So why are so many people selling their M8s?

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Shootie you were somewhat nasty in that response ..... ahhh sigh the shame of it all.

Pick a fight no way I never pick fights with with nasty little critters they live in dark lobbies

[Guest DuquesneG]

why are so many people selling their M8s?

 

Possibles:

 

1. Some people are single-mindedly focused on specifications. Like horsepower in cars. It doesn't seem to matter to them that a Nikon D3 (for example) is a large SLR vs the M8 a small rangefinder. Megapixels, high-iso noise, etc. are all that matters and what's important is that their camera is tops in the charts.

 

2. To some people, cameras are playthings. The M8 is going on 2 years old, an eon in the digital age. Bor-ing. Time for something new.

 

3. Bad economic times.

 

4. To some people, cameras are "investments" and fear that something new at Photokina will drive down the resale value of their M8.

 

5. The early flood of M8 buyers have cameras that are soon approaching the end of their warranty. Some may fear the cost of potential repairs but not want to spend $700-1500 on an upgrade they don't care about, just to get another year of warranty. Cheaper to sell their M8 for $3500 and buy a demo for $3900 ($400 net outlay) that comes with a year warranty.

 

Best,

Gordon

[Advertisement]

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

[thrid]

I think you are mistaken.

 

Actually I am not. I deal with this issue every day at work.

 

The average DSLR gets about 8.5 stops of range.

The Fuji S5 PRO with it's SuperCCD delivers a solid 10 stops.

 

Slidefilm has about 7-8 stops of range.

Color and black and white negative capture about 10-13 stops of range.

 

Noise is the limiting factor and in that respect digital does much better on the shadow end.

 

The main problem with DSLR cameras is the blind faith most people place in matrix metering. You get much better results with a hand held meter and knowledge of how your sensor reacts to light. In that case the 8.5 stops are not a limiting factor, except in extreme cases.

 

The Film M framelines are just as inaccurate as the M8. They are just different and you don't notice the inaccuracy because it take 1 hour to 1 week, or longer, before you can view the negative/positive from film so you forget just where you framed.

 

There are at least three very long threads on this forum that acknowledge the inaccuracy of the M8 framelines. It is a problem and Leica has indicated that they may do something about this issue in the future.

 

I have been shooting with M bodies on an almost daily basis for +10 years and therefore am very familiar with how they frame. The M8 framing is no where as accurate as the pre or post M6 bodies. Since you're such an expert on the subject, I'll let you figure out what the difference is between the two eras in M bodies.

 

If the price of the M8 turns you off then the price of any Leica would of done the same for years and years. So you don't own any Leica's? So why are you on the Leica M8 forum spewing bile.

 

You really shouldn't draw conclusions about people you do not know.

I shoot with six M bodies and three R cameras, in addition to Nikon and medium format systems by Hasselblad and Rollei. Considering the tone of your response, it's likely that I bought my first M body, when you were still trying to grow a mustache.

 

Why, you will find fault with whatever they are offering then come hear to tell everyone that has bought one of these new products they've made a big mistake and you are the only one that knows best.

 

I will gladly buy a digital M from Leica, when they produce something that is up to the standards of their long tradition of excellence. The Leica RF is my favorite camera and the one I am most comfortable with. The last thing I want to see is Leica go out of business. Simply pretending that there are no technical problems or that the camera is priced too high in the market is not going to help them.

 

I am certain that Leica will improve things greatly with the M8-2 or M9. Until then I am not interested in paying Leica $5500 to be their guinea pig. I will wait. I need to get actual work done and need a camera that isn't a work in progress and can't be fully relied on.

 

Have A Nice Day.

 

You really don't mean that and only come off sounding like a smartass.

I suggest you lose the sig.

[stunsworth]

There are at least three very long threads on this forum that acknowledge the inaccuracy of the M8 framelines. It is a problem and Leica has indicated that they may do something about this issue in the future.

 

Shootist is correct.

