bill Posted June 16, 2009 Share #21 Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) @ Paga @ Plasticman No problem. Thank you kindly for your clarifications. I agree - we are on the same page on this. Regards, Bill Edited June 16, 2009 by bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 16, 2009 Posted June 16, 2009 Hi bill, Take a look here M8 ; The Good The Bad The Ugly. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest Posted June 16, 2009 Share #22 Posted June 16, 2009 I want a digital M, but not the one currently on offer. The answer to that is dead simple . "Don`t buy an M8 " Buy the camera that you do want. Brian:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted June 16, 2009 Share #23 Posted June 16, 2009 I want a digital M, but not the one currently on offer. The answer to that is dead simple . "Don`t buy an M8 " Buy the camera that you do want. Brian:D Brian, you never said a truer word Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 16, 2009 Share #24 Posted June 16, 2009 Ehmmmm - well I obviously ought to have been much clearer in my sarcasm, which was aimed rather maliciously at the OP, and definitely not at Bill. In my eagerness to post a smart@ss comment I didn't have time to make this obvious. No problem, my mistake for jumping to conclusions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted June 16, 2009 Share #25 Posted June 16, 2009 For goodness' sake! 1. I said I disliked the handling not the size per se. 2. Where did I mention noise??? 3. I said I disliked the crop factor - I can't see how I can be "technically correct" (or indeed "incorrect") in doing so. In any event crop factor is not just about getting you "closer"... or do you truly believe it is? Frank I have said it before and it seems I have to repeat myself. If you are going to quote me GET IT RIGHT. It is a simple courtesy mastered by just about everybody else. Regards, Bill You are correct you did NOT mention noise......I actually assumed that under the heading of too many compromises....sorry my mistake. It is also true you did say handling ....which I assumed meant size (and shape?) since you referred earlier email I believe to M9 should be like your M7 (or with a totally different layout) ....I felt that had something to do with size, excuse me for assuming that. What is the negative on handling if it is not size or shape? Is it: Centre of gravity? , feel? accessibility of buttons? or work flow? or something else? I actually think all of this is excellent with M8 but you clearly do not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted June 16, 2009 Share #26 Posted June 16, 2009 Common ground here - but then I looked back at some theatre work I'd done with 1600 Fuji slide film and Kodak 800 colour neg and thought Hey - the old M8's pretty damn good! It's not in the same league for high ISO as my 5D2 - but not much else is (I've never shot Nikon), but it's more than useable at 1250 IMHO. Maybe I could be persuaded to shell out some more for better high ISO, and maybe I could be persuaded to go FF it came along. But really, my tongue's not hanging out waiting - and I'm not being stopped doing work with the M8 exactly as it is. I am intrigued what actually happens when you shoot in low light and select a high ISO number........it is the firefly season here in S.France and i am thinking of using my Noctilux on the M8 to see what comes out. > What should I be careful about? Any tips? > What constitutes a poor result on M8 when compared to Canon in low light? > How does noise manifest itself in the actual photographic result in those photos that suggest to me that you seem to be pushing the limit of anyones technology and good for you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted June 16, 2009 Share #27 Posted June 16, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) You are correct you did NOT mention noise......I actually assumed that under the heading of too many compromises....sorry my mistake. It is also true you did say handling ....which I assumed meant size (and shape?) since you referred earlier email I believe to M9 should be like your M7 (or with a totally different layout) ....I felt that had something to do with size, excuse me for assuming that. What is the negative on handling if it is not size or shape? Is it: Centre of gravity? , feel? accessibility of buttons? or work flow? or something else? I actually think all of this is excellent with M8 but you clearly do not. Bill I reread your original quote and for completeness you did say in fact: . I dislike the handling - it is too thick and brick-like...... The size of M4/M6 ( I believe M7 is the same) is 140 mm x 78 x 33 The M8 is 135mm x 80mm x 38 ...so the differnces are small...so why does one feel like a brick? My feeling is the M8 seems slightly heavier. If it is it is marginal and Leica lenses would cloud that issue I feel very quickly. The M9 I guess will have more in it and I expect it will be slightly larger if it is full frame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 16, 2009 Share #28 Posted June 16, 2009 The size of M4/M6 ( I believe M7 is the same) is 140 mm x 78 x 33 The M8 is 135mm x 80mm x 38 ...so the differnces are small...so why does one feel like a brick? The M4/M6 (I assume you refer to the original M6, not the M6 TTL) isn't the same size as the M7. If you put an M6 and an M8 next to each other the difference in size is obvious. Doesn't bother me, but I'm not every man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paga Posted June 16, 2009 Share #29 Posted June 16, 2009 If you compare M3 and M6, sizes are also different... no drama there, both take photos?! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 16, 2009 Share #30 Posted June 16, 2009 If you compare M3 and M6, sizes are also different... no drama there, both take photos?! The M3 and M6 are the same size aren't they? The M6 TTL is higher, but that was to accommodate the additional electronics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paga Posted June 16, 2009 Share #31 Posted June 16, 2009 The M3 and M6 are the same size aren't they? The M6 TTL is higher, but that was to accommodate the additional electronics. OK OK it was a bad example let's say M3 vs M5? (still a M3 "feels" smaller than my MP, that is what matters no?