I just came back from visiting my friend who had tons of gears, including M8.
This was my first time to have hand-on experience of M8.
to make a long story short, I'd not buy M8 even if i had money for it.
The only plus for M8 was size and the view finder.
i really don't want to downplay the people who uses M8, but it just didn't make sense to go into M8 system other than for using wonderful line of M lenses if one already has them.

This brings up my question.
My friend told me that Leica M lenses optically are far better than R lenses. (well...besides macro...)
Is this a valid statement?

Paul Yi wrote:
My friend told me that Leica M lenses optically are far better than R lenses. (well...besides macro...)
Is this a valid statement?

It depends. The M lenses, especially wides, are generally more recent designs so where they have the benefit of new computations they'll be better than R lenses. I wouldn't say far better but that's a subjective valuation. Some of the longer lenses are identical design whether M or R, the 90mm AA and late 90mm Elmarit, for example.

Stu Warner wrote:
Thanks Hans, Talyt, and Carsten for your thoughtful replies.
My passion is travel photography. Portraits, street, and landscape have increasingly become my focus. Macro is certainly also important, but only to the extent of close-up shots of flowers and frogs
Autofocus is not a requirement as I don't shoot sports, but I think spot-metering would be very useful in high-contrast conditions. I've never actually had that luxury before, but I do like the idea of metering off small areas of midtone, checking highlights and shadows to see what the dynamic range of the scene is in more planned shots. Having said that, I seem to do just fine with the centre-weighted metering and matchstick display in my OM1.
The real question, as ever with Leica, is the price. For at least the first few years after buying an M8, I would have to use a mixture of Zeiss, Voigtlander, and perhaps a single slow Leica lens. I very much like the results I've seen online from the Leica glass (I am used to L primes or macro lenses), but it is expensive and/or has a smaller max aperture than I'm used to. My question is.... how good is the much cheaper Voigtlander glass
I don't want to sell my heavy but good Canon stuff and pick up am M8 if I am going to have to use reduced quality optics. Small size is important to me, but the reason I use SLRs instead of compacts in the first place is because I have an overwhelming desire for fine opics, manual control, and shallow DOF shots. Using my Canon Ls as a benchmark, will I be happy if I can only ever use Voigtlander and maybe some old Zeiss

Some Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses are as good as Leica. Get a subscription to Sean Reid's site "reidreviews", it has many comparative tests on it.

jaapv wrote:
brainiac wrote:
let us know - i want to look through all your stuff...

Should be better now


Still no useful navigation, and jpeg quality much too high, so each file slow to load. Images need to be read-ahead cached. Looked at two pictures again but had to stop right there. You need big next and last links.

c5gowin wrote:
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

The quote above is the OP so I will try to address it rather than the merits of a dSLR over a range finder or vice versa.

Before the Leica M8 was introduced my travel kit was a Canon 5D, 24-105 f4 IS L, 70-300 IS DO, small Metz flash in a Crumpler 5 million dollar bag which is a relatively small kit albeit heavy. Since the M8 came out, my travel kit has been the M8 plus a variety of lenses which has changed and grown over the last year 20 months which fit into a small Domke bag (smaller than the Crumpler). I have been to NYC, Caribbean, San Francisco, Toronto, Germany, Alaska, Hawaii, London (3x), and Washington DC among other shorter weekend trips during this time frame and have been very pleased with the M8 kit. I have not once been compelled to travel with the 5D kit (I still own it) since getting the M8 kit. I am not really sure why that is because the actual kit sizes and weight are not as much different as I would have thought. I guess it comes down to image quality and shooting style - I believe the M8 images are better than the 5D (my opinion, maybe not yours) and I also find the rangefinder shooting style great for travel.

I don't think I would consider others suggestions to use smaller Oly lenses on a 450D or 40D as a way to save kit size/weight. I believe manual focusing with the crop sensor viewfinders (I have a 20D and 40D so I have a clue) is much more difficult than with the M8. To me the advantage of a dSLR kit for travel is the use of zoom lenses and autofocus.

FWIW,
Mark My experience is very similar to Marks. For comparison three years ago I started with a 20D a kit lens and quite a few Leica R lenses. Upgraded to the 5D ,added L glass and upgraded some of my R glass. Then I added a R9/DMR and built out my M8 system. On image quality ....the 5D and the M8 both using Leica glass are both capable of excellent image quality. The R9/DMR and the best Leica glass is noticably better...enough that I can see it on a proof sheet. But when I travel and enjoy street shooting..its always with the M8s . This doesn t mean its better in any measurable way.....but this works the best for me. I would caution though that the M8 and rangefinders in general take some effort to use well ....DSLR are easier ....if you haven t used a rangefinder camera expect more of a learning curve. If you shoot quite a bit it will become 2nd nature .

glenerrolrd wrote:
> On image quality ....the 5D and the M8 both using Leica glass are both capable of excellent image quality. The R9/DMR and the best Leica glass is noticably better...enough that I can see it on a proof sheet.

Can you show us some examples which show that the M8 and DMR are 'better'? Don't forget that 100% crops from each camera would need to be adjusted for resolution, otherwise we are looking at different magnification, and that's misleading. I would recommend uprezzing all files to 20 Mpixel so that 100% crops make some sort of sense. I am sure you only use prints to discern, but this is a web forum, so uprezzing is the only way to demonstrate the differences fairly.

No we would not look at different resolutions for all three. Both M8 and DMR have a 10 Mp 1.3 crop sensor. It might be better to downrez the 5D .
I can only agree that the DMR "wins" over the M8 although we are talking about better and best here. On the 5D I cannot say anything, not owning the camera. I tried to demonstrate the very real difference on the web but it proved to be impossible to do so convincincly with web jpegs, even at 100%.

brainiac wrote:
jaapv wrote:
brainiac wrote:
let us know - i want to look through all your stuff...

Should be better now


Still no useful navigation, and jpeg quality much too high, so each file slow to load. Images need to be read-ahead cached. Looked at two pictures again but had to stop right there. You need big next and last links.

You must be on dial-up. The site is actually pretty fast..

jaapv wrote:
No we would not look at different resolutions for all three. Both M8 and DMR have a 10 Mp 1.3 crop sensor. It might be better to downrez the 5D .

Now we know why the M8 and DMR are so good. If only Leica would produce a 4 Mpixel camera, it would be the best ever.

>I can only agree that the DMR "wins" over the M8 although we are talking about better and best here. On the 5D I cannot say anything, not owning the camera. I tried to demonstrate the very real difference on the web but it proved to be impossible to do so convincincly with web jpegs, even at 100%.

What is it about, for example, Jack Flesher's jpegs that make the 5D files better on the web, but worse in print? Personally I never see this paradox. My experience is that there is a strong tendency for the relative merits of files on screen to be echoed in prints.

Conversely, I endlessly see people comparing 100% crops from 10 and 13 megapixel cameras, and thinking it means something.

i dont see why we have to go over the same ground endlessly to please just 1 guy
however here it is again, as this 100% file comparison has been done by Askey
all quotes from here

Studio scene comparison, M8/5D
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page16.asp
"The EOS 5D strides confidently into this comparison with a 432 vertical columns by 288 horizontal rows (2.4 million pixel) advantage, and to be fair that can be seen, in places, although honestly it's not as big a leap you would think, above eight megapixels the law of diminishing returns takes over. The M8's color response is clearly more muted than the EOS 5D. The lack of an anti-alias filter (low pass filter) on the M8 affords its processing systems more per-pixel detail than the EOS 5D and in some instances this can be seen although as you will see later for this to be truly obvious you really will need to shoot RAW."

and this page is interesting, not least for the RAW results
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page18.asp
rather than increas one file size against the other dp chose to make both files 17Mp, heres how it went

"Seventeen megapixels anyone?
Just to see how well both camera's images interpolate to larger sizes we processed both RAW's through Adobe Camera RAW using the seventeen megapixel output option (no sharpening and then 80% unsharp mask applied, as above). A single crop of the results can be found below and you can if you wish download these images and examine them in more detail. You will see that the M8's images interpolate very well (again thanks to a sharper starting point than a camera with an anti-alias filter) although some moire is visible on black & white high contrast detail."
M8 100%

jaapv wrote:
You must be on dial-up. The site is actually pretty fast.

I'm on a fairly quick DSL connection in London. Images are taking about 10-12 seconds each to complete download. They are not cached ahead, so every time I click one I have to wait 10-12 seconds.

This image is 588 kilobytes:

Dont forget to look at Dpreviews resolution comparision, you can see that the 5D has the edge on resolution and that the M8 will get into problems with moiré much earlier.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page20.asp

And I agree with you, the 5D M8 comparison gets boring, both are somehow oldtimers now.







Rob Riley wrote:
i dont see why we have to go over the same ground endlessly to please just 1 guy
however here it is again, as this 100% file comparison has been done by Askey
all quotes from here

Studio scene comparison, M8/5D
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page16.asp
"The EOS 5D strides confidently into this comparison with a 432 vertical columns by 288 horizontal rows (2.4 million pixel) advantage, and to be fair that can be seen, in places, although honestly it's not as big a leap you would think, above eight megapixels the law of diminishing returns takes over. The M8's color response is clearly more muted than the EOS 5D. The lack of an anti-alias filter (low pass filter) on the M8 affords its processing systems more per-pixel detail than the EOS 5D and in some instances this can be seen although as you will see later for this to be truly obvious you really will need to shoot RAW."

and this page is interesting, not least for the RAW results
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leicam8/page18.asp
rather than increas one file size against the other dp chose to make both files 17Mp, heres how it went

"Seventeen megapixels anyone?
Just to see how well both camera's images interpolate to larger sizes we processed both RAW's through Adobe Camera RAW using the seventeen megapixel output option (no sharpening and then 80% unsharp mask applied, as above). A single crop of the results can be found below and you can if you wish download these images and examine them in more detail. You will see that the M8's images interpolate very well (again thanks to a sharper starting point than a camera with an anti-alias filter) although some moire is visible on black & white high contrast detail."


end quotes

Okay, my conclusions:

I've done a lot of online trawling over the weekend. The M8 is certainly VERY nice - no doubt. However, both the 5D and the M8 cameras are using relatively old sensors, and the 5D II will most likely be released in a matter of weeks. Whilst the M8 will retain it's high price because there is simply no competition, the 5D will be seen as obsolete, and improved features will be offered in the next model. Leica more than likely won't have as quick an "upgrade" cycle, so the M8 will still be very expensive, yet the M8 to me is not quite the finished article (sensor, ISO and exp comp on hidden "set" menu) and it will appear even less good value compared to the raw image quality obtainable with the up-and-coming generations of dSLRs. My heart implores me to try the M8, but my head tells me that in a couple of month's time I will be able to get a perfectly good dSLR with improved resolution, improved ISO performance, improved rear LCD, and improved shooting buffer for between one third to one half the price (I guess) of the M8. I also really don't want to give up the fast wide angle lenses and the relative ease of macro/telephoto on the dSLR. But Telyt is right about the spot metering - I probably don't need that with the histogram review.

Just to be clear, I think the M8 was designed to retain M users who wanted to involve digital processing and speed in their workflow. I think Leica had to introduce it at the time they did, and I think they did a good job with the technology available. In fact, if I already had some M lenes, I would no doubt buy an M8. But the fact remains that I don't and I'd be looking at a VERY high entry charge to get into the digital M system. I just can't do it. I should say that for me the whole point of using an interchangable lens camera is to use fast glass. Given my curent finances, and the fact that I would have to sacrifice so many features to embark down the digital Rangefinder route, I just don't think this is the right time for me with my income and current M8 prices. This kind of hurts, because I usually like to buy exaclty what I want the first time around and not waste time and money with a series of expensive upgrades - and shooting a small digital rangefinder is ultimately where I would like to be.


I will continue waiting and continue saving, but it would be a very brave step to dump all of my SLR gear and jump head-first into a super-expensive digital rangefinder system. Can anyone comment about whether the prices of M8s have been coming down over the last two years? If they take a price decrease in the autumn, I may renew my interest, but I sincerely doubt M8s will ever be available for 4,000US in the near future. I could wait on price decreases forever.. but I really don't want to shoot with my curent inadequate camera (a 300D!!! ) for another year At some point, I have to decide.

Thoughts?

brainiac wrote:
jaapv wrote:
You must be on dial-up. The site is actually pretty fast.

I'm on a fairly quick DSL connection in London. Images are taking about 10-12 seconds each to complete download. They are not cached ahead, so every time I click one I have to wait 10-12 seconds.

This image is 588 kilobytes:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/16678-m8-1dsmarkii-comparison-test-studio.html


This thread is an interesting comparison

Stu Warner wrote:
Okay, my conclusions:

I've done a lot of online trawling over the weekend. The M8 is certainly VERY nice - no doubt. However, both the 5D and the M8 cameras are using relatively old sensors, and the 5D II will most likely be released in a matter of weeks. Whilst the M8 will retain it's high price because there is simply no competition, the 5D will be seen as obsolete, and improved features will be offered in the next model. Leica more than likely won't have as quick an "upgrade" cycle, so the M8 will still be very expensive, yet the M8 to me is not quite the finished article (sensor, ISO and exp comp on hidden "set" menu) and it will appear even less good value compared to the raw image quality obtainable with the up-and-coming generations of dSLRs. My heart implores me to try the M8, but my head tells me that in a couple of month's time I will be able to get a perfectly good dSLR with improved resolution, improved ISO performance, improved rear LCD, and improved shooting buffer for between one third to one half the price (I guess) of the M8. I also really don't want to give up the fast wide angle lenses and the relative ease of macro/telephoto on the dSLR. But Telyt is right about the spot metering - I probably don't need that with the histogram review.

Just to be clear, I think the M8 was designed to retain M users who wanted to involve digital processing and speed in their workflow. I think Leica had to introduce it at the time they did, and I think they did a good job with the technology available. In fact, if I already had some M lenes, I would no doubt buy an M8. But the fact remains that I don't and I'd be looking at a VERY high entry charge to get into the digital M system. I just can't do it. I should say that for me the whole point of using an interchangable lens camera is to use fast glass. Given my curent finances, and the fact that I would have to sacrifice so many features to embark down the digital Rangefinder route, I just don't think this is the right time for me with my income and current M8 prices. This kind of hurts, because I usually like to buy exaclty what I want the first time around and not waste time and money with a series of expensive upgrades - and shooting a small digital rangefinder is ultimately where I would like to be.


I will continue waiting and continue saving, but it would be a very brave step to dump all of my SLR gear and jump head-first into a super-expensive digital rangefinder system. Can anyone comment about whether the prices of M8s have been coming down over the last two years? If they take a price decrease in the autumn, I may renew my interest, but I sincerely doubt M8s will ever be available for 4,000US in the near future. I could wait on price decreases forever.. but I really don't want to shoot with my curent inadequate camera (a 300D!!! ) for another year At some point, I have to decide.

Thoughts?

You can get very good used ones at the 2500 -3000 Euro range, demos in the high 3000-nds.Meister was even selling new for 4000 Euro. If ever Leica replaces the M8 with an M9 we can be fairly sure that it will be more expensive than the M8 - driving used prices up -not down.
You could save some on lenses too - older Leica glass does really well on the M8, and so do Zeiss and CV lenses.

More importantly, the wide angle lenses are not retrofocus. They don't have to be made "longer" to clear the mirror of a (D)SLR.

telyt wrote:
Paul Yi wrote:
My friend told me that Leica M lenses optically are far better than R lenses. (well...besides macro...)
Is this a valid statement?

It depends. The M lenses, especially wides, are generally more recent designs so where they have the benefit of new computations they'll be better than R lenses. I wouldn't say far better but that's a subjective valuation. Some of the longer lenses are identical design whether M or R, the 90mm AA and late 90mm Elmarit, for example.

jaapv wrote:
Well, seeing that these images load within the second on a very standard DSL on my basic laptop in all browsers, and all other computers and connections I and others have around, it is a surprise you have this problem, which I cannot explain.

It is quick for you because you already have the image cached. If you try to load the image for the first time you will see the speed that the rest of us see. If you want to know how fast your site is, turn off caching in your browser.

> Caching ahead won't work on a one-page website, which this one is -for speed.

When the main image has loaded, its onLoad parameter should call a recurring function which loads the next images on a hidden layer, or just as a javascript image object. That way the browser can cache-ahead. I made my site do this in 1999. Today it's a lot easier.

pdmphoto wrote:
More importantly, the wide angle lenses are not retrofocus. They don't have to be made "longer" to clear the mirror of a (D)SLR.



I believe this is no longer true, also I understand that Leica chose the crop to avoid some of the problems with lenses of symetrical designs

jaapv wrote:
brainiac wrote:
jaapv wrote:
You must be on dial-up. The site is actually pretty fast.

I'm on a fairly quick DSL connection in London. Images are taking about 10-12 seconds each to complete download. They are not cached ahead, so every time I click one I have to wait 10-12 seconds.

This image is 588 kilobytes:

Brainiac, I just tried it on a newly installed computer, A Pentium 3 with 192 Mb Ram no less , so anything but a speed monster, running XP and IE7 on an elcheapo DSL connection and it is nowhere near as slow as you say, within 2 seconds, so there must be something wrong your end.

I think the DSLR proponents are missing something here.

There is a reason DSLRs are more popular than RFs - they offer greater convenience, AF, reflex viewing, etc. etc. If someone cares about specs, features, price/performance and all the various quantitative features, the DSLR will be the winner.

That is not why people consider RFs. RFs are about a particular way of working which makes the tradeoffs worth it. To use an analogy - a lot of people like to go out armed with a full collection of lenses/range of focal lengths b/c they want to be prepared for whatever they can find. Yet other people do exquisite work with 1 camera and 1 prime lens (eg Bresson). There is no logical argument to be made that says "1 prime lens is better than an array of lenses", yet in practice, sometimes too much choice of focal lengths can be a variable that gets in the way of seeing - while the photographer is busy swapping or selecting lenses, the moment passes. A fixed focal length forces you to see with that angle of view, which actually can make the photographer more receptive when it comes to capturing the decisive moment.

The RF way of working is sort of similar. Yes, there are lots of logical reasons why a DSLR is better than a RF. But some photographers dont need features - such photographers may need a tool which allows them to connect to their subjects better, and this tool could very well be a RF. If so, all the specs/measurements/etc dont matter, because ultimately, photography is about how well you can see and capture a moment. If a RF is better suited for someone's style of working, then it doesnt matter what the technical advantages of a DSLR are - that person will produce better photos with a RF (of course, the subject also has to be within the technical limitations of a RF. Macro, sports, action, wildlife, etc. are all better served with DSLRs).

All this specsmanship is basically irrelevant gearhead talk. And before I am accused of being a RF diehard - I am a DSLR user. But I do appreciate the RF style of working, and were there a digital RF solution for <$2k, I'd get one in a heartbeat. Some of my best street photography has been with a compact camera... I "see" a lot better when I am not encumbered by various bodies, lenses, etc.

Vandit

It's all about the taste and $$.

I choose M8s for my travel shoots. See my latest experience here:
http://cantstopnow.uber.com/blogs/Back_from_Amazonia_Ecuador.html

Thanks.

I should also add that personally, I will never touch Leica camera gear. IMO, they are no longer in the photography business, but in the business of manufacturing cameras for collectors. The cameras are quite good, but seriously overpriced, even taking into account limited volumes and such.

Vandit

Funny - 99% of their sales are to users..... Buy cheap- buy twice, my grandma used to say.