Traveling with a 40 D and L glass adds up to WEIGHT. Has anyone tried the Leica M8 and leica lenses to lessen the load? Do you have any advice on the idea? thanks joanlvh

This depends on your type of travel. If you are going on an excursion with a cultural focus, then the M8 is ideal. It is suitable for people, street, architectural, and landscape photography... it is not well suited to nature travel.

Where and how long will you be gone?
regards
bruce

I don't know about the M8 (except for drooling over it), though here's an interesting article from LL, where a guy brought an M8 with a few lenses and a Canon G9, and ended up using the G9 almost the whole trip:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/G9-Japan.shtml

Jman13 wrote:
I don't know about the M8 (except for drooling over it), though here's an interesting article from LL, where a guy brought an M8 with a few lenses and a Canon G9, and ended up using the G9 almost the whole trip:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/G9-Japan.shtml



Yes but that guy first looks for a camera that "should fit into the pocket of my fleece or shell" and finds the M8 too big. For someone used to a 40D and L glass the M8 is the equivalent of what the G9 was for that guy.

OwlsEyes, the subjects you mentioned are what I would be photographing, also indoor shots, Should the M8 and something like the Leica 50 f2 work well inside a museum or cathederal? thanks again.

Maybe get a new 450D?

As I understand it, the M8 was old technology when released, and hasn't got any better. Lenses great (manual focus?) but noise, lack of high ISO, etc. (don't forget crop sensor as well) is a killer for a travel lens IMHO. Sad really, I wanted to buy one too ...

450 is a lot lighter than 40D, and not far off G9, which although is quite good, noise at medium ISO is a killer for me as a travel lense - I want clean at ISO800, fixable at 1600 for inside cathedrals, etc.

You can always get a new 1000D and a few Olympus primes...a 24 f/2.8, 28 f/2.8 or f/3.5, 50 f/1.4, and 85 f/2 will be very compact, and pretty inexpensive too. Of course, manually focusing wouldn't be fun without a good screen, but Katz eye will make one for the 1000D I'm sure.

The leica M-lenses are small, and normally I carry only a few primes when I use my (analogue) M4 (most of the time 3, just 15 / 35 /90 for landscape or 25 / 35 / 50 for city/culture).
But if you combine a eos 40D with some compact olympus primes (e.g. 24/2.8, 50/1.4 100/2.8) you'll also have a similar small package.......

Aha, someone else thought & posted exactly the same as I did just a few seconds earlier...

The problem with these lenses 24 f/2.8, 28 f/2.8 or f/3.5, 50 f/1.4 and the 40D is the crop. The 24 becomes 38 and so on.

With the M8, if you can afford it, a 21 becomes a 28. If you want wider, then the inexpensive CV 15/4.5 beomes a 20. Obviously, you need an 18 to get a 24 FOV.

The other problem with the crop DSLR's are their awful viewfinders - exactly the opposite with the M8.

So get the OM 21 f/3.5 for ~$450. Sure, you're not at a super-wide lens, but come on, if you're goal is lightweight travel, you are compromising already. You'll still be WAY under the price you'll pay for the Leica kit. Also, you can travel with a 5D and those lenses and get true ultra-wide. Yeah, it's not as compact, and now we're getting heavier, but the 5D is only 50% heavier than the M8, and the Oly lenses are so light that it probably balances out with a full kit.

The problem with the M8 is the $5,500 pricetag. Perhaps some people (and maybe the OP) can afford to drop $15,000 for a 'lightweight travel setup.' Most people can't.

Edited by Jman13 on Jul 17, 2008 at 04:06 PM GMT

joan leslie wrote:
Traveling with a 40 D and L glass adds up to WEIGHT. Has anyone tried the Leica M8 and leica lenses to lessen the load? Do you have any advice on the idea? thanks joanlvh

I think it is a great idea, the only problem is the price of that M8 body, for me. Although the M8 looses out to the high ISO performance of a 5D or equivalent, it still will deliver quality files for large prints.

I tried the Epson R-D1 for a while, but it produced rather average 6MP quality.

I do hope to use my M lenses again some day with a lesser expensive M8 option.

In the meantime, I'm using the XSi.

If you looking for a fairly compact package with high quality I would seriously look a Rebel 450/XSi with either a 28 1.8, 35 f/2, or 85 1.8 lenses.
Even though I've owned numerous Leica M film cameras and virtually all the new Asph/Apo lenses in the past, I wouldn't touch the M8 for anything but hobby work.

joan leslie wrote:
Traveling with a 40 D and L glass adds up to WEIGHT. Has anyone tried the Leica M8 and leica lenses to lessen the load? Do you have any advice on the idea? thanks joanlvh

Leica Equipment does lessen the load, Makes your wallet very light in no time at all!


Edited by ACElkins on Jul 17, 2008 at 04:21 PM GMT

Actually I just did a rundown of two kits:

Kit 1: Leica:

Leica M8: $5,500 - 545g
21 f/2.8: $4,295 - 299g
28 f/2.8: $1,795 - 180g
50 f/1.4: $3,595 - 335g
90 f/2: $3,500 - 498g

Total: $18,685 - 1857g (4.1lbs)

Kit#2: Canon with Olympus OM lenses. Prices are EX or EX+ at KEH (which is really like new)
Canon 5D: $1,999 - 810g
21 f/3.5: $484 - 180g
28 f/2.8: $120 - 170g
50 f/1.4: $165 - 230g
85 f/2: $379 - 260g

Add 4 OM to EOS adapters: $100 (my cheapo works great!)
Total: $3,284 - 1650g (3.6lbs)

So, going with the 5D + Oly, vs M8 + Leica, you save over $15,000, AND you get a full half pound lighter kit, with better high-ISO performance, a true ultra-wide with the 21mm, and a big viewfinder.

Now, sure, the Leica optics are probably better than the OM lenses here (though the 21 f/3.5 and 28 f/2.8 may be hard to beat), but are they $15,000 better? I doubt it. The only real weak spot here is for the 50 f/1.4....so you may want to pick up a Zeiss 50 f/1.4 or a SMC Takumar 50 f/1.4 in its place. The Takumar weighs the same 230g as the Oly, so you wouldn't lose anything there.

I know which one I'd go for.

What about an M8 and a Tri-Elmar? For me the wide Tri-Elmar (16-18-21) and a 50 Lux would be just about he perfect travel package.

Jman13 wrote:
Actually I just did a rundown of two kits:

Kit 1: Leica:

Leica M8: $5,500 - 545g
21 f/2.8: $4,295 - 299g
28 f/2.8: $1,795 - 180g
50 f/1.4: $3,595 - 335g
90 f/2: $3,500 - 498g

Total: $18,685 - 1857g (4.1lbs)

Kit#2: Canon with Olympus OM lenses. Prices are EX or EX+ at KEH (which is really like new)
Canon 5D: $1,999 - 810g
21 f/3.5: $484 - 180g
28 f/2.8: $120 - 170g
50 f/1.4: $165 - 230g
85 f/2: $379 - 260g

Add 4 OM to EOS adapters: $100 (my cheapo works great!)
Total: $3,284 - 1650g (3.6lbs)

So, going with the 5D + Oly, vs M8 + Leica, you save over $15,000, AND you get a full half pound lighter kit, with better high-ISO performance, a true ultra-wide with the 21mm, and a big viewfinder.

Now, sure, the Leica optics are probably better than the OM lenses here (though the 21 f/3.5 and 28 f/2.8 may be hard to beat), but are they $15,000 better? I doubt it. The only real weak spot here is for the 50 f/1.4....so you may want to pick up a Zeiss 50 f/1.4 or a SMC Takumar 50 f/1.4 in its place. The Takumar weighs the same 230g as the Oly, so you wouldn't lose anything there.

I know which one I'd go for.


Or you can get a LOT closer by going with a demo M8 w/warranty and the new Summarit, Zeiss, or CV lenses. Other than the body, the choice of how much to spend is pretty much up to you.

And to make a more meaningful comparison - you could also go used on the whole kit and and be only a "few" thousand difference.

But it may still not be worth it to most people, but if you like rangefinders you'll pay a premium for the M8....

I really appreciate all this info. When suggesting ways to lighten the load, many are mentioning Olympus primes, not too many mention canon lenses. I am wondering if the choice of Olympus instead of Canon lenses is mostly for the price and the weight or for the quality of the lenses. thanks again joanlvh

A bit of both. In the alt world, there are few lenses as light and compact as Olympus lenses. Some of their better primes (21 f/3.5, 24 f/2.8, 28 f/3.5, macros, etc) are exceptional optically as well, and most are good. But all are very lightweight, and very small.

The three wides mentioned above are all under 200g, and are exceptionally short as well...they're almost pancake lenses, and all three are killer. In the 16-9 tests, the 24 f/2.8 was the best of all the non-super large aperture 24mm primes tested. The only lens tested against it that fared better was the Canon 24L, which is 5 times the cost and 3 times the weight and size. (though, of course, is autofocus and two stops faster). The 28 f/2.8 and f/3.5 get raves on this board (I own the f/3.5 and it's just outstanding...sharp corner to corner), and the 21 f/3.5 I've heard mentioned in the same company as the Zeiss Distagon 21 (with an edge to the Zeiss, but with the Oly not too far behind).

Of course the alternative lenses..the olympuse's etc..on the canon bodies means stop down metering and some may not like that for travel photography where often the subject needs to be shot quicker.
I'm not advocating af over mf simply not having to think about stopping down to meter and then changing to shooting aperture.

Joan, the op, has not said wether they are happy with this.

If I wanted manual focus nd primes I'd choose the leica all the time..if ignoring the cost issue.

The other option to the leica is a small nikon body with zeiss zf primes...manual focus with out stop down metering and with the option of an af zoom if you want also...the best of both worlds perhaps?...in fact the more I think about this option the better it gets although of course the zeiss zf lenses cost more than the olympus primes.

Marc

Be careful, though...the ZF lenses won't work on some of the lowest end Nikon bodies...the D40. You might need to go all the way to a D200 to get the ZF lenses to work properly. (I don't think the D40 reads the aperture ring setting...Photozone mentions that they won't work with those bodies).

The suggestions above will largely outperform the M8 in image quality, not just price.

The 450D is a great little camera. Don't be snobby about the tiny and lightweight kit lens which has been updated to cope quite well with the 5.2µm pixel pitch. It even has IS.

Sticking Oly lenses on your 40D is a great way to go also. There is very little difference in how much attention you attract with an M8 or a 40D with Oly 28. Some people seem to think that you can't set distance on an Oly lens, or that the prism flash is the part of the camera which upsets locals and makes you not a serious photographer.

My lightweight kit is this:

I would take a 5D with a mix of olympus and canon primes at your chosen focal lengths. Take Canon over Olympus if AF is crucial for you at a given focal length (e.g. for short telephoto consider the EF 85/1.8 or 100/2 because you need to have fast garaunteed focus nailed on the nearest eye of a portrait subject or the shot is ruined).
If you prefer zooms for street shooting, take a 5D and a 28-135 IS (budget option), 24-105L (slow but good range), or a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Personally, I would still supplement one of these zooms with an Olympus ultrawide (16 fish / 18mm / 21mm ) for landscapes and interiors.
Choosing lightweight primes will make you less conspicuous on the street as people only see the lens you have mounted, not how many primes you have stashed in your shoulder bag. The small primes would also allow you to use a lighter tripod for support - even a Gorillapod articulated tripod with QR plate - which is certainly worth taking and ideal for travel IMHO.

By way of example, this is a shot taken with a F31fd compact mounted on a Gorillapod-mini wrapped around some railings by the river in Strasbourg:

brainiac wrote:
The suggestions above will largely outperform the M8 in image quality, not just price.

... Here's a shot with the Oly 28 f3.5 on a 450D. In my opinion, an M8 isn't capable of comparable image quality, especially at ISOs above 320.

Richard, is this opinion based on actual experience, or are you calculating this from a spec sheet? Those who have used both the M8 and a variety of Canons including 1DsII and 5D prefer the M8's RAW files to their Canons' files.

telyt wrote:
brainiac wrote:
The suggestions above will largely outperform the M8 in image quality, not just price.

... Here's a shot with the Oly 28 f3.5 on a 450D. In my opinion, an M8 isn't capable of comparable image quality, especially at ISOs above 320.

Richard, is this opinion based on actual experience, or are you calculating this from a spec sheet? Those who have used both the M8 and a variety of Canons including 1DsII and 5D prefer the M8's RAW files to their Canons' files.

My opinion is based on using both cameras and carefully examining my results, although I have to admit that I have used the M8 on only two occasions. It was enough for me to decide that the camera offered worse image quality than much cheaper alternatives. I base my comment about the 450D on comparison of its output with my 5Ds and 1Ds3. The M8 files never came close to the 5D for detail, in my opinion, probably because of the camera's in-built noise reduction. The 450D, on the other hand, does approach 5D image quality very closely, and is highly usable at iso 1600, which the M8 is not. Don't forget that the 450D has 12 million pixels and they are capable of holding good detail. The M8 seems to iron out a particular frequency of data around the 9-10 megapixel wavelength, which is presumably what its built-in noise reduction is intended to do. For that reason, I am reasonably confident in saying that I expect a direct comparison of detail between the two cameras to favour the 450D. 'Clean' files don't interest me. IMO cleanliness is usually a sign that detail is being discarded.

As regards the M8's happy owners, there have in fact been many unfavourable reports by those who have the guts. Jack Flesher, who used to frequent this forum, made great claims about M8 'printability', 'clean' files, and how well the M8's files 'hold up'. Finally, more than a year after the camera had been in use, he posted a direct comparison between M8, 5D, 1Ds2, and 1Ds3, and quite clearly the files did not hold up. In particular the M8 files suffered from severe loss of high frequency texture, red fringing, and very lumpy and uninformative shadows, compared to the 5D file. The M8 file simply had nothing extra to compensate for these shortcomings. Since then I am afraid to say that I have taken the claims of happy M8 users with a pinch of salt. I simply don't believe they are doing fair comparisons in the way that Jack eventually did.

People love Leica, and the M system, and that's great, but when spending such large sums of money is at stake, then I personally would rather be in a 'show me' forum like this one.

In that spirit, here is a crop which shows that the M8 is editing out a particular frequency of data. The umbrella spokes should have been resolved, but got smoothed. This is why I think the M8 isn't a 10 megapixel camera in the same sense that a 450D is a 12 megapixel camera: