Difference between M7 and M8? [Archive]

George Bonanno

08-04-2007, 21:24

The M8 produces far better image quality... it's digital !

The M7 is an old school film camera used mostly by the over 50 crowd. Not to mention the messy hassle scanning and waisting time.

At your age... go digital all the way. Besides, your peers will think you're a goofball shooting film.

Be modern ! Shoot digital !

Best,
George

intinsifi

08-04-2007, 21:41

What do you mean by image quality? Minimal apparent noise?

I guess I am trying to figure out if it is worth picking up an M8. I have decided to keep my D200 around, because it won't hurt to have it in case I need it. Noise really doesnt bother me that much. What would I miss out on by using an M7 with a film scanner instead of an M8 (disregaurd workflow and the convienience of digital)?

Keith

08-04-2007, 22:06

intinsifi

08-04-2007, 22:14

If you like to shoot black and white the M8 is a good camera and you can use the in camera black and white settings or convert in post processing. Some of the b/w images I see posted in the gallery from the M8, including my own are ok, but there is no real comparison to what you can get with an M7 and quality black and white film ... to me, tonal range is lacking in the M8 images.

I shoot B&W 75% of the time. Do you think that I made a wise decision by going the analog route? The second reason I am afraid to by the M8 is the value. I already see the D200 as a huge depreciating asset since it is digital. I see myself having the M7 for a long time unlike the other digital cameras I have had in the past.

Keith

08-04-2007, 22:24

I shoot B&W 75% of the time. Do you think that I made a wise decision by going the analog route? The second reason I am afraid to by the M8 is the value. I already see the D200 as a huge depreciating asset since it is digital. I see myself having the M7 for a long time unlike the other digital cameras I have had in the past.

I think digital is fine and the M8 if you can bite down hard and accept the price, is a worthwhile companion to an m7. Then again so is a D200 but you don't get the benefit of the lens compatabilty between the M8 and M7.

I have a D70s which is a fantastic camera ... since buying an M8 however it gets no use at all and just sits in the cupboard wondering what it did wrong! :D

intinsifi

08-04-2007, 22:32

I think digital is fine and the M8 if you can bite down hard and accept the price, is a worthwhile companion to an m7. Then again so is a D200 but you don't get the benefit of the lens compatabilty between the M8 and M7.

I have a D70s which is a fantastic camera ... since buying an M8 however it gets no use at all and just sits in the cupboard wondering what it did wrong! :D

Do you think the M8 will hold its value? My first expensive camera was the D100, and it wasnt worth much after the D200 came out.

Keith

08-04-2007, 22:42

Do you think the M8 will hold its value? My first expensive camera was the D100, and it wasnt worth much after the D200 came out.

Yes ... but only until Leica releases it's replacement whatever that may be ... M8a M9 ... who knows, but there wouldn't be the plunge in value that you get with a Japanese SLR when the same happens.

I supect that will be a while though ... they are still trying to iron out the M8's quirks! :p

BrianPhotog

08-04-2007, 22:55

Do you think the M8 will hold its value? My first expensive camera was the D100, and it wasnt worth much after the D200 came out.
As a useable camrea? No. At least, not as well as a film M. The primary reason being, digital technology is still maturing (and quickly).

As an investment? It might hold some value in the future as "the first digital M" so long as you keep it sealed in the box and store it somewhere humidity, bacteria, and light-free.

intinsifi

08-04-2007, 22:57

I think I am going to stick with the M7 for the time being. I like the shooting style that film requires. I think I am closer to my photos than when I snap away with the D200. I'm still interested in the M8, but I will wait until I can find one that won't make my wallet hurt or make me have buyers remorse. I plan on ordering a scanner this coming week so that I can have digital copies of my photos.

sienarot

08-04-2007, 23:04

Here's an M8 scanned with an Epson 4490 photo scanner:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1078/1013568388_c4719599f0_o.jpg

Hahahaha!!! :D

mfogiel

08-04-2007, 23:53

Intinsify,

I see this fundamental winning point in shooting the rangefinders over SLR's:

- unbeatable performance in the wide to normal FL range

Since I like shooting B&W most, on top of that I'd still give a nod to film over digital capture - this might not last forever if we should see cameras with monochrome full frame 16 bit sensors in the range of 16-24MP resolution.

There's already a "movement" to make this happen in the MF digi backs (look up Diglloyd site).

As long as the digital Leica is just a lifebelt thrown at Leica afficionados who shoot in colour, I don't see any compelling reason to own one over a DSLR - it misses the wideangle advantage due to the crop factor, and it isn't there yet in terms of the B&W quality.

Mind you, if you stick to your M7, choose well the scanner, AFAIK the discontinued Minolta 5400 is best, the condenser scanners create problems with grain. It might be worth looking at MF scanners too.

JWW

08-05-2007, 00:28

I used to use a M7 and MP and scan on Nikon Coolscan V but since I got my M8 in January, I pretty much use the M8. Superb imaging, way better than scanned film especially in printing 13z19in prints. Besides just think how much scanning time and money the digital saves for the over 4000 pictures on the M8 so far. One mystery with the M8 is that it made me want to buy more lenses for some reason. Never had that urge to expand that way with the M7.

jaapv

08-05-2007, 00:40

Do you think the M8 will hold its value? My first expensive camera was the D100, and it wasnt worth much after the D200 came out.

Well... after the Digilux3 came out and the Digilux 2 was discontinued a year ago, a used Digilux 2 nowadays still commands between 750 and 1000 $ on e-bay, and rising despite the sensor being prone to dying. But if you want to invest money, I would advise bonds, much safer. On the other hand, if you want to take photographs, an M8 is not a bad choice. Remember, even if Leica were to come out with a 100Mp, 5x6 cm, autofocus, Cl sized M9 next year, that wouldn't change the quality of the photographs taken with the M8. What you are not selling has no monetary value.....
Looking at resolution and cleanlines technical quality of a M8 file over film is miles ahead.Dynamic range is the same or slightly better than the best slide film, with superior shadow recovery. The only thing it lacks in the eye of the purist is that it does not duplicate the look of film. Why should it? It is a digital camera. If you like film, shoot film. If you like oil paint, don't use water colours. The image counts, not the technique.

Dynamic range? Far beyond what one can print...
I prefer the original by a fair margin, but I could never open up the shadows like this on film...

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/jaapv/IMG_20070706_0092_00002-001.jpg

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/jaapv/recovery.jpg

grduprey

08-05-2007, 04:47

Not sure what you guys are talking about when you say the M8 does not make good B&W photos. Those I have seen are down right fantastic. And no need of IR filters.

Nog Bluteau

08-05-2007, 04:59

When you say "waisting time", I assume you're making a pun about the "over-50" crowd and stubborn flat earthers.

Keith

08-05-2007, 05:04

Not sure what you guys are talking about when you say the M8 does not make good B&W photos. Those I have seen are down right fantastic. And no need of IR filters.

I wouldn't say they aren't good but I do think they have a quality that is slightly less than film. Some of Khanosu's black and white images with his M8 in our gallery are outstanding and I like the black and white results from my own M8 but I still think there is something lacking in them ... just my personal opinion though! :)

kshapero

08-05-2007, 05:12

I gotta always wonder where these 18 yr olds get the money to decide between an M7 and an M8 with a D200 back in the closet. I am 57 never been on food stamps, always worked. I would give my left n-t to be able to afford to have such a dilemna. Anyway order me a Bentley when you are through and good luck.
From the over 50 crowd.

usccharles

08-05-2007, 06:52

I shoot B&W 75% of the time. Do you think that I made a wise decision by going the analog route? The second reason I am afraid to by the M8 is the value. I already see the D200 as a huge depreciating asset since it is digital. I see myself having the M7 for a long time unlike the other digital cameras I have had in the past.

if you want a leica to keep for a long time, can i recomment a MP or maybe a M6? Less electronics and more mechanics. the thing about the M7 and M8 are that they are both highly electrical, albeit one uses film and the other has a sensor.

i sold my M6TTL to make funds for the M8, but lately have been doing alot of film shooting again and wish i had my M6 again...

M8 makes Amazing images. but there is something in film images that the M8 can never quite duplicate.

still, i use my M8 99% percent of the time and whip out what i have of my film gear just for fun. just to reminisce. i would never leave both though.

intinsifi

08-05-2007, 07:24

I think the M8 would be a nice camera to have, but I guess scanning isn't much of a drawback for me. I shoot a roll every 4 to 5 days. I dont shoot nearly as much as I do with my D200. Ive taken tons of photos with the D200 and most of them rot on my harddrive. Everything from the M7 has been printed in atleast 4x6.

hofrench@mac.co

08-05-2007, 07:27

This is a ludicrous question.
The M7, fine camera though it is, is merely a light box containing film, a shutter, and a lens mount.
A picture taken with an M7 will look substantially the same as a picture taken with any other M-style body (including my preference for film, the Konica Hexar RF) -- all other conditions being equal. The operative condition here, of course, besides the film, is the lens.
Same lens, same film, same light and exposure = same picture.
The M8, is a totally different proposition. Whether it beats the film Leicas or not is to a significant extent a subjective aesthetic judgment.
My own sense is that film M rigs still rule in B+W. The M8 wins in color, except for the most exacting film shoots, such as perfectly exposed Provia, etc.

intinsifi

08-05-2007, 13:40

I think the main reason I am confused is because I've grown up on digital. I decided to switch to film because I got tired of all my digital things becoming outdated. My first camera was an AGFA back in 1999. The images were 640 x 480, and they were terrible. It was a family camera, but I ended up using it most of the time. I'd say that the AGFA is what got me into photography. My second camera was a 4mp from Fuji. It had a few manual settings, but I outgrew it quickly. My third camera was the D100. I have pictures from my first two cameras, but I'm sad that the quality was so bad. I can't really do anything practical with the images. Do you think down the road that all the cameras with 10MP sensors such as the M8 and D200 will be looked down upon or have we gotten to a point where 10MP is good enough quality?

hopelion

08-05-2007, 14:56

I`m 32 years old!

charlesfoto

08-05-2007, 15:35

I doubt if there is much more the M8 could do over your D200 that the average eyes could notice, plus the D200 gives you things not possible with the M8, like macro, telephoto, speed, etc. I love the results with my M7, use the D200 for work, and had the opportunity to sell some stuff to buy the next camera lusted after...not the M8, but Mamiya 7. As wonderful as the M8 is, I have no desire to own it, and to offer an opinion on the OP's question...image quality between the two would be subjective, as the digital "look" is world's apart from the look of film. My opinions, of course.

JohnL

08-05-2007, 19:14

You should keep the D200 for all those things that an SLR can do that are not what RF cameras are best for, such as macro work and long lens stuff, if you ever will want to do any of those.
I just got myself a Nikon Coolscan 5000 and I'm very impressed. The image files are *much* better than I used to get with the KM Scan Dual IV ... which is getting a bit rickety now after 3 years of pretty heavy use. Also you can scan an entire film at a time if you get the roll film adapter, so you don't have to keep feeding in short strips of film. You just set it up and come back when its done. Also the Digital Ice reduces the amount of spotting needed by a factor of about four.
Unless you plan on making very big enlargments, I'd say there's not a huge difference in practical quality between film scanned on this scanner and 10MP digital. I don't have an M8, but I have a Canon 5D which is 12.8MP. This is far better than film + scanning, but you only see the difference on prints bigger than about A3+. At normal print sizes, digital files are "cleaner", but the scans from film have more texture.
For film I generally use colour negative in the range of ISO 160-200, or 800-1600 for after-dark. You could get finer grain with Velvia but you'd have less dynamic range and too much color saturation for my taste. You can always go to B&W in PP, but if you use B&W film, you don't have the choice.
If you get an M8, you'll probably want at least one more lens for the short end because of the 1.3x crop factor. Also (from what I hear) for colour you'll probably need IR-cut filters for all your lenses, unless you are willing to accept the hassle of moving filters around.
HTH, John

cmogi10

08-05-2007, 20:19

I'm sorry, but am I the only one who saw the thread title and thought they would post...

"well you see, one's digital..."

I told myself I wouldn't, but Oh well.

Keith

08-05-2007, 20:25

I'm sorry, but am I the only one who saw the thread title and thought they would post...

"well you see, one's digital..."

I told myself I wouldn't, but Oh well.

Hey .. . I was so tempted to just post ...

1

... but I restrained myself! :p

cmogi10

08-05-2007, 20:31

Hey .. . I was so tempted to just post ...

1

... but I restrained myself! :p

:p

I didn't even think of that...

jaapv

08-05-2007, 23:59

plus the D200 gives you things not possible with the M8, like macro, telephoto, speed, etc.

:p :p :p

Macro on M8:
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/jaapv/bloengeel.jpg

Telephoto on M8:
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/jaapv/vlieg.jpg

Speed on M8:
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/jaapv/dolphin.jpg

Speed and tele on M8:
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e32/jaapv/2.jpg

JohnL

08-06-2007, 03:10

Jaap,

Great images. However, for that work, you need the Visoflex. Also, I don't think you can have AF with this arrangement, which can be important for some work. For someone who already has a D200, that's not the route I'd suggest unless I already had most of this kit from earlier days with M cameras.

jaapv

08-06-2007, 03:58

The dolphin is with the Summilux 75, no Visoflex, the seagull with the Tele-Elmarit 135, no Visoflex. Actually, I find AF would not have worked well with these subjects, as 1. With the dolfin the spray would have confused the AF, causing a wrong plane of focus, especially as you need to see it coming before it breaks the wave. Reaction time on a DSLR would have been too slow too. You need instant response. and 2. The seagull, AF would have had a hard time picking up the beak of the bird. It might as well have been its feet or a wing. Shallow DOF bird photography is far more successful with manual focus, as it is virtually impossible to keep the AF field on the eye or the beak and compose at the same time. A rangefinder is particularly useful, as you can see the periphery of the shot and anticipate the movement of fast moving birds. Plus, again, camera response time was crucial to get it just as its feet touched the water. Btw, I looked at your gallery ; both the Dolphin and the Gull were shot in the Everglades, coincidentally.