No Upgrades For Me

[padraigm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not for me, though frame lines might be worth it. I tried the m8 classic and the m8.2 side by side and yes the newer version is much much quieter, I was actually more pissed off than ever because of it.Without the discreet upgrade I think it is absolutely not worth it and your money would be better spend on a new lens. Hearing them side by side decided for me once and for all that I was not going to do it because of the recocking issue. If they decide at some point to offer it I would be very likely to go forward with it.

[jamriman]

Not for me, though frame lines might be worth it. I tried the m8 classic and the m8.2 side by side and yes the newer version is much much quieter, I was actually more pissed off than ever because of it.Without the discreet upgrade I think it is absolutely not worth it and your money would be better spend on a new lens. Hearing them side by side decided for me once and for all that I was not going to do it because of the recocking issue. If they decide at some point to offer it I would be very likely to go forward with it.

True perhaps not worth it, but then again what leica product is truly worth it (when you buy new)? ;^)

[Advertisement]

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

[hankg]

I'll pass as it's not likely to extend the cameras useful life. While clearly better the M8.2 is close enough to the M8 to make trading up an unnecessary luxury. The upgrade falls into the same category for me. Maybe the next model won't be so resistible compared to what I already have.

 

Upgrading the M8 increases the cost of ownership of an already expensive camera. If I can get 5 years out it before moving to a M8.3 or M9 or whatever they have then - it will work out to about $75 a month minus resale value of the M8 not bad (for digital).

[hankg]

it would make more sense to spend $3500 on the cost of an M8.2 (trade-in offered by Dale Labs of $2800 plus $3500 = a new M8.2.) Cheers, JB

 

If I was going to spend $3500 I'd get a DSLR with macro lens and keep the M8. The I'd have a DSLR and a rangefinder that can do different things well instead of just a slightly improved RF.

[Shootist]

Not doing any on either of my M8's. I really don't see the need. The shutter sound doesn't bother me and it didn't seem to bother anyone at a wedding I did 2 weeks ago. Although I rarely use 1/6000 or 1/8000 I think I might miss them if they weren't available.

Frame lines are what they are and I'm use to them. I know I can get more then what is showing inside the FL's so as long as what I wanted in the shot is in the shot that is all that matters to me. I think PS has a crop tool if I need it.

 

The only thing that might get me to do any of the upgraders is the extended warranty. And then only if I needed it.

 

Oh and I have enough of sending cameras to NJ.

[SJP]

I heard a M8u shutter last weekend and it was quite a bit more quiet than a M8, but for me that does not amount to a lot because the M8 is quiet enough. I know the M8 does not give you that impression when you fire the thing yourself, but if someone else takes a picture of you using a M8 you hardly hear it. At least that was my impression.

[fotografr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not contemplating getting them either, as I am perfectly happy with the M8 as it is now.

As for the money/investment..... I shall budget the update and spend it on something else :-)

 

Purses and shoes?

[piero]

Piero, the 1.25 magnifier makes a big different with focusing for the 75. In fact, I leave it on the camera all the time, even when using my 24.

 

There is a less-expensive version of the magnifier out of Hong Kong that has been discussed here. Check the 'magnifier' threads.

 

Thanks Bill,

I wish I did not buy the magnifier with the camera, but I did and I have to wait until the end of November. Ridiculous, I know.

For some reason the vendor suggested the 1.4x, I had choosen the 1.25. I guess I'll be able to use it with my second lens, the 35 'Cron Asph, (in Solms since Oct 22nd for revision).

 

every now and then I get the focus though...

[sean_reid]

I think it makes sense to not spend more money if one is already happy with the M8 as is (or is not especially interested in the changes). As for myself, I'm shooting both an M8 and an M8.2 side by side right now and definitely prefer the newer camera. But, of course, the framing accuracy and shutter noise reduction are important to me.

 

BTW, any time an improved camera is released, one can think of it as being "what the previous version should have been". That's not just the M8. By that line of thinking, the 10D is what the D30 "should have been", the E4 will have the high ISO performance the E3 should have had, etc. The M8 had strengths/weaknesses when it was released and so too does the M8.2. So it goes with this stuff. When the M9 is released, many will no doubt feel that *it* is the camera that the M8 should have been. Should the M8 have required IR-cut filters (and require them still)? It depends on what was/is possible in IR filtration in a DRF with a sensor of such and such a size. But if Leica releases a future DRF that does not need IR-cut filters, one can be sure that some will feel that the M8 "should" have been that way too. It's an infinite kind of thinking.

 

Frankly, I'm not sure that "should" ends up being a very useful word in all of this. Many of us have an image in our minds of what the perfect DRF might be like. Meanwhile, we make our choices about the cameras that actually exist and every single one of them involves compromises of one sort or another despite the best efforts marketeers might make to tell us otherwise.

 

Naturally, the other aspect in all of this is that many of us may feel inclined to not spend money right now unless the purchase really seems necessary. That feeling may change a bit when the markets come back. Of course, that can be a bit of a vicious circle in itself.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[norm_snyder]

One M8 is in NJ--why? Extended warranty, plus the shutter being quieter will be nice. Finder frames----I'm a high myope. I even tried soft contacts years ago, so as to be able to see the framelines on my M4-2. They dried out and gave me blurry vision while I was keeping my eye open to compose. At best, the framelines are an approximation. I have a sense of the field of view I'll capture as I raise the camera to my eye. Sapphire crystal LCD? Really, I'd be happy with no LCD, or one which reversed like the Epson camera, so I didn't feel tempted to spend my time looking at what I'd "captured" rather than what I wanted to shoot. We'll see how this works for me. For the extended warranty, and the new shutter, it's probably worth the price, considering that the camera I just sent in to NJ is a replacement for my original one, and had been worked on at Leica Reeducation Camp since then. Two major service calls in less than two years seems to rationalize, if not justify the cost of the upgrade.