 

The point being that the framelines can only be accurate at one particular distance. Leica have chosen to change that distance with the M8 when compared to earlier Ms and have set it to the focal length's minimum focussing distance. Presumably this was done to prevent people having their images cropped when using lenses at their nearest focussing distances. Also remember that most 1 hr labs - in my experience at least - crop images slightly when they print them.

 

What Leica were offering was the possibility of making the M8 framelines accurate at another distance rather than the current minimum focussing distance - 2m for example. Personally that is one ugrade I will have done when, and if, it becomes available. But I'd then expect complaints from people saying that the framelines were inaccurate because they'd taken a photograph at .7m and the image was cropped.

[thrid]

Shootist is correct.

 

I'm sorry, but he is not correct. The M8 does not frame as accurate as the analog bodies, except at the closest focusing distance.

 

The point being that the framelines can only be accurate at one particular distance. Leica have chosen to change that distance with the M8 when compared to earlier Ms and have set it to the focal length's minimum focussing distance. Presumably this was done to prevent people having their images cropped when using lenses at their nearest focussing distances. Also remember that most 1 hr labs - in my experience at least - crop images slightly when they print them.

 

The frameline have always been fixed in size and indicate the area of coverage at the closest focusing distance.

 

Up until the M6 (and some late M4-P) the framelines indicated the minimum coverage at 1 meter. (M3/M2/M4/M5/M4-2/most M4-P)

 

Starting with the M6 Leica shrank the area of coverage the framelines indicated to .7 meters (70cm). This is most noticeable with the markings for 50/75/90/135. (M6/M6ttl/M7/MP)

 

At the root of the problem is a shift in magnification that occurs when you change focus from up close to infinity.

 

The only real solution to this is a new RF unit with framelines that not only compensates for parallax in X and Y (as they currently do), but also takes in to account the change in magnification and varies the area of coverage. If I remember correctly some of the Mamiya RF cameras do this. Leica also built a prototype in the 1960's that did this, but it never made it in to production. The prototype was sold at Westlicht last year, along with a copy of the blueprints.

 

The problem is that when you decrease the area of coverage to indicate coverage at the closet focusing distance, you increase the discrepancy between what you will get at the minimum focusing distance and infinity. And since the area of coverage indicated in the M8 appears to smaller than in the analog bodies, the error for framing at infinity or medium distances is greater.

 

 

 

What Leica were offering was the possibility of making the M8 framelines accurate at another distance rather than the current minimum focussing distance - 2m for example. Personally that is one ugrade I will have done when, and if, it becomes available. But I'd then expect complaints from people saying that the framelines were inaccurate because they'd taken a photograph at .7m and the image was cropped.

 

You're right, it's all about compromise.

 

When the minimum area of coverage was 1 meter, the error between framing close up and infinity was acceptable. It became quite noticeable with the M6 (.7 m) and later bodies and is glaringly obvious with the M8.

 

Personally I think Leica has two choices. Go with a mask that indicates 1 meter (or maybe even .70) or develop a new RF unit that compensates for the magnification shift.

[ChrisC]

So Chris you tried to sell your M8 and there was no takers? Or just not at the price you had it listed for?

 

Ed - I am now glad there were no takers, though there were several interested parties. I bundled the camera with some 'extras' [i was likely leaving Leica forever] and I have since wondered if prospective purchasers couldn't work out the deal. Had to sell my 24 Elmarit though; that still hurts.

 

................. Chris

[mwalker649]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Cameras are just tools...period. M8's, M's do some things well and other cameras do some things well...its all up to the mechanic to choose the right tool.

[Shootist]

Never mind.

And YES Have a Nice Day. If wishing someone a nice day is being a SA then yes I am a SA.

 

And I like my screen name because I am a shootist. Just ask the people I shoot IPSC/USPSA with.

 

I'm sorry, but he is not correct. The M8 does not frame as accurate as the analog bodies, except at the closest focusing distance.

 

 

 

The frameline have always been fixed in size and indicate the area of coverage at the closest focusing distance.

 

Up until the M6 (and some late M4-P) the framelines indicated the minimum coverage at 1 meter. (M3/M2/M4/M5/M4-2/most M4-P)

 

Starting with the M6 Leica shrank the area of coverage the framelines indicated to .7 meters (70cm). This is most noticeable with the markings for 50/75/90/135. (M6/M6ttl/M7/MP)

 

At the root of the problem is a shift in magnification that occurs when you change focus from up close to infinity.

 

The only real solution to this is a new RF unit with framelines that not only compensates for parallax in X and Y (as they currently do), but also takes in to account the change in magnification and varies the area of coverage. If I remember correctly some of the Mamiya RF cameras do this. Leica also built a prototype in the 1960's that did this, but it never made it in to production. The prototype was sold at Westlicht last year, along with a copy of the blueprints.

 

The problem is that when you decrease the area of coverage to indicate coverage at the closet focusing distance, you increase the discrepancy between what you will get at the minimum focusing distance and infinity. And since the area of coverage indicated in the M8 appears to smaller than in the analog bodies, the error for framing at infinity or medium distances is greater.

 

 

 

 

 

You're right, it's all about compromise.

 

When the minimum area of coverage was 1 meter, the error between framing close up and infinity was acceptable. It became quite noticeable with the M6 (.7 m) and later bodies and is glaringly obvious with the M8.

 

Personally I think Leica has two choices. Go with a mask that indicates 1 meter (or maybe even .70) or develop a new RF unit that compensates for the magnification shift.

[Shootist]

Ed - I am now glad there were no takers, though there were several interested parties. I bundled the camera with some 'extras' [i was likely leaving Leica forever] and I have since wondered if prospective purchasers couldn't work out the deal. Had to sell my 24 Elmarit though; that still hurts.

 

................. Chris

Chris we all go through those time wondering IF we made the right choice. I'm certain "I" have made the right choice.

 

I too sold my 24mm Elmarit and although I would of rather kept it I really don't miss it (most of the time).

 

I'm waiting for my black M8 to come back from Leica NJ for a RF adjustment. This is the second time it has gone in for that. Not that it goes out, it WAS out from day one.

 

Even with all the little glitches of the M8 I am very happy to have them.

[Isabelle Lenatio]

I'm surprised, most members here talk themselves into the fact that the M8 is a spectacular piece of photographic equipment and either disbelieve -, or argument the fact down to plain stupidity that some person might sell it.

 

The M8 is good, I must give you that, but it definitely isn't the best thing since sliced bread, it's small and unobtrusive and shoots pretty good images most of the time, but it surely isn't perfect. The fact thats it#s a rangefinder ... might be important to some but for most I wouldn't think this would matter ....

 

People sell their gear to get other stuff, and pardon me for saying, most other stuff marketed today at similar prices produce equal or better image quality... and yes they are not rangefinders and they are bigger.... given that there are still people into photography for whom the image result is more important than size or weight.

 

I use my M8 quite a lot, I use my D700 quite a lot too.... and the best quality images I still get from my Hassleblad

[Isabelle Lenatio]

... and I must agree to the fact that it's the best digital rangefinder on the market today.... so if you just want rangefinder, M8 is the best choice .... even maybe the only one???

[stunsworth]

The fact thats it#s a rangefinder ... might be important to some but for most I wouldn't think this would matter ....

 

On the contrary, it's the main reason for preferring an M - whether that's film or digital - in my case at least, and I suspect for many other people too.

[Isabelle Lenatio]

On the contrary, it's the main reason for preferring an M - whether that's film or digital - in my case at least, and I suspect for many other people too.

 

Like I mentioned Steve, important for some, not for others .....

 

In terms of accuracy I would prefer SLR's anytime, but it is a question of taste and application

[fotografr]

I'm surprised, most members here talk themselves into the fact that the M8 is a spectacular piece of photographic equipment and either disbelieve -, or argument the fact down to plain stupidity that some person might sell it.

 

 

I guess you can put me into your "stupid" category, Isabelle. I've been a working pro for 30 years and have used several DSLR systems--most notably, Nikon and Canon pro bodies & lenses. My strong preference for image quality is the M8.

 

I consider myself capable of discerning whether I'm basing this judgement on something real or just an illusion to support my investment decision. Furthermore, my clients don't really care what camera system I shoot with. All they care about is how the images look to them and how well they reproduce. If the M8 files I deliver looked inferior in any way to what they get from other shooters, my phone would stop ringing. That hasn't happened yet.

 

One factor often overlooked in these discussions is the lenses. The main reason many of us who shot with film Ms were eagerly awaiting the M8 was to have the ability to use our M lenses on a digital body. This has a significant impact on overall image quality. In fact, the main reason I started using Leicas 25 years ago and continue today is for the glass. The M8 isn't a perfect camera, but it's the best one currently available which allows me to use M lenses, and that's a rather large advantage in my opinion.

[Isabelle Lenatio]

Brent,

 

And why would I know so much about image quality as to even take the chance commenting about it you might ask .... it's because I work for one of the highest regarded film and image processing companies in the world, I might not know much about about photography in general, but I do know about images and how to represent them for any purpose of representation, be it billboards (yes the 30x12 mtr. stuff) too stills used in film as to images for major exhibitions throughout the world. professionals use us most of the time and we see many many images pass through our workflow, most images are good, content wise (which is what counts actually), technically the M8 doesn't really beat any other major professional setup, I wouldn't be able to tell them apart anyway, nor would our "chief print gonzo" whom really knows what he is talking about (we have these discussion often within our team, what camera produces the .... etc. etc....)

 

And no, I'm not going to mention whom I work for ....

[markowich]

just to put an end to this pointless discussion let me just reiterate: image quality is a concept that changes with time. of course you can still use 400iso BW film and do excellent photography, no contradiction in that. but you might even do better with the latest technology. and yes, the recent sensor technology developments are setting new quality standards. that said, i am curious what we shall get from P65.

 

 

 

Well, which way is it? First you claimed that DSLR only recently began to meet the requirements for “quality images”, however defined:

 

you should read more carefully what i said. we are not playing schrödinger's cat here.

peter

 

 

And now it’s those cameras setting higher quality standards, rather than the other way round? Just to explain why 20th century prints from the likes of Cartier-Bresson are still worthy of adorning museum walls, even when they often do not meet the stringent quality requirements used to dismiss high ISO images taken with the M8?

[Isabelle Lenatio]

Brent ....

 

I forgot to mention that lenses indeed are amongst the "mission critical factors" of producing a good image, and Leica lenses obviously have always had an edge in the wet-photography process, they are superior to most other lenses in terms of technical image quality within 24x36 format. Digitally however the lens is important still but doesn't have the same values as within film, it helps, but isn't the justifier anymore. In camera controlled imaging engines are, and this is where leica currently lacks compared to other brands. I know I'm going to get branded for this but give Nikon Leica glass on their current new series, or give leica the Nikon SW on their next version of the M8 .... both would make quite a difference within the current day imaging competition...

[FastFashnReloaded]

I remain surprised to see so many s/h M8s coming onto the market. It is probably a gross generalisation but there are a number of "my backup M8 which I don't need" ads. So does that mean that the M8 is such a stellar, dependable performer that pros do not need backups? Of the others in the Buy/Sell section here, at RFF and on e-Bay a lot do not have reasons for sale but they are recent purchases. If I had the spare dough I wouldn't mind a chrome one as a backup!

 

LouisB

 

If you want to see a lot of things for sale, look up Hummers on Ebay.

[fotografr]

Isabelle--No disrespect, but we aren't going to agree on this issue regardless of your credentials. I stand by my original comments.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Isabelle Lenatio]

Brent, and this is your right by all means .... I'm not criticizing you just telling you my own experiences, and how I reach my own experiences.... thats all.