Most people get the focusing down pretty easy. With a couple exceptions (90/2, 75/1.4, 50/1.0, etc.) you actually have a reasonable depth of field with most lenses, even wide open, because of the relatively large minimum focus distance of .7m. And if you are shooting fast with a wider lens, stopped down, you don't have to nail focus exactly - DOF takes care of a lot.
If an M8 and a Zeiss is cheap to you, go pick up a set and try it out. If they are a bit expensive, buying a used Bessa or M2 and shooting a couple rolls of film (if you aren't adverse to that) is a great way to try it out on the cheap.
That being said, I shoot mostly rangefinders and will admit it's not for everyone.
Btw, to be clear, I'm not poo poo-ing rf. It was a lot of fun. All I'm saying is I need more time to get acclimated. I'm just not accustomed to mf, that's all. Not everyone started in that era
That said, I wasnt over the moon impressed with the 35 cron. Tbh it reminded me of a more toned down (color and contrast wise) version of the sigma 30/1.4.
I didn't start with MF or even film. I've regressed. My first real camera was a digital Rebel. Then a film SLR, then an RF. It's not that hard. If it's for you that is The best way to get acclimated is to just do it. You just have to be ok with all the many limitations inherent in RFs.
As far as being impressed with lenses, I think I have a different view from some of the people in this thread and forum. I like Zeiss lenses and have one (and have had others) but there are things to appreciate in a lens other than just contrast. Or sharpness, etc. I've seen a lot of references in this thread about how the ZM lenses don't compare well with the ZE line. Personally their small size, evenness across the frame, consistent performance at most apertures, and for the most part, very low distortion are all huge selling points to me. They are certainly 'sharp enough'. Similar statements can be made about many Leica lenses. Though oddly enough, many slam the ASPH Leica lenses as being too contrasty and harsh.
If trying to pick out a lens, hanging out on rangefinderforum.com for a bit or looking through the m-mount group on flickr could save you a lot of time and/or money.
Edward, RF is not for everyone, as is looking through a DSLR and MF. Manual focusing is a skill that does take time, whether is with the Zeiss range and DSLR, or RF. You must be honest with yourself, and decide whether it suits If not go with AF and FF DSLR, or the new Fuji X100 which should be out soon. The limiting link, is usually the photographer anyway
Seriously, if your ulitimate wish is for FF, the M9 with a lens may not be sensibly within your budget. It was not in my budget either and I thought I was nuts . Next I made sure, the system worked for me and the style of photography I love. Then I sold a lot of gear off first, to make it a reality. I would strongly suggest, with your uncertainity it not the time to buy, unless you have fully tried a RF otherwise you will be very disappointed.
The M8 is a great setup, and there are brilliant lenses available, even the really old ones. I feel your frustration, but be patient until you are sure
Here's a couple shots from the workshop - again, first time with a rangefinder, middle of the day. I think the m9 did really well handling the dynamic range.
Charles, that bench shot, was that perhaps shot with an f/1 Noctilux or a Nokton 50/1.1? Definitely interesting rendering, but pretty heavy coma and purple fringing - I'd be very surprised if it was your 50 lux.
Adam: I think that TomKayser is a new incarnation of a troll that got banned and had his account deleted a while ago. Don't bother with him.
Edward: If you have decided to hang on to the X1 get a Thumbs Up for it. It really transforms it ergonomically and adds loads of stability allowing for slower shutter speeds.
As for getting an M8 + Zeiss, I know many consider that as a good start to get to know range finders. While it may give you some experience with focusing etc, I would still hesitate to recommend it. While the user experience certainly matters a lot results and image quality do as well (at least to me). And in terms of image quality you are unlikely to see much improvement over the X1. It will be somewhat sharper but it's still a crop sensor and the higher ISO performance is worse than of the X1. So rather than buying an M8 it might be more informative to rent an M9 for a week or so and see how you like a rangefinder when image quality is not a bottle neck.
Here's another where you can see the abuse the lenses must have taken. Unfortunately I used this lens most of the day.. and I believe the aberrations are scratched coating, not dust or lint.
Thanks Luka. I'm going through the shots this morning - they turned out better than I originally thought (given they were purely a test for me). I think your thumbs up idea may be a good one.. I tried it on an m8 yesterday and it was a HUGE improvement.
Here's a link to the raw file I shot with my x1 on the way out, as another test.. again, I'm not happy with the outcome given the aperture and shutter speed. If anyone wants to have a look and opine, much appreciated.
The jpg does a lot to make it look better, except the weird blue of the sky! This is x1 sooc, the white balance seems correct - that's sunset light here... orange in the desert..I tried adjusting it in the raw, this is the closest to how it looked - camera awb. Luka, you can have our mountains.
h00ligan - I shot with a M8 and a 35 1.4 CV M.C. and it was a fantastic combo. Used it all over NYC on a 3 week trip. That was when the M8 was expensive. Now you can get that kit for around the price of a 5DII
Yes full frame is better, yes the M9 is nice, but by the time you use the M8 and realize if it's right for you or not, the M9 will have dropped enough in price that the losses you suffer on the M8 will be made up for by the lower cost of the M9... That or get yourself a bessa + cv lens and play the film game for a while.
I posted this before a LONG time ago, but I couldn't find where I posted it, so figured I'd just re-upload it for you to view. This was done with an M8 and a 35 1.4, I have a lot more NYC shots but I can't seem to find them, this is the only one I could find and that's because it was in an old print folder (the A4 print is pretty nice). If I find more M8+35CV shots I'll upload them.
denoir wrote:
Charles, that bench shot, was that perhaps shot with an f/1 Noctilux or a Nokton 50/1.1? Definitely interesting rendering, but pretty heavy coma and purple fringing - I'd be very surprised if it was your 50 lux.
Adam: I think that TomKayser is a new incarnation of a troll that got banned and had his account deleted a while ago. Don't bother with him.
Edward: If you have decided to hang on to the X1 get a Thumbs Up for it. It really transforms it ergonomically and adds loads of stability allowing for slower shutter speeds.
As for getting an M8 + Zeiss, I know many consider that as a good start to get to know range finders. While it may give you some experience with focusing etc, I would still hesitate to recommend it. While the user experience certainly matters a lot results and image quality do as well (at least to me). And in terms of image quality you are unlikely to see much improvement over the X1. It will be somewhat sharper but it's still a crop sensor and the higher ISO performance is worse than of the X1. So rather than buying an M8 it might be more informative to rent an M9 for a week or so and see how you like a rangefinder when image quality is not a bottle neck.
That's actually a really good point. The main reason for me selling the M8 was the crop factor and poor high ISO... So if these things will make the camera less enjoyable for you, then like me you'll sell it quickly. Though in the end I didn't give up completely on rangefinders, and I decided to give the M9 a shot, as it is FF and people claimed it had great high ISO, which it doesn't, but I'm willing to overlook that because I like FF in small packages.
Edward, really nice shots with the M9 Which lens did you use for these shots. Great rendering under harsh lighting.
Luka, it was shot with the ZM 50/2 Planar. Definitely interesting rendering
Adam, very nice shot!
Interesting points. I know FF is non negotiable for me, but I know the M8 suits a lot of others. In fact without the UV filter, the M8 is better suited for B&W rendering. There have been a number of articles written about it. Tough call
charles.K wrote:
Luka, it was shot with the ZM 50/2 Planar. Definitely interesting rendering
Really? I'm very surprised. I really like the rendering but it seems to suffer from quite a lot of optical aberrations - something I would not expect from an f/2 lens. Was it shot wide open?
denoir wrote:
Really? I'm very surprised. I really like the rendering but it seems to suffer from quite a lot of optical aberrations - something I would not expect from an f/2 lens. Was it shot wide open?
It was late in the evening at f/2. The shot was brightly backlit, and had to compensate for the exposure in the shadows in PP.
. Next I made sure, the system worked for me and the style of photography I love. Then I sold a lot of gear off first, to make it a reality. I would strongly suggest, with your uncertainity it not the time to buy, unless you have fully tried a RF otherwise you will be very disappointed. 
