M8 ; The Good The Bad The Ugly

[sfokevin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

Life is way too short to have read through this thread...

[plasticman]

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.

 

Well I use the M8 too - but I definitely don't go around all the time accusing everyone who's decided not to buy it of being hypocrites and/or pessimistic naysayers.

 

Some people just don't think the M8 is for them.

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest BigSplash]

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.

 

Nicole you are correct (as always!) and I think you are great at pressing the reset button!

The facts are:

> NO PERSON has identified the UGLY (M8)

> NO PERSON has identified what they cannot do with the ISO range in photographic terms (for M8)

Specifically what photos are difficult or impossible due to the "quoted" ISO lack of high numbers with apparent horrible noise effects" which is the reported issue as I understand it.

 

 

Note:

> I played this evening with my M8 and my Noctilux and photographed from my terrace in total darkness the lights of Grasse ( 2 Km away). I used ISO 160...great shots with an apparent blue sky when it was to my eyes black!

> I then tried 2600 ISO ...but it was a quasi daylight shot, with low interest!

> I tried to photo firefly movements but with no success...maybe a journey too far?

> I sat down with a nice bottle of wine and truly tried to OBJECTIVELY" understand why anyone would slam the Leica M8 for "noise" or "available light performance" ...what am I missing?

 

The M8 is referred to as a BRICK by some (and not as sweet as M7) but then when I measure the difference in size we are discussing 5mm more in two dimensions and 2mm less in the other dimensions against the M4 and M6 (Not TTL version) >>>>I do not know M7 !! Again this looks like emotional bias rather fact based argument,

[yanidel]

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. .

Have your tried adding the "thumbs up" accessory ? I had that brick feeling before adding it, now it just feels right too

[Guest BigSplash]

Nicole you are correct (as always!) and I think you are great at pressing the reset button!

The facts are:

> NO PERSON has identified the UGLY (M8)

> NO PERSON has identified what they cannot do with the ISO range in photographic terms (for M8)

Specifically what photos are difficult or impossible due to the "quoted" ISO lack of high numbers with apparent horrible noise effects" which is the reported issue as I understand it.

 

 

Note:

> I played this evening with my M8 and my Noctilux and photographed from my terrace in total darkness the lights of Grasse ( 2 Km away). I used ISO 160...great shots with an apparent blue sky when it was to my eyes black!

> I then tried 2600 ISO ...but it was a quasi daylight shot, with low interest!

> I tried to photo firefly movements but with no success...maybe a journey too far?

> I sat down with a nice bottle of wine and truly tried to OBJECTIVELY" understand why anyone would slam the Leica M8 for "noise" or "available light performance" ...what am I missing?

 

The M8 is referred to as a BRICK by some (and not as sweet as M7) but then when I measure the difference in size we are discussing 5mm more in two dimensions and 2mm less in the other dimensions against the M4 and M6 (Not TTL version) >>>>I do not know M7 !! Again this looks like emotional bias rather fact based argument,

 

I have (after writing the above ) taken my M4, M6 (old pre TTL) and M5 and played with them as BODIES ONLY to revisit the handling issue

> The M4, M6 were noticeably lighter (not M5) and easier to move with compared to the M8 in my opinon ...but there is really nothing in it!..

 

> As soon as you fit a lens such as the Noctilux or a Tri Elmarit or a 75mm Summilux...forget it They are equal!

> Maybe a modern 35mm flat summicron would be different if compared on each camera but I would be surprised.

 

 

So again I ask about handling negatives of the M8...is it real?

[Jamie Roberts]

So here we go--leaving aside "handling" which seems to me to depend entirely on

 

1) configuration of the m8--I use a grip base, which makes it different, and good, from my m3 and m6) and

 

2) the size of your hands...

 

here's my list....

 

GOOD (the great, actually):

 

 

======================

• I get to use Leica M glass
  
• I get to use well-corrected Leica M glass (ok, that was worth saying twice)
  
• I get to use older and newer M glass (3 times now).
  
• The files when well-exposed are simply excellent. Low ISO files have lots of underexposure latitude too, and a surprising amount of overexposure latitude
  
• I like the colour and contrast character of CCDs. I'm constantly fighting with CMOS cameras for decent (filmlike) skin tones. It can be done, but it's a PITA
  
• light and easy to handle. The differences between the M8 and M6 are so slight compared with an M8 and a D3 that it's not funny
  
• DMR family resemblance in the files. Did I mention how great I think the files are?
  
• Prints are breathtaking--large or small--even untrained people "get" the difference.
  
• I'm a rangefinder person--I like that part of the experience and actually don't enjoy SLRs as much
  
• simple controls
  
• Lenses that don't scare children
  
• Very discreet shooting (works for me, anyway).
  
• Compression works well for file handling.
  
• Vignette correction works surprisingly well
  
• Overall build quality: it's actually quite rugged.
  

BAD:

 

 

====

• electronic funkiness (file handling, power loss, etc...) on occasion--but much better than when it first appeared
  
• slow buffer means no JPEG+RAW performance
  
• IR filters are a drag. Yeah, I know. But they are a drag
  
• Crop factor is a drag. Yeah, I know. But it is a drag. I mean, why pay the extra for a 21 Lux when a 28 Cron would do nicely on a FF?
  
• High ISO isn't on the M8. Yeah, I know, but ISO 1250 with 1-stop of depth and margin for error is a drag these days. I was shooting a wedding the other day and needed ISO 3200--with some flash! The Nikon made it here, the M8 didn't (even the Nocti couldn't save me).
  
• Coding the mount is a drag. Yeah, I know, but it is a drag.
  
• So many older used lenses are out of whack.
  
• Nice to have a quieter shutter, but don't want to lose high speed.
  
• So many new lenses were not made with digital tolerances in mind and need a round-trip to Solms
  
• No verifiably easy way to adjust for out-of-whack lenses with current RF design.
  
• Current RF design or build could be much better. Compared with M6, my RF "floats" in and out too much when I change eye position
  
• Battery life sucks mostly, though it's much better now than at first. And I know this comes with CCD territory, but compared with modern cameras like Canons and Nikons, well, the M8 doesn't hold up
  
• Better SD card access would be nice.
  

UGLY:

 

 

=====

• Green stripe artifact--ridiculous in a camera this expensive, though I sort of forgive them cause it's the first time out the door. M9 better not have this, though.
  
• On / off switch has gotta go
  
• Months waiting in service for basic adjustments. Not acceptible for a pro.
  
• Poor service communication (even when service is good).
  
• Electronic glitches and failures. Most of them fixed, fortunately, but proper testing would have prevented many of the issues.
  
• Lack of weather guarantee. OK, so I've shot my M8 successfully in thunderstorms and torrential rains and had no problems. However, every time I get caught in the rain I keep "hearing" Sean Reid's 'voice' in my head (though I've never actually heard his voice)
  

Did I miss anything? LOL!! I'm going to print this out and use it against the M9

Edited June 16, 2009 by Jamie Roberts

[elansprint72]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

So again I ask about handling negatives of the M8...is it real?

 

Frank, there are no negatives with the M8.

[stunsworth]

Specifically what photos are difficult or impossible due to the "quoted" ISO lack of high numbers with apparent horrible noise effects" which is the reported issue as I understand it.

 

Frank, do some spadework yourself - you have the camera and a lens. Go out and shoot some frames at ISO 2500 and look at the results. That should tell you all you need to know.

[Shootist]

So again I ask about handling negatives of the M8...is it real?

 

 

The only negative is in the original M8 covering. How Leica could of choosen that covering is beyond me.

Replaced with Camera Leathers Griptac solved that problem for me.

The bad part about this is I have had to send my M8's back so many times the cost of replacing the original covering has gone out of sight. As of right now I have one M8 with the griptac and the other has Black Beauty leather. I like the griptac better.

 

Let me add that with the original or the BB leather I use a grip base. With the griptac camera I use it without any other gripping aid.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Shootist

[stunsworth]

...the other has Black Beauty leather

 

Ah, the Anna Sewell option.

[jrc]

The elephant-in-the-room problem with the M8 is that its image quality isn't as good as the top-end Canons or Nikons. During the film era, say what an SLR user would about the awkwardness of rangefinders, the lack of automation, etc., still, even unto the F5 era, the M3-7 delivered better image quality because the lenses were better and everything else, essentially (shutter speeds, film types, and so on), was shared between systems. There was none of this, "I like it better because the rangefinder provides a better imaging concept," or "SLRs are too big." Didn't have to have that argument -- within the range of its lenses, the M image was *better,* and that's all that was necessary to say.

 

When the sensors arrived, with the associated electronics and software, the whole world changed, and Leica had not kept up. If I were going to rank IQ (some of this based on personal experience, other based on what I've read) I'd say right now that the 35mm-class cameras would be 1. Nikon D3x, 2. Canon 1DsIII, 3. Sony whatever it is, the 24-mp one, 4. Leica M8, 5. High-end APS-C cameras, 6. High-end 4/3 cameras, 7. All the others.

 

Of course, the differences between groups are subtle, and if you only print 8x10, perhaps unimportant. If you go larger, the importance of sensor quality grows with print size.

 

So, we say all these other things: we love the handling, we love the glass, it's thinner, we want the rangefinder experience, we want the simplicity. We no longer say, "Whatever else, the IQ s better."

 

JC

[offshore]

Not trying to start a pissing contest regarding images from other cameras but I don't see where the image quality from Canons, Nikons or any other camera is any better than my M8. I showed a 13"X19" print of mine to a 4X5 user friend of mine not too long ago and, not knowing what camera I was using, ask me if he could get that quality from his 4X5. All my Canon, Nikon and Pentax user pro friends want an M8 system because of the image quality. I don't want to come across as the dyed-in-the-wool Leica starry eyed fanatic because I know the camera has flaws BUT SO DOES EVERY CAMERA and I have learned to work with the flaws to produce excellent images that win contests, get published, and sell. I shot Nikons for 33 years and Canons for 9 years and honestly wouldn't go back to either one because I spent more time fiddling with the menus (especially Nikon, god you need a freakin' PHD to operate the menus and sub-menus on them) and less time shooting. People bitch about the high ISO characteristics but we used to have uglier grain in high ISO black and white film and it was called ART. Well, I feel better now that I've gotten that off my chest so time for another glass of vino.

[plasticman]

Jamie - great list. It sums up a whole two years of threads and should be a sticky.

 

Naturally I disagree about some items - and the fact that the camera cover is some people's apparently highest priority just goes to prove how different we all are.

 

I love the file quality in many ways, but I'd add that I prefer them when the lighting conditions are low contrast, and I still notice even with IR-cut filters that skin-tones are just a slight touch 'muddier' than they should be when compared with 'real life'.

 

They are more dimensional and fine-grained than the Nikon skin-tones, so I prefer them to those files, but I see when I compare them to the RD1s files or film (Portra NC) or even the Nikon base-color, that there remains a slight darkening from residual IR that takes a bit more work in post to get the colors where they should be.

 

I should add that this effect is so slight that I don't see it when photographing strangers or even friends. But with an eight-month old model close by at all times, with glowing honey skin, there's a slight but undeniable tawniness in the skin that I can clearly see, and which simply isn't there with my other cameras.

 

Anyways, other than that the camera isn't giving me any problems anymore (knock on wood). And it should be stated that it's the best-built digital available in this price-range - a real beauty.

It does feel a bit clumpy in my (small?) hands compared to how the M6 and M7 felt, and that's another reason I need to get a film camera again.

Incidentally, anyone who says the M8's files match or exceed MF files very obviously hasn't ever seen what the PhaseOne outputs look like these days (oh yeah - IMHO of course).

 

 

Oh PS: is it just me, or is it simply bad manners and general boorishness to write that something is a "fact" and then state a (simply wrong) opinion. All these shouting, self-righteous evangelists get on my nerves:

 

The facts are:

> NO PERSON has identified the UGLY (M8)

> NO PERSON has identified what they cannot do with the ISO range in photographic terms (for M8)

Edited June 17, 2009 by plasticman

[delander †]

The elephant-in-the-room problem with the M8 is that its image quality isn't as good as the top-end Canons or Nikons.

