I'm agreeing with brainiac, above.

I am a long time Leica M user, and still maintain 3 good examples of M lenses, while I wait for the affordable digital M camera, whether it is an M8 or not. I have the 28mm Elmarit Pre-asph, the 50mm Summicron tabbed, and the 90mm Elmarit, all very late in their serial production.

While waiting for that digital M camera, after selling an Epson R-D1, I've adopted the Canon crop camera, to explore, that currently being the XSi/450D. I have the R equivalents of the 28 and 50 Leica M lenses, plus various Rokkors, that I use to recreate the Leica rangefinder experience. Yes, it is a paradox, as the 450D is hard to manually focus, but it presents an excellent small package with quality manual focus lenses that are quite small compared to AF lenses. I will eventually try to put a focus tab on one of my lenses, as an experiment.

And, then there is the new micro 4/3s camera, Panasonic G1, with a 20mm register. There are several Leica M adapters now available to use M lenses on a modern digital camera. Problem is the u4/3 camera is a 2X crop factor. My 28, becomes a 56mm.

So, my advice to the original poster is to be aware of this $700 camera that can take any M lens, from Leica, Zeiss, Cosina, etc. Folks on the M8 boards are really talking it up about this camera.

brainiac wrote:
One can be subjected to a lot of abuse for telling the truth about the M8. I trust that those who don't rate the M8 are as entitled to express their opinions and offer advice to a fellow FM'er:

I agree with bdickers: a Nikon D90 is a far better choice.

What's your personal experience with the M8?

telyt wrote:
>> I agree with bdickers: a Nikon D90 is a far better choice.

> What's your personal experience with the M8?

Very limited, and enough to know that a D90 is a far better choice.

Braniac, many people who have actually used the M8 along with other cameras have a different opinion. Given your relative lack of experience with the M8 I'd take your advice with a few grains of salt. Furthermore I wouldn't presume to be sufficiently omniscient tell anyone what equipment to buy or avoid (however, your handle suggests you are such an omniscient being).

What I find more respectful of others is to describe my own experience with the subject equipment, what works for me, what doesn't work for me, compare my experience with other equipment, and assume that others are sufficiently intelligent to discern if my experience in my circumstances are relevant to their own circumstances and that they can make up their own minds.

brainiac wrote:
telyt wrote:
>> I agree with bdickers: a Nikon D90 is a far better choice.

> What's your personal experience with the M8?

Very limited, and enough to know that a D90 is a far better choice.

Out of curiosity......how limited? How long have you shot with an M8?

i touched an M8 for a few seconds in a store once, and that was enough (combined with everything i've read and seen) to know it was a waste of my time.

I completely agree with Braniac's assessment of the camera.

If you're going to shoot a small sensor, might as well make it a good one, in a good body- and you can't argue with the D90's price.

ISO1600 wrote:
i touched an M8 for a few seconds in a store once

How many seconds?

maybe 38 or even 43.

Can't remember?

ISO1600 wrote:
maybe 38 or even 43.

Had it been anything over the crucial 67 second mark it would have given tremendous credibility to your case.

Hey now Steven, you were there... i think i felt better after pulling my SD back outta the M8 and returning it to the powershot.

haha.. Yeah, I know. I remember it took you all of one quick look through the viewfinder to say that you hated it.

I am a rangefinder person myself. I own an M6, Epson RD-1, and a 5D. If i could have my way, i'd take the guts out of the 5D and put them into the M6 and be fine. The thing I do not like about the RD-1 or the M8 is that the high ISO blows, and neither are full frame.

When leica finally puts out a digital rangefinder with a good high ISO ability and full frame, i'll be all over it. Until then, i'm afraid i'll have to be sticking to the 5D. Shame really, as I hate the bulk and the auto-garbage. Give me a manual camera with a clear hyperfocal distance markers on the lens and i'll get all exposures just as quick if not quicker than AF.

jbfmoore wrote:
.....
Shame really, as I hate the bulk and the auto-garbage. Give me a manual camera with a clear hyperfocal distance markers on the lens and i'll get all exposures just as quick if not quicker than AF.
......

I just don't get the "auto-garbage" thingy.

There's a "M" mode where you set the shutter speed and aperture. For exposure, there's a spot meter for you to control exposure. You can also choose to use an incident light meter or external spot meter if you like.

You can don't use the AF to focus. If you prefer better manual focus feel, you can put on a manual focus lens. You'll have manual aperture and hyperfocus markers if you do that.

So, ... how long have you been using the 5D ... less than 67 secs? .....

The OP said he wanted to do long exposures, given the bad high iso of the m8, how does it do with long exposures? In every other camera I've used the two are tied..

ISO1600 wrote:
35/1.2 Voigtlander. That's all that needs to be said.
Not quite; I have that lens on my M8 and although it is an impressive, artistic lens which gives me great low light results, a poor man's Noctilux in fact, it cannot hold a candle to the 35 Summicron asph in the daylight. And it is a heavy lump, not very wel balanced. Still, highly recommended as "second" 35 mm lens together with the aforementioned Summicron 2.0 asph.

On the high-ISO, if one exposes carefully, the performance up to ISO 1250 of the M8 is close to the 5D. The bad rep of the camera comes from users exposing for the highlights in low light levels, and then the camera will indeed reward you with noisy shadows. If you expose for the shadows, however, the noise magically disappears. What about blown highlights, one might argue. Yes, some will be blown, but is that a bad thing in a night shot, and the quality of the lenses will keep the negative effects within reasonable limits.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/67045-learning-love-1250-a.html

brainiac wrote:
Pretty much any current Nikon or Canon will give better pictures, with far less hassle, for a fraction of the money.

Bollocks. The camera brand does not make the picture, the photographer does. And if he is unhappy with the camera in his hands, it may well break all records in specification, but the images will be crap.

Somewhere else you quote the Leica boards. Well, if you took the trouble to look at the foto sections, you would see numbers of great images, made with cameras you donīt relate to to. But just as you would not be able to take these images with those cameras and would need some Canikon Mkwhatever, they would not be able to take those images with your choice, simply because they do not relate to them.

In actual fact the quality differences between all more or less upmarket cameras for the last five years as far as sensors are concerned are marginal in daily practical use, and blown all out of proportion all over the internet.
It is down to the choice of the buyer regarding lens quality and body features again, just like in the film days.

I think i have to disagree a bit with you on that jaapv. I can happily snap away at iso 4000 on my d700 and get reasonable results... well, on the m8? hardly so.

I have to admit that I have only used the m8 in stores, so my own experience doesen't count for much, but:

http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.html

I have read that article a few times, and it just resonates badly with me. I really want a fully manual, fullframe, high iso-capable digital rangefinder, and while I understand that for many, the m8 is great, it... is not so much for me. The combination of low iso-performance, high price and no-fullframe is a show-stopper.

jaapv wrote:
If you expose for the shadows, however, the noise magically disappears. l

together with the advantage of the high ISO!

jaapv wrote:

In actual fact the quality differences between all more or less upmarket cameras for the last five years as far as sensors are concerned are marginal in daily practical use, and blown all out of proportion all over the internet.
It is down to the choice of the buyer regarding lens quality and body features again, just like in the film days.

Unfortunately this is simply incorrect, particularly with regards to the latest CMOS sensors like the Sony 12MP DX sensor or any of the current-generation FF sensors. The current lot of Nikon 12MP FX bodies (and the 5DmII) can get usable shots in light where the M8 isn't going to come back with anything, Noctilux or not. When the SLR is at ISO 12,800 and the M8 is at ISO 2500 a 1/2 stop difference in lens speed isn't going to make up for more than 2 stops of ISO advantage. Within its usable ISO range the M8 can compete on IQ, but that's a very reduced range compared to most cameras over the $1000 mark.

That said, at what it does well the M8 is outstanding. It's just not all the same set of things that were its film brethren's strong suit (Near-indestructibility and low-light shooting in particular)

Nobody is saying the M8 is a camera for ISO 12800.
But when I can put on a 35/1.2 lens and shoot handheld at speeds of 1/2 to 1/4 with confidence, I do not need much in the way of ISO in 99.9% of cases. And from (painful) experience the indestructiblity issue is solved for me - the M8 won....

I have an M6 and a 5D mk II, I've owned a few Canon DSLR's and a slew of Pentax/nikon/minolta film slr's before them. I love the size of the M6 and the small summarit lenses. It is my street camera, lightweight and a joy to shoot with. I find the rangefinder shooting experience far more organic and connected, you're no longer looking through the little tunnel you're looking out the big window. I don't presume to tell people which piece of equipment is better, but the one you pick up and enjoy using for a given application is the best one in my opinion.

Leica M: Love using for street and snapshots when I'm relaxed.

Canon DSLR: Love using for landscape, serious portraits, gigs/events/work for the results but less so for the experience.

ulrikft wrote:
I think i have to disagree a bit with you on that jaapv. I can happily snap away at iso 4000 on my d700 and get reasonable results... well, on the m8? hardly so.



The M8 will have the advantage in some lower light situations where the M lenses perform much better wide open than the Nikon equivalents. In other words, a M8 shot at 1250iso (1600) at f1.4 would produce an image of similar quality to a Nikon D3 at f2.8 at 6400iso. I was at a photo workshop in SanJuan in the spring and two of the participants had Nikon D3. In low light and the Nikon 50mm f1.4, the comparable M8 and Noctilux images were sharper and better focused.

Here are a few examples from San Juan. These are without post processing and noise reduction. Noise Ninja or a similar program will deal with some of the noise, but at the cost of some fine details.

Noctilux at f1.2 or f1 and 640iso:

Andi Dietrich wrote:
jaapv wrote:
If you expose for the shadows, however, the noise magically disappears. l

together with the advantage of the high ISO!

Haha! I spotted that too, Andi. M8 high ISO is tEH BeSTeST eVAR as long as you overexpose ;-)

Seriously, I can really understand that a lot of people want the camera to be great, and it is a very good camera in many ways, if you ignore the price, but in this age of Nikon D90's and Canon 450D's, the M8 just does not compute. It is hobbled in so many ways: price, crop, image quality, mandatory noise reduction, iso, moire, IR filters, usability, not to mention the legion shortcomings of the viewfinder system. I strongly advise anyone about to buy this camera to carefully compare its results against those from a 450D before haemorraging dead presidents.