The time is not yet ripe

[ejd]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

....or perhaps it is becoming ripe. At more than three thousand pounds for a new M8, they seemed, and still seem (to me personally), too expensive to contemplate. Too many uncertainties, But now I see used M8s for around two thousand, and begin to think that this makes one an attractive proposition. Not that much more expensive than an M7 was a few years ago. Still ludicrously expensive, of course. But no more than the Epson RD-1 was when it was released. But maybe with the prospect of the R10 around the corner, and maybe an M9 in 2009 or 2010, the time is indeed not yet ripe -- not quite -- , and I should hold off buying one for a bit longer. I think a full (35mm) - frame sensor in a camera of reasonable price would tip the scales decisively. Not too far off, I suppose.

[Guest noah_addis]

I thought long and hard before finally buying an M8, and here are some thoughts I've had so far...

 

I'm a photojournalist and I shoot with canon dslrs at work. I do good work with them but never am excited to shoot with them. I've always used leica M cameras for my personal work, mostly shooting black and white, pretty much exclusively with tri-x.

 

I tried out an m8 as part of the test drive program, and bought one soon after. It's not a perfect camera, but I'm very happy with it.

 

I've found the noise problem to be overstated somewhat. For one thing, like some other film shooters, I never shoot film above 400 iso, so shooting at 640 on the m8 is already faster than I need, and I find the results at 640 to be good. I honestly haven't shot much at 1250 or 2500, but a few tests at 1250 were usable, though not as good as my company-issued 5d.

 

While 10MP is far from state-of-the-art, I find the files interpolate well and prints have a very high level of quality. With Tri-x I rarely print larger than 12x18in, so the camera is more than good enough to print at that size.

 

Color with the camera is great. But since my personal work is all black and white, I have to say the BW conversions I've done with the camera are really incredible. They do seem to have a depth and sharpness that I haven't been able to capture with other cameras.

 

So, in my opinion, photographers need to determine if the camera is good enough for the kind of work they want to produce. It's not a matter of needing a 22mp camera for me, since I produce smaller prints. If you want to make 50x60in prints, it isn't the right tool for you. Some amount of extra capability is nice, for the rare occasion I might want to make a larger print, but the m8 already has extra room in my case. Going forward, most of our work will be seen online, not in print, so the race for more pixels is not relevant.

 

Once a photographer determines if the camera is technically good enough for the work they want to produce, the only remaining issue is to pick a camera that suits the way you work and one that you enjoy using. So for me that was a no-brainer. It's a bit larger and the sound is a bit louder than I'd like, but the M8 works just like a film M, I didn't even need to look at the instruction manual once and I feel like I'm in total control when I shoot with it, so I'm very happy with it.

 

My biggest gripe is that the camera is not full frame, but I'd prefer a crop camera to a FF one with poor corner performance due to the short lens-to-film plane distance of RF cameras. Even this isn't too big of a deal for me, since my favorite film lens is a 35mm so my 28 'cron works nicely.

 

The camera is good enough that I'm considering selling at least some of my film M bodies to get another M8. It's not the right camera for everyone and I'm not trying to convince anyone, I just wanted to share my experiences and remind people to not get too hung up on the latest, greatest and highest MP cameras.

[dpattinson]

Well, I've had my M8 for a little over a year now. I've shot over 25,000 frames with it and I bought it for around £2.5k - which works out at about 10p a shot so far if I consider the camera to be worth nothing. However I can reasonably sell my M8 for about £2k today - so actually it works out at 2p per frame.

 

I expect when the full frame M9 arrives, I'll still be able to trade the M8 for at least half the new price of the day. So taking that into account - I'd rather have the M8 now than wait around for the full frame to arrive.

 

I never seriously considered a DSLR though - so YMMV.

[luigi bertolotti]

....or perhaps it is becoming ripe. At more than three thousand pounds for a new M8, they seemed, and still seem (to me personally), too expensive to contemplate. Too many uncertainties, But now I see used M8s for around two thousand, and begin to think that this makes one an attractive proposition. Not that much more expensive than an M7 was a few years ago. Still ludicrously expensive, of course. But no more than the Epson RD-1 was when it was released. But maybe with the prospect of the R10 around the corner, and maybe an M9 in 2009 or 2010, the time is indeed not yet ripe -- not quite -- , and I should hold off buying one for a bit longer. I think a full (35mm) - frame sensor in a camera of reasonable price would tip the scales decisively. Not too far off, I suppose.

 

"Wait and see" is a rule that can always be worth in the digital world: in my op., Leica has decided to pursue a rather long lifecycle strategy with M8, both for specific budget limitations but also for maintaining its traditional trustability in long term (not an easy play, with digital) : personally, if I hadn't bought my M8 1 year ago, no doubt I would buy one now... any speculation on future RF development is uncertain in times and costs (I do not think a maybe future "FF M9" will have a lower price tag than M8), and the current M8 deliveries a lot of satisfaction as is, for me.

[Eoin]

.....I think a full (35mm) - frame sensor in a camera of reasonable price would tip the scales decisively. Not too far off, I suppose.

 

Here with all due respect I feel you're deluding yourself, A new full frame camera from Leica will be anything but reasonable IMO. No matter when you buy a camera it'll be outdated very soon due to technical advances. The trick is to adopt at a price / performance level that you can grow with and be satisfied with the results. I've had my M8 since November 06 and have yet to feel it's image quality is lacking in any department for my needs. I have not shot, developed or printed my own film in 7 years but have adopted a digital workflow during that time which to my mind is far more fluid and productive and continues to improve as time and my skills move on.

[NZDavid]

The question of expense is an intriguing and not irrelevant one. I can understand why precision engineering costs money, especially finely tooled mechanical components, like the M rangefinder itself, painstakingly assembled by hand. What I find harder to understand is why anything computerized always costs a whole heap more -- when its constituent parts are largely printed circuits and silicon chips mass produced in Asia. Yet these computerized parts are likely to become outmoded or give out far sooner than the mechanical ones.

 

About a decade ago, camera magazines would call any camera over about $700 expensive and $2,000 exorbitant -- now, in the digital age, purchase prices have gone way way up and everyone is expected just to get used to them.

 

All that said, the long-term savings potential of digital is undeniable, provided you keep the camera long enough. The same economic reasoning could apply to cars: Would you pay twice as much for an ultra fuel-efficient car that does, say 60mpg, versus half the price for a an older model still in good condition that does only 30mpg?

[Guest jimmy pro]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If all your concerned with is image quality then despite what the zelotts will say, there are a number of digitals less expensive than the M8 that will deliver as good or better, and by better, I don't mean how sharp the RAW's look on the monitor, I mean how good the prints look you can make useing an optimized workflow. That includes moire, and high-ISO noise performance, not to mention the reliability that you won't need to remove/replace the battery while the great photo op is happening, if not crap out entirely.

 

But if you are into the ergos of a rangefinder Leica but don't want to shoot film and scan, then there is nothing else better than an M8. If it was Canon you could prolly bank on an improved model in 18 months from when it was first sold. But with Leica that's a crapshoot, not to mention if the M8 is any indicator, a new model will have a laundry list of glitches and issues that need to be worked out. The M8 is what it is, but at least we know what it is. I'm thinking that if you have to ask strangers what to do, you don't really need an M8. But if you are serious about it then I don't see why not buy now, or at most wait a couple months and satisfy yourself that there's nothing improved coming at Photokina. Then get a demo. At $5500 for a new one that's just totally insane IMHO.

[Saloti]

[....But with Leica that's a crapshoot, not to mention if the M8 is any indicator, a new model will have a laundry list of glitches and issues that need to be worked out. The M8 is what it is, but at least we know what it is....

 

After all what we could read about the "harmony-level" between acting managers in the Leica Team and taking into consideration that apparently the new CEO wants to go

a "value for money" strategy with regard to M8 I doubt that there will be a brand new

M8/M9 this year. They probably need more time to truly improve the product.

 

And - I totally agree, I have fun using the M8, we indeed know what it is.......