 

 

JC

 

That is not my personal experience. The M8 has 3 differences to, lets say, a Canon 1ds3.

 

1. A CCD sensor

2. No AA filter

3. Leica lenses.

4. Capture One (OK you can use it for the Canon)

 

Normally I print my stuff at 19x13 (A3+) and that is how I judge the output. I would like some more MP purely for the abilty to crop as I can with the 1ds3. I dont worry too much about high ISO, printed files at 640 iso are fine.

 

Jeff

[Guest BigSplash]

So here we go--leaving aside "handling" which seems to me to depend entirely on

 

1) configuration of the m8--I use a grip base, which makes it different, and good, from my m3 and m6) and

 

2) the size of your hands...

 

here's my list....

 

GOOD (the great, actually):

 

 

======================

• I get to use Leica M glass
  
• I get to use well-corrected Leica M glass (ok, that was worth saying twice)
  
• I get to use older and newer M glass (3 times now).
  
• The files when well-exposed are simply excellent. Low ISO files have lots of underexposure latitude too, and a surprising amount of overexposure latitude
  
• I like the colour and contrast character of CCDs. I'm constantly fighting with CMOS cameras for decent (filmlike) skin tones. It can be done, but it's a PITA
  
• light and easy to handle. The differences between the M8 and M6 are so slight compared with an M8 and a D3 that it's not funny
  
• DMR family resemblance in the files. Did I mention how great I think the files are?
  
• Prints are breathtaking--large or small--even untrained people "get" the difference.
  
• I'm a rangefinder person--I like that part of the experience and actually don't enjoy SLRs as much
  
• simple controls
  
• Lenses that don't scare children
  
• Very discreet shooting (works for me, anyway).
  
• Compression works well for file handling.
  
• Vignette correction works surprisingly well
  
• Overall build quality: it's actually quite rugged.
  

BAD:

 

 

====

• electronic funkiness (file handling, power loss, etc...) on occasion--but much better than when it first appeared
  
• slow buffer means no JPEG+RAW performance
  
• IR filters are a drag. Yeah, I know. But they are a drag
  
• Crop factor is a drag. Yeah, I know. But it is a drag. I mean, why pay the extra for a 21 Lux when a 28 Cron would do nicely on a FF?
  
• High ISO isn't on the M8. Yeah, I know, but ISO 1250 with 1-stop of depth and margin for error is a drag these days. I was shooting a wedding the other day and needed ISO 3200--with some flash! The Nikon made it here, the M8 didn't (even the Nocti couldn't save me).
  
• Coding the mount is a drag. Yeah, I know, but it is a drag.
  
• So many older used lenses are out of whack.
  
• Nice to have a quieter shutter, but don't want to lose high speed.
  
• So many new lenses were not made with digital tolerances in mind and need a round-trip to Solms
  
• No verifiably easy way to adjust for out-of-whack lenses with current RF design.
  
• Current RF design or build could be much better. Compared with M6, my RF "floats" in and out too much when I change eye position
  
• Battery life sucks mostly, though it's much better now than at first. And I know this comes with CCD territory, but compared with modern cameras like Canons and Nikons, well, the M8 doesn't hold up
  
• Better SD card access would be nice.
  

UGLY:

 

 

=====

• Green stripe artifact--ridiculous in a camera this expensive, though I sort of forgive them cause it's the first time out the door. M9 better not have this, though.
  
• On / off switch has gotta go
  
• Months waiting in service for basic adjustments. Not acceptible for a pro.
  
• Poor service communication (even when service is good).
  
• Electronic glitches and failures. Most of them fixed, fortunately, but proper testing would have prevented many of the issues.
  
• Lack of weather guarantee. OK, so I've shot my M8 successfully in thunderstorms and torrential rains and had no problems. However, every time I get caught in the rain I keep "hearing" Sean Reid's 'voice' in my head (though I've never actually heard his voice)
  

Did I miss anything? LOL!! I'm going to print this out and use it against the M9

 

This is truly excellent stuff....Objective and I personally learned a lot. I would ask you the following:

> Old lenses are out of whack......surely that would be the case if the same lens was used on say a M4 with film...or am I wrong?

> Many new lenses were not made with digital tolerances and need to go to Solms for adjustment......What is all that about? Can you elaborate as surely again I ask if it works on an M4 with film why not on a M8 as simplistically the CCD is just a replacement of the film albeit with different sensitivities to the spectrum ...especially IR!

 

BAD Issues

I guess I agree about the SD card access...My Digilux 1 is much better

It is amasing that there is NO fisheye or 12mm to 15mm...for a camera that is better suited to wide angle than any SLR

 

I would add but have not seen anywhere that usage at very cold temperatures (eg Skiing) is battery dependent unlike the M film cameras. In practical terms I do not know if this is an issue but when I used to film with a Beaulieu Movie camera they offered a plug into the camera with a cable and a remote battery that you keep in your inside pocket. This certainly was useful when skiing at temperatures of minus 30 degrees C. I do not know if a Leica M8 needs such a thing...comments?

 

UGLY

I feel that Leica are not interested in supporting items to make the M system more usable in a wider range of photographic challenges compared to its history.

(eg Table tripod with the small ball unit that screws inot the camera / tripod; copying stand on 4 legs, Macro & Telephoto viewing devices including lenses (I leave it there!)Pro type flash guns and triggers for these, leather bags and pouches other than a simple ever ready case.. Just look at what Leica offered in the 60's !!

[jaapv]

Re service. Over 80% of repairs have a technical turnaround of 5 days. That is two weeks max including shipping. Redo-s are under 2%. (Official Leica figures)

[Guest BigSplash]

Frank, do some spadework yourself - you have the camera and a lens. Go out and shoot some frames at ISO 2500 and look at the results. That should tell you all you need to know.

 

I already did with the following observations:

Landscape shots at night (No lights in foreground) from my terrace looking at lights of Grasse 2 km away . Dark sky with some moonlight. Noctilux lens at full aperture, infinity.

Result at 160 ISO....sky looks blue, and scene is like early evening although it is completely dark! Lights look great in the distance. Interesting shot ....kind of special

 

Result at 2500 ISO .....Looks like a poor daylight shot with no interest. Very drab with good colours of Grass lights!

 

Intermediate ISO numbers .....similar to ISO 2500.

 

Interior Photos ...no lights in early evening with ISO 2500 ....I could photograph our sitting room with the lights off and recognise items but not very interesting.

 

I have not used the Noctilux with M8 in a restaurant etc yet

 

So I ask again having tried the thing what is it that is regarded as bad.

[stunsworth]

Many new lenses were not made with digital tolerances and need to go to Solms for adjustment......What is all that about? Can you elaborate as surely again I ask if it works on an M4 with film why not on a M8 as simplistically the CCD is just a replacement of the film albeit with different sensitivities to the spectrum ...especially IR!

 

You are correct Frank. It is simplistic to compare a digital sensor to film.

 

Focussing is more critical on a digital system as the sensor has no depth. It's essentially a flat plane. The film coating does has depth and this, perhaps with internal reflections within the layers, masked minor focussing issues. I can't recall issues with focus shift being mentioned often with film Ms, yet the M8 has highlighted focus shift issues with the 35mm Summilux and Noctilux - these are due to problems with the design of the lens and can't be 'fixed' by Leica.

 

'Many' is a vague term. I didn't have to have any lens adjusted when I switched to the M8, others did.

[stunsworth]

So I ask again having tried the thing what is it that is regarded as bad.

 

Sensor noise.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Julian Thompson]

The elephant-in-the-room problem with the M8 is that its image quality isn't as good as the top-end Canons or Nikons

 

I would be interested to be walked through the comparison that formed this opinion? Were you using a range of lenses? In what way were you disappointed with them? Was it size? Detail?

 

(I'm digging further because my own experience is that the M digital [using a couple of good M lenses] really does product outstanding results - every bit as good as I thought you could get with a top end Japanese camera, so I am genuinely excited to see some images that show the advantages of the Canon and Nikon you refer to)