[khun_k]

I think it makes sense to not spend more money if one is already happy with the M8 as is (or is not especially interested in the changes). As for myself, I'm shooting both an M8 and an M8.2 side by side right now and definitely prefer the newer camera. But, of course, the framing accuracy and shutter noise reduction are important to me.

 

BTW, any time an improved camera is released, one can think of it as being "what the previous version should have been". That's not just the M8. By that line of thinking, the 10D is what the D30 "should have been", the E4 will have the high ISO performance the E3 should have had, etc. The M8 had strengths/weaknesses when it was released and so too does the M8.2. So it goes with this stuff. When the M9 is released, many will no doubt feel that *it* is the camera that the M8 should have been. Should the M8 have required IR-cut filters (and require them still)? It depends on what was/is possible in IR filtration in a DRF with a sensor of such and such a size. But if Leica releases a future DRF that does not need IR-cut filters, one can be sure that some will feel that the M8 "should" have been that way too. It's an infinite kind of thinking.

 

Frankly, I'm not sure that "should" ends up being a very useful word in all of this. Many of us have an image in our minds of what the perfect DRF might be like. Meanwhile, we make our choices about the cameras that actually exist and every single one of them involves compromises of one sort or another despite the best efforts marketeers might make to tell us otherwise.

 

Naturally, the other aspect in all of this is that many of us may feel inclined to not spend money right now unless the purchase really seems necessary. That feeling may change a bit when the markets come back. Of course, that can be a bit of a vicious circle in itself.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

I always look positively for most of the camera development moving towards better performance, finish and picture taking efficiency or experience. If I am working primary on M8 then I think I will upgrade, but if M8 is more or less a part of my system, then I think I will continue to enjoy M8 - which is a great camera already for the images it produce for me, and patiently wait for M9, not sure if it is any time soon and will it be fitted with larger sensor. As long as the image quality is good, I don't care that much for 1.3X of FF, as long as the wide angle I have will deliver the right picture for me, and I can stitch multiple shots anyway if really need it. I would rather see a company like Leica to do what they believe to be best for image quality, and of course, the traditional Leica experience.

I do hope to hear those use M8.2 heavily for the durability of the newer black paint because the finish on my black anodize M8 has became to wear off on the edge and the bottom with only around 10,000 shots.

[Kasimir]

If Leica doesn't offer a FF sensor before my guarantee expires I might think about one of the upgrades to prolong my guarantee.

But maybe a CLE does the trick, also?

[norm_snyder]

Gee, do you think they'd extend the warranty with, say, just a leatherette upgrade? That way, I could extend the warranty on my second body, and keep one with the 1/8000 shutter, and one with the new shutter [currently in NJ for this], and have both warranties extended.

[SJP]

Black dot replacement sounds the way to go to get yur warranty extension.

[razerx]

I am on my second M8 and remarkably it has a very smooth shutter. Compared to my first one and also having tried some of my friends' M8s' it has no vibration and noticeably quieter. I got lucky so no upgrade for me.

[piero]

Gee, do you think they'd extend the warranty with, say, just a leatherette upgrade? That way, I could extend the warranty on my second body, and keep one with the 1/8000 shutter, and one with the new shutter [currently in NJ for this], and have both warranties extended.

 

leatherette is not part of the upgrade program,

is an a-la-carte option.

[fordfanjpn]

I won't be upgrading. Couldn't afford it even if I wanted to. Besides, the M8 works fine the way it is. So I'm saving my lunch money for the DP2 and the presently vapor-ware Oly micro four thirds.

 

Bill

[jamriman]

Well it seems that I am in the upgrade minority. Perhaps the reason being everyone is selling their M8's to buy the M8.2. I have never seen so many M8's for sale all at once.

[Anguish]

It all sounded seductive. But why upgrade to framelines that would, in some cases, cause one to miss a potentially critical portion of the image?

The way I treat glass, it should be bullet proof, but what do I use the screen for - composition check and info - not critical examination.

Discrete would be nice, but the classic is still pretty quiet. With 2 bodies, shouldn't both have the same configuration least it confuse the shooter?

 

Maybe there would be an incentive if the upgrade option was good for a certain time limit.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[norm_snyder]

Many seem to like the new framelines, but in the end, I opted to not upgrade them, only the shutter. I use the framelines as an approximation of the subject matter included in the frame, and have, since starting to use M-cameras years ago. As has been noted, the width of the field with the 35mm lens on full frame, or the 28mm on a reduced frame, is about the same as the distance to the subject--quite good enough for "street shooting." Also, this way, both my bodies will have the same framelines.

 

Besides, by now I've adapted to the existing ones [although the 75mm brackets are still horrible], and since I wear glasses, seeing the 28mm frame is tough, as it is. If it was larger, as it would be with the upgraded framelines, I would only be able to see part of it, and I'd be back to the finder having to be used to approximate the field of view.

 

My view: spend the money on another lens, accessory, mat board, etc. Now, if I really could extend the warranty by only upgrading the black dot, or having script added to the top deck, that might be a good deal....[Yeah, I know, leatherette doesn't count]