like an M. Would you buy it at, say, $6000? Oh, well, we can do a lot of such game-quiz... my response is NO - in THIS moment... but mainly for my M8 is 1 year old and didn't experience any of the issues you quote (apart a "green band" when I consciously searched to obtain it, and finally did after some trials...) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vieri Posted April 19, 2008 Share #60 Posted April 19, 2008 Nikon was not known as an electronic company so they must have gotten some good talent to design their digital camera. Could be they copied a Canon unit. Actually, it could be the other way round - the Nikon D1 was the first pro digital camera after the pioneer Kodak modifications (to Nikon bodies). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.