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted June 16, 2009 Share #32 Posted June 16, 2009 Simple fact is some would of never bought a M8 no matter what it looked or handled like. These people would of always found something wrong with it for whatever reason. Other just like film and whatever the shortcomings of the M8 may be they have decided to stick with film with there M type cameras. Maybe using digital in a P&S or some other makers D-SLR. They are happy with that decision and I am happy they are happy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paga Posted June 16, 2009 Share #33 Posted June 16, 2009 In conclusion: don't worry be happy, yeah, I like that better Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted June 16, 2009 Share #34 Posted June 16, 2009 The M3 and M6 are the same size aren't they? The M6 TTL is higher, but that was to accommodate the additional electronics. I have the original M6 (not TTL) and I have the M4 which is identical in all dimensions ..(measured using a plastic ruler, not a micrometer!) I have no idea about M2. M3 but think they are also the same approx. size. I also have a M5 and that is bigger han the M4 or M6 tin length and height but depth is about the same (150mm x 82 x 34) My issue is how is it that M8 can be described as a BRICK with 2 mm more in one dimension and 5mm less in the other and in weight not much in it...when compared to a M7 which I guess is if anything is larger than the M4 /M6 (without TTL) ? Bill can you help ne understanda s I know you wish to be accurate and clearly the devil is in the details. I guess we need a valuable quote from Canute, Archimedes Shakespeare or whomever at this point. As a northerner myself can I suggest something valuable form Gordon Brown or Alistair or even Hazel Blears! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adli Posted June 16, 2009 Share #35 Posted June 16, 2009 The M4/M6 (I assume you refer to the original M6, not the M6 TTL) isn't the same size as the M7. If you put an M6 and an M8 next to each other the difference in size is obvious. Doesn't bother me, but I'm not every man. The problem is not the difference it self. The problem is that the M6 feels right in your hand as opsed to the M8 which gives you that "brick" feeling. Also if you look at the two of them together from top, the M6 have propotions that looks right, but the M8 looks like there is something wriong with its propotions. This doesn't stop the M8 from taking great pictures though, even if it doesn't give you the same feeling as the M6 when you hold it. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/88121-m8-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly/?do=findComment&comment=934290'>More sharing options...
bill Posted June 16, 2009 Share #36 Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) My issue is how is it that M8 can be described as a BRICK with 2 mm more in one dimension and 5mm less in the other and in weight not much in it...when compared to a M7 which I guess is if anything is larger than the M4 /M6 (without TTL) ? Bill can you help ne understanda s I know you wish to be accurate and clearly the devil is in the details. Frankly, Frank, I really can't be bothered to do so. I have said all I intend to on the subject on this thread. Do feel free to search back through my previous posts if you wish any further clarification on my stance. The only reason I chipped in here at all is because you referred specifically to me, and my views, in your OP. You have continued to refer to me in all save one of your subsequent posts. I am beginning to feel that I have a cyber stalker... Regards, Bill Edited June 16, 2009 by bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 16, 2009 Share #37 Posted June 16, 2009 I My issue is how is it that M8 can be described as a BRICK with 2 mm more in one dimension and 5mm less in the other and in weight not much in it...when compared to a M7 which I guess is if anything is larger than the M4 /M6 (without TTL) ? It's a case of how the camera feels in the hand. Doesn't bother me, but it does feel differently to an M2/6. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted June 16, 2009 Share #38 Posted June 16, 2009 Simple fact is some would of never bought a M8 no matter what it looked or handled like. These people would of always found something wrong with it for whatever reason...They are happy with that decision and I am happy they are happy. Are you really? You state the first part of your thesis often enough. I don't see why everyone is so damn sensitive about this camera. Other people may have their own good reasons for not wanting to buy it - I have no idea why some individuals on this forum simple can't accept that...?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleica Posted June 16, 2009 Share #39 Posted June 16, 2009 THE UGLY Nothing? I'd welcome comments on what negatives I am missing. Why would anyone wait for a M8.3, or eventual M9 and certainly pay much more for what benefit? After reading through this thread, i think that I can answer your question about missing something. I think that under 'The ugly' you should put the reactions from members when anyone doesn't agree with their point of view! Seriously folks, relax a little. Life is way too short for all of this anger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted June 16, 2009 Share #40 Posted June 16, 2009 Are you really? You state the first part of your thesis often enough. I don't see why everyone is so damn sensitive about this camera. Other people may have their own good reasons for not wanting to buy it - I have no idea why some individuals on this forum simple can't accept that...?? Yes I am, really. That's because it is true. It's the same reason Leica and the M almost died with the M5. The M5 wasn't a bad camera, and it still isn't what 40+ years later. I accept it just fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts