brainiac wrote:
before haemorraging dead presidents.

Some of us have dead Prime Ministers on our notes

Rob, I would have to say that I would be disappointed with your low-light results if I had shot them with, say, a 450D and 24 f1.4. They show serious noise even at this web size, and the colours look funny.

I have to counter your "you have to shoot at 2.8 if you shoot nikon" claim with a few shots of my own..

Iso 3200, f/1.2 1/50:

brainiac wrote:
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.


I agree with most of this. When it arrive in the market the M8 looked great, but as I feared, Leica would not keep up, would not be able to (or think it necessary) to introduce new models with improved sensors on a product cycle considerably shorter than they were used to in the film era. The market and competitors have moved on and Leica has not. $5500 is a tall order when the level of performance can be easily had for a fifth of that cost. Indeed, it just does not compute.

That said, I would really like to see a competitive Leica, or rangefinder digital. I don't think that the viewfinder system is that much of a shortcoming and is preferable in some ways. Not for all uses, but in appropriate uses it can be great. The form factor of the camera is also great, and is downright diminutive compared to all the bulky DSLR's. Personally I am waiting for a new Leica model, or rangefinder from another maker, that addresses the issues with the M8, is competitive in IQ with the market, and perhaps is more sensibly priced given the competitive lifespan of about 2-3 years. Hopefully Leica gets its product cycles right and I don't have to wait too long.

ulrikft wrote:
I have to counter your "you have to shoot at 2.8 if you shoot nikon" claim with a few shots of my own..



What were the shutter speeds on these? All but the girl in the hat look underexposed. A crop into the iris detail on a low light shot will show us how sharp the Nikon is.


All my shots were below 1/30th of a second.

Robert

A digital zeiss ikon with a fullframe sensor, very good build quality, good ergonomics and a great rangefinder/viewfinder.. Imagine that! shooting 1/15 with a 35 1.2 on iso 6400...

Life doesen't get much more fun than that for street/candids. But until that arrives, I think the d700 + 28 2.0, 58 1.2 and 105 2.5 is the fitting kit for me personally. I can't speak for everyone else though!

A digital zeiss ikon with a fullframe sensor, very good build quality, good ergonomics and a great rangefinder/viewfinder.. Imagine that! shooting 1/15 with a 35 1.2 on iso 6400...

Life doesen't get much more fun than that for street/candids. But until that arrives, I think the d700 + 28 2.0, 58 1.2 and 105 2.5 is the fitting kit for me personally. I can't speak for everyone else though!

Hmmm yes - it would be nice. Under 2500$ too I suppose?

Well, the magnesium alloy, fully electronic, pro-af, super-metering... (etc :P ) d700 goes for less than $2500, so I don't see any rational reason, other than "we have our audience, we want the dentists, nooen else"-doctrine, to price it any higher than that, to be honest, without AF-electronics and a lot of other stuff, it should be possible to make a fully manual, fully weathersealed digital fullframe rangefinder for $1500-2500 somewhere.

ulrikft wrote:
... it should be possible to make a fully manual, fully weathersealed digital fullframe rangefinder for $1500-2500 somewhere.

agreed, and when that product arrives, if i'm still standing, i will be in line to buy it.

brainiac wrote:
Rob, I would have to say that I would be disappointed with your low-light results if I had shot them with, say, a 450D and 24 f1.4. They show serious noise even at this web size, and the colours look funny.


The colours and noise may be better, but even my 1D wouldn't focus reliably in low light like that. I would take an in focus shot over a lower noise out of focus shot.

Robert

ulrikft wrote:
Well, the magnesium alloy, fully electronic, pro-af, super-metering... (etc :P ) d700 goes for less than $2500, so I don't see any rational reason, other than "we have our audience, we want the dentists, nooen else"-doctrine, to price it any higher than that, to be honest, without AF-electronics and a lot of other stuff, it should be possible to make a fully manual, fully weathersealed digital fullframe rangefinder for $1500-2500 somewhere.
Hmmm... I have never seen the Nikon factory, but I have seen the Leica one, and I doubt that there is any similarity in the way the cameras are produced. And even if Nikon were to produce a DRF. If I have my facts straight, their previous effort at rangefinder building was even more expensive than the Leica of the time.
Btw, I feel the weathersealing argument is more psychological than factual. Although I too would feel more secure if Leica slapped a weathersealed label on the M cameras - and the lenses for that matter, in 25000 to 30000 M8s sold there have been no reports of damage by water ingression, on the contrary, there have been cameras dunked with no ill results. The only camera that died was one where the owner unknowlingly built a condensation chamber and left the camera there for hours on end.
Afaik, even Canon excludes moisture damage from warrantee on their "weathersealed" cameras.

Well, I don't see how, other than the obvious "handmade" and "factorymade" differences, nikon should have problems mass manufacturing such a camera? I might be wrong, and if the user base is very low as it mya be, the price will of course be a bit, if not a lot, higher. The advantages of mass production etc.

But still, no af, no fps-datahandling needs, no advanced electronics in many areas...

Mass produced means mass sold... It will never happen to an all-manual rangefinder niche product.

jaapv wrote:
Mass produced means mass sold... It will never happen to an all-manual rangefinder niche product.
That was kind of my point. therefore high price (i consider $2500 a high price :P) even without AF, fps-automation, huge-file-speedish handling etc.

The build should be a no-brainer. a zeiss ikon/m6/nikon rangefinder housing with weather seals should not be hard or expensive to build. Use the d700/d3 sensor (or d3x?)... It should be doable. Far worse for leica or zeiss of course, since they can't use the sensor/electronics from fullframe cameras in their own line.

ulrikft wrote:

The m-series look great for what it is made for, but competing on low-light? Not a chance. the "i can shoot at 1/5 of a sec" is great a slong as you are shooting stationary subjects i guess, but I do a lot of street and candids, and 1/5 will get movement blur on the subject-side, if not on the camera side.


I don't shoot digital, so feel free to ignore me. I do however shoot both a Leica M and a Canon SLR (1V). I have a 28 and a 50 for both cameras. I routinely shoot at 1/8th (1/5th isn't on the dial) with a 28 and 1/15 with a 50 on my M. I've done 1/8th with the 50 and that can be a bit dicey sometimes, but it works enough that if I needed to do it, I would. Of course, most of these times, I'm shooting with ISO 400 film. If they were actually important pictures, I'd have no reservation shooting at 1250, 1600, or 3200. That would buy me a couple stops

Here's two examples, same lighting (same roll):

28mm, 1/8th:


50mm, 1/15th:


By all means, if you need to shoot at those super high ISOs, get yourself a Nikon or a Canon DSLR. I've found that I can usually compete with the digifolk, and I'm shooting with film. Pretty much all of these digital options beat the high ISO capability of film, so its a bit of a moot point to me...

To Brainiac: you make good points about the weakness of the M8 - I'm not going to try to argue with them. However, the viewfinder of it is not a weakness, it is a big reason why people like to shoot rangefinders. If you don't like it, thats fine, but some people really like it compared to SLRs.

ulrikft wrote:
Use the d700/d3 sensor (or d3x?)... It should be doable. .

The full frame sensors will not work because of the angle the light hits them off of a rangefinder lens. The rear element is very close to the sensor, especially with the wide angles. This is the whole reason the M8 is only 1.3x and still needs offset micro lenses to compensate and a very thin IR filter.

Robert

I had 2 Leica M8s and lots of Leica glass too, so I am coming from an informed point of view.

I sold them for many reasons, but the reasons include:

1) Reliability issues - The sensor on one camera developed two different faults (at different times) and also the power switch because defective on that body too. It had to go back to the factory twice, and I never felt I could rely upon it as a work tool.

2) The high ISO noise was not acceptable. For a tool that is supposed to be a low light specialist, it failed. Even my old Canon 400D had better high ISO performance, was not that much bigger, was actually lighter to carry around and had lots of other benefits too.

3) The focus patches were wwaaaayyyyy off in terms of being any where near accurate. Of course this was different for every lens too, and while it was possible to make some assumptions and estimates, it was never good enough for what I wanted. Framing was next to useless, and I almost never got the 'frame' I was expecting. Yes, I practiced and practiced hoping to get it down, but realistically this was a killer for me.

4) White balance was not good (err... terrible) so everything had to be shot raw, no excuses.

5) It was actually louder than my Canon DSLR, which for a 'discreet' camera was not good enough.

6) In really low light there was no way you could focus using the focus patch, so I had to resort to the old skills of estimating the distance and dialing it in on the lens. That's OK provided you aren't already wide open (say f1.4) meaning the DOF was likely to kill you anyway!

7) The need to use IR filters was a complete PITA! Getting lenses coded meant spending more money and losing the use of the lens for up to 8 weeks while they went to Germany! Leica refused to add a menu to the camera whereby you could have told it what lens you had. Crazy!

There were some advantages, like at lower ISO, the files could stand a lot more pushing and pulling in PP than my 400D files could, the color and general rendering from some of the glass was also better than some Canon/Nikon DSLR glass, but TBH it wasn't enough for me to put up with all the other things that were just dragging me down. I was actually relieved when I sold the lot and went back to DSLRs.

Different tools suit different people. Even though I grew up with a Leica rangefinder, for me, they are no longer the right tool for the job. Sorry Leica. I so much wanted it to work.

robsteve wrote:
ulrikft wrote:
Use the d700/d3 sensor (or d3x?)... It should be doable. .

The full frame sensors will not work because of the angle the light hits them off of a rangefinder lens. The rear element is very close to the sensor, especially with the wide angles. This is the whole reason the M8 is only 1.3x and still needs offset micro lenses to compensate and a very thin IR filter.

Robert

This I know, it would have to involve a workaround on issues like this.

DaveEP wrote:
I had 2 Leica M8s and lots of Leica glass too, so I am coming from an informed point of view.

I sold them for many reasons, but the reasons include:

1) Reliability issues - The sensor on one camera developed two different faults (at different times) and also the power switch because defective on that body too. It had to go back to the factory twice, and I never felt I could rely upon it as a work tool.

2) The high ISO noise was not acceptable. For a tool that is supposed to be a low light specialist, it failed. Even my old Canon 400D had better high ISO performance, was not that much bigger, was actually lighter to carry around and had lots of other benefits too.

3) The focus patches were wwaaaayyyyy off in terms of being any where near accurate. Of course this was different for every lens too, and while it was possible to make some assumptions and estimates, it was never good enough for what I wanted. Framing was next to useless, and I almost never got the 'frame' I was expecting. Yes, I practiced and practiced hoping to get it down, but realistically this was a killer for me.

4) White balance was not good (err... terrible) so everything had to be shot raw, no excuses.

5) It was actually louder than my Canon DSLR, which for a 'discreet' camera was not good enough.

6) In really low light there was no way you could focus using the focus patch, so I had to resort to the old skills of estimating the distance and dialing it in on the lens. That's OK provided you aren't already wide open (say f1.4) meaning the DOF was likely to kill you anyway!

7) The need to use IR filters was a complete PITA! Getting lenses coded meant spending more money and losing the use of the lens for up to 8 weeks while they went to Germany! Leica refused to add a menu to the camera whereby you could have told it what lens you had. Crazy!

There were some advantages, like at lower ISO, the files could stand a lot more pushing and pulling in PP than my 400D files could, the color and general rendering from some of the glass was also better than some Canon/Nikon DSLR glass, but TBH it wasn't enough for me to put up with all the other things that were just dragging me down. I was actually relieved when I sold the lot and went back to DSLRs.

Different tools suit different people. Even though I grew up with a Leica rangefinder, for me, they are no longer the right tool for the job. Sorry Leica. I so much wanted it to work.



1. That is quite possible - there were indeed teething troubles with some cameras. From what I see on forums, those times are long past. Leica M8s are as reliable as anybody could wish for. Not 100% unfortunately, but then, what camera type is?
2. High-Iso noise- well, there is enough of that in this and many other threads
3. The new focus patches ( I assume you mean framelines) have been made more user-friendly in the M82 and upgrade. Theoretically wrong - but folks seem to like them.
4. AWB has been improved sometime early last year to a point where it is as good as any DSLR
5. This issue has been adressed too in the M8-2 and (partly) upgrade. You would be hard put to find a more discreet camera to shoot with nowadays, except for the totally silent point and shoots of course.
6. This runs contrary to about everybodies else's experience.
7. How would you get lenses coded for any other camera-body with an old lens??
It is only needed for lenses of 28 mm and shorter anyway. And maybe the Noctilux. IR filters yes - Leica would love to get rid of them - if it were possible....

If DSLR suits you better, that is fine. You are part of a vast majority. But rest assured for Leica -in its small way, it works just fine.

ulrikft wrote:
robsteve wrote:
ulrikft wrote:
Use the d700/d3 sensor (or d3x?)... It should be doable. .

The full frame sensors will not work because of the angle the light hits them off of a rangefinder lens. The rear element is very close to the sensor, especially with the wide angles. This is the whole reason the M8 is only 1.3x and still needs offset micro lenses to compensate and a very thin IR filter.

Robert

This I know, it would have to involve a workaround on issues like this.



It would earn you a lot of money if you could indicate this workaround.

jaapv wrote:
ulrikft wrote:
robsteve wrote:
ulrikft wrote:
Use the d700/d3 sensor (or d3x?)... It should be doable. .

The full frame sensors will not work because of the angle the light hits them off of a rangefinder lens. The rear element is very close to the sensor, especially with the wide angles. This is the whole reason the M8 is only 1.3x and still needs offset micro lenses to compensate and a very thin IR filter.

Robert

This I know, it would have to involve a workaround on issues like this.



It would earn you a lot of money if you could indicate this workaround.



Haha.. yes..

Hi Jaapv, I remember you from the Leica forum, and while you make some valid points, they are not all absolute.

jaapv wrote:
1. That is quite possible - there were indeed teething troubles with some cameras. From what I see on forums, those times are long past. Leica M8s are as reliable as anybody could wish for. Not 100% unfortunately, but then, what camera type is?

I would agree that not all cameras are reliable. There was an extra problem on one of my bodies (the black one) that involved an extra 'kick' as the shutter moved. It was a bit like an unbalanced recoil, and made hand holding at lower shutter speeds a lot harder. I could shoot the Chrome body at much lower speeds than the black one.


2. High-Iso noise- well, there is enough of that in this and many other threads

That's 'cos it's true

3. The new focus patches ( I assume you mean framelines) have been made more user-friendly in the M82 and upgrade. Theoretically wrong - but folks seem to like them.

Yes, I meant frame lines, sorry, but I paid £3,000 for a camera that now some how I would have to pay 'more' to make it in to what it should have been to start with - and even then still not be right? Oh, and I have to do that for both bodies.... I don't think so. Sorry.


4. AWB has been improved sometime early last year to a point where it is as good as any DSLR

I had latest firmware in both bodies, and I am afraid we will have to disagree here. Both my Canon and Nikon bodies are far better. Even my P&S cameras were far better.

5. This issue has been adressed too in the M8-2 and (partly) upgrade. You would be hard put to find a more discreet camera to shoot with nowadays, except for the totally silent point and shoots of course.

Oh, so something else I have to pay even more for

6. This runs contrary to about everybodies else's experience.

I mean LOW light. My Nikon & Canon DSLRs can focus in the dark with the aid of a speedlight. Try manually focusing an M8 when it gets really low light so that there is insufficient light to come through the patch and provide good contrast, and basically it can't be done!

7. How would you get lenses coded for any other camera-body with an old lens??
Not quite sure what you mean here.... but (for example) I can use an old Nikon lens on a current Nikon body without the need for filters or coding.


It is only needed for lenses of 28 mm and shorter anyway. And maybe the Noctilux. IR filters yes - Leica would love to get rid of them - if it were possible....

There was some problems on the 35mm as well, and of course trying to use any other lens, like the CV12 was problematic if you wanted color and not B&W. You either put up with black coats looking purple or.......


If DSLR suits you better, that is fine. You are part of a vast majority. But rest assured for Leica -in its small way, it works just fine.

I was brought up on a film Leica M, and loved it. That's why I jumped all over the M8, but something got lost somewhere, and you are right, for the people who have connected with the M8, it's a great tool, provided you want to use it within it's limits. I need to use it outside of it's apparent limits, so for my style of photography (which is different to the late 60s / early 70s) the DSLR is a better tool.

I see quite a few people look at the M8 as if it's some way to get a smaller lighter camera kit, but in reality a 450D, 1000D, D40 etc would be a far better tool for what they had in mind.

My last words are really..... long live Leica, they make great products, but the M8 was for me at least, a bit of a let down.

You are quite right there. People should first consider whether they want a rangefinder, whether they want to go digital... All other arguments are moot.

And just for good measure, in case anyone has forgotten what a full frame Canon sensor can do in low light, here are a couple of frames shot at iso 12800: