View Full Version : Leica M8 ---> Not Happy!
Ara Ghajanian
06-19-2008, 18:52
I don't care how many of you are offended, I need to tell the truth. I bought an M8 a few months ago. I liked it at first, but found a few things inexcusable. One thing in particular was the amount of noise in the photos. I found that 640 was the highest ISO I could set before noise made photos completely unusable. Even 640 was not very good. I sold it within a month and lost a few hundred dollars in the process.
I just purchased a Canon 5D. I took photos at ISO 1600 the other day with dim room lighting and there was no noise I could perceive in the images. How can a camera that presently costs $1899 produce images dramatically better than a camera which costs over $5000? I need Leica to explain this to me. I love their film cameras to death and would never stop using them, but the M8 is worthless to a professional.
Mind you, I AM a professional, not some amateur who doesn't know the difference between a prosumer and pro camera. I've used everything from Hasselblads to Mamiya to Nikon to Rollei. This camera is an insult to Leica owners and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Go ahead... flame me. I stand firmly by my opinion.
Ara
FioreVelviamo
06-19-2008, 18:54
I just have to ask: What kind of professional are you?
Are you any good?
FioreVelviamo
06-19-2008, 18:57
I don't get it.
I just saw your flickr shots. There are many other issues waaayyy before the noise issue.
jasoncohen
06-19-2008, 19:05
Ara... sorry to hear about your bad experiences so far... I think that for high iso performance the 5d is one of the best on the market, so to compare the m8 to it is a bit unfair. Also you mentioned that iso was one of many things that you were disappointed with, but did not see any other things in your post... i am just curious of what else was a disappointment for you...
I agree. It's a crap camera. But when I need to work in digital. The M8 doesn't make me have to change my style. So I keep it.
arseniii
06-19-2008, 19:23
M8 is the last in my wish list and it is there only for a reason of being an investment. If I'd want a digicam I will buy Canon for sure. Film Leicas are wonderfull you right here ;-0
Ara Ghajanian
06-19-2008, 19:24
I don't get it.
I just saw your flickr shots. There are many other issues waaayyy before the noise issue.
Listen to me clearly: I did not say the camera would instantly make me a better photographer than you. I stated that it was unacceptably poor at high ISO's.
There is no need to be insulting to the individual who makes this claim. If anything, my concern is that we deserve a better camera than what is offered. If Leica reads these forums then maybe they will put more R&D into their offerings before charging such high prices. We should expect more for our dollars (or Euros).
bigdavid
06-19-2008, 19:46
Not to add on to the flames. Die hard Leica supportor or not, one can't help but to question whether M8 is really an outstanding performer in the digital field compared to the beasts from Nikon and Canon. I understand its 2 different operating platform to start with. But with a digital sensor, sd card storage, battery dependable, iso settings and other features, everything else is the same except for the "major" mirror flip difference.
We understand the high standard of handling, the quiet operation, the stealth of Leicas cameras and M8 has not managed to keep up in my humble opinion. It is very loud, even louder than my 1D at low shutter speed. Operation is not straight forward, no jog dial and all, setting up the M8 is slow, Image quality far from being impressive at high ISO.
I think all the above are acceptable and normal for any digital camera, but at such price tag is simply audacious. My humble opinion is that Leica is still far behind in digital sense and if you shoot digital since the start, you will understand that M8 really is behind time.
Hence we all know Leica is not about incorporating the newest technology since the beginning. Takes many a testing for this very conservative company to change or add anything and going digital was considered such huge leap.
The question is: do you think M8 can hold it's value over the years like the previous Ms? M6 for example, retains its value rather well. Since a major factor of what contributes to the image quality is the film used (that will improve overtime I reckon). Overtime, the mechanic operates the same, optic wise can be improved further with newer lens of higher resolving power. In M8's case, its heart lies with the sensor (which is super pricey) and the processor (speed will be so important when you start shooting 20 mp in raw). Upgrading these parts I forsee will burn such a big hold in your pocket you might as well get a m9 or m10.
Darren Abate
06-19-2008, 19:58
I don't get it.
I just saw your flickr shots. There are many other issues waaayyy before the noise issue.
Wow. Allow me to award you with "rudest message of the week." Everyone's professional status aside, that comment was decidedly not pro.
bigdavid
06-19-2008, 20:08
Wow. Allow me to award you with "rudest message of the week." Everyone's professional status aside, that comment was decidedly not pro.
you got it. i call it: "die hard brand supporter's syndrome". sometimes people worship something they understand so little about. any negative remark will result in uncontrollable state of retaliation. :eek:
sonyleica
06-19-2008, 20:29
I don't know why I used M8 recently more often than my DSLR, everytime I went out shooting. I guess in the last minute thought it was decision about the compactness of M8 and the convenience not to bring any flash! However I used DSLR for other situations such as good lighting, fast moving objects and need of flash.
I know you will and have got the torch for this comment but I'm with you pretty much all the way, when we got our hands on an m8 two weeks ago and poored over the results that we took in the studio, undoubtably the easiest place to score the highest quality control from a camera, we were disappinted when comparing it to our bread and butter 5d. Yes the camera has very sharp results and really squeezed a lot of information from my zeiss and leica lenses but when we compared it to the canon's results we were disappinteed that inferior lenses on a better camera were more then keeping pace.
We came to a conclusion that the m8 would be a great camera if it was in the sub 15000 yuan(2600 dollars) category, which we felt generous considering what you can get for that elseware, but for the most part no it is not a good choice for a competitive pro who does not absolutly need to keep with the rangefinder platform.
I also decided not to post my conclusions here in a thread for fear of the whip but who cares now, we sure do not.
In a nut shell, we are waiting on something else to fullfill our feild digital rangefinder needs. We also agree there are some real advantages to the m8 but none of those justifies the cos
t of one which really sucks for us here right now given the m8 is more then 6000 dollars here.
FioreVelviamo
06-19-2008, 20:57
Wow. Allow me to award you with "rudest message of the week." Everyone's professional status aside, that comment was decidedly not pro.
If Sebastiao Salgado says the M8 is garbage, I'll listen.
If someone with garbage and blown red channel shots says the M8 is garbage, I'm sorry but I won't be listening.
In this case, the source is not credible. The M8 is not garbage :)
I'm with most of you.
For what it costs, even when it was released, it's not worth it. My personal experiences with three faulty units make me qualified to talk about how unreliable it is etc etc etc. Most of all, I didn't like the picture quality when they did work. It's all old news, I guess.
Having said that, if it was priced the same as a 40D I'd think it would be considered a worthy product with a heck of a lot of quirks.
Some people, especially over on the LUF, would send you hate mail and put dead animals in your letter box for saying the above. I hope you don't get hate directed your way from here.
I wait for the next model too.
Ronald M
06-19-2008, 22:04
How can you say this when I am going to Leica day tomorrow at Calumet with a new SD card. Bo who..
I will bring my D40 and duplicate the shots. I am sure I will end up agreeing Leica has lost its way.
You forgot the reliability issue. It is terrible and would not be acceptable for a $100 camera.
kittyphoto
06-19-2008, 23:30
-->ARA
If you don't see the difference between M8 and 5D, you are lucky.
If you see 5D is better than M8 you are more lucky.
You save a lot of money.
May I suggest you get 40D and save some more money.
You may not notice difference between 5D and 40D too.
I am a unlucky person who see the difference M8 and 5D.
I also see the difference between M8 and Phasone back.
When you see the difference. You will understand why people pay for M8, Phaseone, H3D.
Good luck,
kitty
bigdavid
06-20-2008, 00:02
-->ARA
If you don't see the difference between M8 and 5D, you are lucky.
If you see 5D is better than M8 you are more lucky.
You save a lot of money.
May I suggest you get 40D and save some more money.
You may not notice difference between 5D and 40D too.
I am a unlucky person who see the difference M8 and 5D.
I also see the difference between M8 and Phasone back.
When you see the difference. You will understand why people pay for M8, Phaseone, H3D.
Good luck,
kitty
ah... another brand loyalist. we all understand phaseone and H3D for crying out loud. I dare say its for the picture quality we are paying that kind of money. Can you find a comparable system in the market with lower price? The answer is NO. They blew the rest far far away. So how can you compare picture from m8 with them??? They are just worlds apart and the whole point of this debate is not even what camera you use. Its digital in general and price you are paying for.
that the picture quality of m8 is unacceptable, even worse than lower cost 40d or 5d. That said, please be objective and not play the smart aleck in the corner. that only shows how childish you are.
M8 is the last in my wish list and it is there only for a reason of being an investment.
That is a fundamentally bad idea. Cameras aren't a good investment and digital cameras even less so. You lose 5-10% already upon opening the box and there's no way to recuperate that. Buy state bonds or something, they're way more secure *and* still more profitable.
If you're lusting for the damn camera, you'll do yourself a favour by admitting that it's lust and not pretending to take a rational choice.
Philipp
If Zeiss or Cosina had introduced a digital RF with the M8s capabilities some three years ago, RFFers would have seen it as proof beyond any doubt that digital doesn't cut it and film is the way to go.
I don't care how many of you are offended, I need to tell the truth. I bought an M8 a few months ago. I liked it at first, but found a few things inexcusable. One thing in particular was the amount of noise in the photos. I found that 640 was the highest ISO I could set before noise made photos completely unusable. Even 640 was not very good. I sold it within a month and lost a few hundred dollars in the process.
I just purchased a Canon 5D. I took photos at ISO 1600 the other day with dim room lighting and there was no noise I could perceive in the images. How can a camera that presently costs $1899 produce images dramatically better than a camera which costs over $5000? I need Leica to explain this to me. I love their film cameras to death and would never stop using them, but the M8 is worthless to a professional.
Mind you, I AM a professional, not some amateur who doesn't know the difference between a prosumer and pro camera. I've used everything from Hasselblads to Mamiya to Nikon to Rollei. This camera is an insult to Leica owners and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Go ahead... flame me. I stand firmly by my opinion.
Ara
I must be doing something VERY wrong - ISO 640 with all noise-reduction, also in C1, switched off....
http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/5/0/nel1.jpg
You know - the answer to your question is fairly simple, albeit a bit technical.Cmos sensors are more noisy than CCD sensors per se. So the noise reduction starts with circuitry on the sensor board and even before raw conversion. That produces clean files, albeit with some tradeoffs, specifically in microcontrast. Canon has this down to a fine art, but it does produce files with a specific look. Many photographers like that look, others don't. That results in reviews calling the Leica, which eschews such manipulation, "more filmlike" . A matter of priorities, I guess, and it clearly does not suit you. But calling the camera garbage goes a bit against the opinion of quite a number highly respected pros, wouldn't you agree?
bigdavid
06-20-2008, 01:07
You registered today, just to spread your infinite wisdom on the subject? Thank you! All I want to know is, what is your other nick here at RFF?
yes darling, I registered today. if you think I registered just to create havoc I can only tell you NOT to imagine too much. Anyway, just for your lack of security and understanding:
I read occasionally in this forum but never felt the need to post and I'm sure many others does the same. I don't supposed theres anything wrong with it. This thread or this forum is objective, not personal. Do not target at me unless you don't agree with any of my post. What I have stated are my experience with the camera and facts of the market now. If you don't agree, please state your point like what I have done so for Kittyphoto. But if you are trying to stir up a flame then I rest my case.
bigdavid
06-20-2008, 01:20
Seriously, you need help understanding why you see less noise in the images from the 5D than from the M8? Or was this just a little nugget of information for the rest of us, to cherish on chilly summer evenings?
As for flaming you, there is no need. You managed to set yourself on fire.
well, so you agree 5D out perform the M8?
To me, its simple, I wouldn't even compare the 2.
5D is full frame hence more light enter each pixel blah blah blah (I wouldn't go on, please go read up on full frame) no matter how "clean" everyone claim, it seriously will never ever beat a 5D IN TERMS of noise.
But I seriously think you need help in identifying the whole subject matter here: whether it is worth $5k for such performance.
To be fair, I will compare it to 40D if you push me. But well, seeing your loyalty in the brand, I don't think its necessary for me to go further and bruise your ego. period. good luck in your photography :eek:
bigdavid
06-20-2008, 01:37
I received my Leica MP earlier this week. Brand new, paid $4500 for it. Now, how much is that worth on the used market?
So far I have 6000 shots on my M8. Let's say that it has saved me 100 rolls of film.
- 100 rolls at $4 each = $400
- development, some at home (B&W), some at labs, on average $3 each = $300
There's $700 saved. The M8 cost me $4700. Deduct the $700 from that, and I'm even at $4000. I will have to shoot the equivalent of another 570 rolls to have regained the initial investment. At my current pace, that should take about 24 months. In other words: Come June 2010, I couldn't care less about the M8 "holding its value".
true enough... you certainly have a good point there I must agree. both my m8 and mps serve their purposes. but I choose over the latter if I must. to each his own I guess. but interesting point, I never think about film cost ever.
I must be doing something VERY wrong - ISO 640 with all noise-reduction, also in C1, switched off....
In all fairness there is quite a bit of noise in the sky and it's a picture downscaled in postprocessing, where noise will eventually cancel itself out.
We could now go and look at 1:1 crops and do a lot of comparisons, but it's probably just a waste of time as this is largely about subjective value judgement.
But calling the camera garbage goes a bit against the opinion of quite a number highly respected pros, wouldn't you agree?
I find that "pros" are just as opinionated and subjective as anyone else. One "pro"'s indispensable tool is another "pro"'s garbage. It's like this with dedicated "pro" cameras, why should it be different with a dentawyer hobbyist camera like the M8?
Philipp
I must be doing something VERY wrong - ISO 640 with all noise-reduction, also in C1, switched off....
http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/5/0/nel1.jpg
You know - the answer to your question is fairly simple, albeit a bit technical.Cmos sensors are more noisy than CCD sensors per se. So the noise reduction starts with circuitry on the sensor board and even before raw conversion. That produces clean files, albeit with some tradeoffs, specifically in microcontrast. Canon has this down to a fine art, but it does produce files with a specific look. Many photographers like that look, others don't. That results in reviews calling the Leica, which eschews such manipulation, "more filmlike" . A matter of priorities, I guess, and it clearly does not suit you. But calling the camera garbage goes a bit against the opinion of quite a number highly respected pros, wouldn't you agree?
Not to start a ****fight with you at all (we've been there/done that ;)), but I'm pretty sure that CMOS sensors are actually less noisy than the CCD. This is because the CMOS sensor runs cooler. Nikon/canon/pentax/olympus all use variants of the CMOS sensor now, mainly for high iso gains. I'll admit the nikon ccd, oly e1 ccd and m8 ccd can produce stunning results at low ISOs especially with textures and certain kinds of light/color.
I had a play with a D3 and their new 600mm lens the other day at the Australian PMA exhibition - shooting ISO 6400 and anywhere up to 12800 gave excellent, sharp, colorful results, both in RAW and JPEG.
There's no doubt in my mind the m8 is not as good as the Canon/Nikon CMOS sensors at high ISO, however there are those that make stunning pictures with the M8, wether it be at 640 or 2500 ISO. I think it's more about how the camera is used rather than it's tech specs or lab tests.
Not to start a ****fight with you at all (we've been there/done that ;)), but I'm pretty sure that CMOS sensors are actually less noisy than the CCD. This is because the CMOS sensor runs cooler. Nikon/canon/pentax/olympus all use variants of the CMOS sensor now, mainly for high iso gains. I'll admit the nikon ccd, oly e1 ccd and m8 ccd can produce stunning results at low ISOs especially with textures and certain kinds of light/color.
I had a play with a D3 and their new 600mm lens the other day at the Australian PMA exhibition - shooting ISO 6400 and anywhere up to 12800 gave excellent, sharp, colorful results, both in RAW and JPEG.
There's no doubt in my mind the m8 is not as good as the Canon/Nikon CMOS sensors at high ISO, however there are those that make stunning pictures with the M8, wether it be at 640 or 2500 ISO. I think it's more about how the camera is used rather than it's tech specs or lab tests.
Gavin has hit the nail on the head ... the M8 is not for pixel peepers and comparing it to the latest DSLR from Canon or Nikon is pointless! It's a camera that can produce stunning images in certain environments in the right hands but is bound to fall short in areas that are the D5 and D3's strengths ... and a lot of other DSLR's for that matter!
I realise it costs a lot of money and this tends to give weight to the argument that the M8 should measure up to the opposition because it costs twice their price ... Leicas have always been expensive and the M8 was never going to be an exception!
Like anything in life .... if you buy it and don't like it ... sell it and move on! :)
Nick De Marco
06-20-2008, 02:23
Ara, attempting a calm and reasonable response...
I agree that the M8 is not good at high iso's. I have been a 5D user for about a couple of years and one thing I like about the 5D was its ability to shoot at high isos with little noise.
I was concerned about this before buying the M8 recently, but I went ahead because I thought the M8 was a better camera in other ways. I actually would go further than you - I don't like using the M8 as 640 iso - I think it can look worse at that iso than the 5D at 1600 iso.
So I don't use the M8 at anything above 320 iso (unless emergency). This works fine with me. I rarely used the 5D above 400 iso unless it was night time - and I still have it to use in very low light. I rarely use film of 400 iso or higher. I love using well made small fast prime lenses. I would rather get away with shooting late at night with an f1.2 lens on my M8 at 320 iso (and I find I can hold the camera very steady even at 1/4 s).
I continue to think my 5D is a good camera, and I expect I will buy a 5D mk II when it comes out as I have invested heavily in L glass. But with the battery pack I attached and a spare couple of lenses it was huge, obtrusive, and heavy. Not ideal for all photography. I can put my M8 and an M6 and four lenses in one small bag and it's easier to carry around.
I am sure I am not an accomplished professional like you, but I do occassional professional work and when I do I use my 5D more than the M8 (partly because of reliability, partly because of zoom lenses and use of flashes). Apart from that I don't use the 5D anymore - I use the M8 nearly every day, certainly every week, and many of the photos I get are as good or better than the 5D - in fact in my view my own photography is much better than my professional photography as the latter is usually so confined to the narrow specifications of the purchaser.
I am about to buy a Mamiya 7 rangefinder MF camera for certain types of work (not professional but in preparation for some exhibition work). I will use it alongside the M8.
If I had not invested in Canon L lenses I would probably buy a D3 as it whacks the hell out of the 5D at high isos (so if that's what you want the D3 is a better camera for you).
But I think what these arguments and practise has taught me is that there is no such thing as a perfect camera for all occassions. Imagine if you were a photographer at a football game (I've done it before) - no way would you want an M8. But imagine you are doing a lot of street photography in busy cities, I wold rather have an M8.
What I do know is that if I could only have one camera it would be the one I use most often and get the most personal satisfaction from - and that would be the M8. But that is a personal choice. If I was a full time professional, depending on the work I did, it might be a Hassleblad, a D3, a 5D, a 1D Mk II or large format, or it just might be the M8 depending hat I was doing.
I certainly don't agree that the M8 is useless garbage - although it may well have been for your purposes
delander
06-20-2008, 02:31
I have a 5D and an M8, no doubt that the 5D has better high iso performance. But you know that is not the only important feature of a camera. Having had the 5d for 3 years and now the M8 for 15 months, I find that I never use the 5D. Sometimes I think I need to use my 5D but as soon as I pick it up I just realise that I don't like it anymore and will only use it if I have to. It is no fun.
Now the M8 has its problems, its not perfect but I just love using it and it has made me less interested in telephoto and macro photography, stuff that I would do with the 5D.
And to those that rant that the M8 is garbage - lets wait for the M9, remember that if no one had bought the M8 there would be no M9.
Do you see anther digital rangefinder out there? I don't.
Jeff
kittyphoto
06-20-2008, 02:34
ah... another brand loyalist. we all understand phaseone and H3D for crying out loud. I dare say its for the picture quality we are paying that kind of money. Can you find a comparable system in the market with lower price? The answer is NO. They blew the rest far far away. So how can you compare picture from m8 with them??? They are just worlds apart and the whole point of this debate is not even what camera you use. Its digital in general and price you are paying for.
that the picture quality of m8 is unacceptable, even worse than lower cost 40d or 5d. That said, please be objective and not play the smart aleck in the corner. that only shows how childish you are.
Well, you can call me anything you like. You might call me phaseone loyalist or film loyalist too. I am using Hasselblad H system with phasone P45+ and P30+ before I bought M8. I am film guy still have MP, Xpan, F5, TLR, MamiyaRB, SinarX all scan with Imacon 949. I still prefer film. But today I have to admit the world change. Less film more digital requested by customer.
I have followed M8 since it launch. I have tried 5 times before I bought it. At the beginning firmware and shutter is not good. Noise and battery also not the best.
Why I bought M8 6 weeks ago? Latest firmware AWB is much better. No more SD card lock. Shutter is more quiet and less vibration. With new C1 v.4 and Aperture noise is also better.
For the battery, I guess because of the CCD power hungry. If Leica goes for CMOS, battery life could be better. But quality should suffer.
Before I got M8, I have tried RD1 but I feel it lacks leica feel. Color is not what I like.
Many years ago before P45+ and P30+ I own lightphase which is the full frame 35mm CCD digital back.
I used with Horseman digiflex + Nikon lens. The color is so nice. It made me wait and think Leica could do the same full frame CCD.
Come back to the point. M8 noise is not bad. It is good sharp noise like grain. It add micro contrast to the picture.
The bigger print from M8 the sharper it is. With 5D the bigger print the softer you get.
You own M6 so I guess you should see the same phenomenon with film too.
Because M8 is rangefinder and manual focus. So it is much more difficult to use than DSLR. It is another breed system. I also have D80 and GRD2 for quick snap.
I did not say M8 is equal to medium format.
Phaseone is better.
But M8 is one of the best 35mm I could get at the present.
If you don't see the same, you are lucky.
YMMV
kitty
Keith makes a fine point.
The M8 is not for everybody. I decided some time ago it is not for me. It appears capable of exceptional results, but it is not everybody's cup of tea. There are other cameras that do certain things better, but the M8 is unique in it's blend of features, it's capabilities and it's access to optics. Some people will appreciate it, stick with it, find it's strengths and capitalise upon them to produce beautiful images. Others will feel cheated and let down by it.
There is no right and wrong here, only opinions. The problem arises in that you have a brand (Leica) that arouses strong emotions, coupled with a camera (the M8) that arouses strong emotions.
*sigh* I suspect this thread will spiral around the world the obligatory two and a half times before it peters out, with the usual admixture of insult, counter-insult and pro- and anti-Leica positions being stated - again - before we are done.
I'll leave you to it.
Regards,
Bill
EtoileFinder
06-20-2008, 02:54
In the digital rangefinder there's only two options the M8 and the rd-1. For myself i chose the r-d1 mainly for economical reason. The rd-1 is much cheaper used, despite some default of the r-d1, it performs very well in high iso. For sure, when you pay high price for tools you have expectations that it will performs well. That's why a lot of people (like myself) are ready to throw away a lot of money to buy Leica gears. But there are people (pro or not pro) who can do great thing with cheap tools and others nothing with expensive tools (maybe myself ) .
But, as I'm reading on the M8, it seems there's a lot of disastisfaction, that's the other reason why I bought the r-d1. I can understand the frustration when you just throw away about 5000 $ for an M8, and it is not fufill some minimal expectations. By the way, for a cheap alternative for shooting in low light condition, there's the shoot and point fuji f30. There's no universal camera, but from Leica I think we are justify to have high expectation. I would spend big money for the M8 if Leica upgrade it with a full frame sensor!
Maybe it will interesting to start a new thread on the Leica syndrome or for myself I call it the Leica fetichism! Remember as another member as said: cameras are only tools! There's no reason to insult personaly others members or feeling offended because there are negative comments on your favorite brand !
In my hands, the noise on M8 images at 640 iso and above is unacceptable. This is frustrating. I need to compensate fast lenses - in some situations that is fine, in others not. But at 160 and 320, the M8 is great.
Would I buy this camera again? I honestly don't know. I am thinking of selling a few other cameras and buy a Canon 5D while the price is dropping.
Eric
For those that missed it - here's my review of the M8:
http://x.chang-sang.com/blog/?page_id=92
On the page there is an image shot with the M8 @ ISO1250 in a rather dimly lit Irish pub and an image shot with the 5D under available halogen/fluorescent light. Take a look at the noise in both images and decide for yourselves. I've included 100% crops of both images.
Cheers,
Dave
I have to say that while some of the posters on this thread have made good points in a quite reasonable manner, the original poster's combination of arrogance and anger badly degrades the points which he attempts to get across.
Yes, the M8 produces more noise than certain other cameras at high ISO . So what? Every camera has strengths and weaknesses, of course, including the 5D. In fact, it is absolutely incapable of producing images like those which the M8 is capable of producing with a Noctilux (and certain other M lenses). Does that make the 5D "useless garbage"? Obviously not.
Furthermore, the notion that a certain amount of noise is "acceptable", with anything above that being "unacceptable" is sheer nonsense. There are plenty of brilliant photographers, as well as amateurs, who like and use "high" noise to their advantage.
I very rarely find the need to use ISO above 640 on the M8, and am delighted with the results. Is it a perfect camera? No. Is it worth its cost given its limitations? That's a purely subjective question, but many have decided that it is worth every penny.
As a final, albeit subjective note, to my eye the B&W image on the original poster's website would benefit from a bit more noise – seriously! :D
Dan States
06-20-2008, 04:12
Folks, 640 should look grainless on the M8 if you just turn off the #$%$ sharpening and bogus noise reduction programs. Use C1, turn off all sharpening and LUMINANCE noise reduction and keep CHROMA noise reduction at about 65% and you will have great files.
The M8 needs different handling of the RAW files if you want maximum quality. I have many shots at 1250 that look CLEAN.
Finally, it does not have a matrix meter. Get used to making proper exposures in camera by metering properly. Underexposing and then trying to over adjust in post processing is a sure way to get issues.
Not saying the M8 is the end all, but if you can't get great results from it I'm sorry to say it's not the camera.
Best wishes
Dan
J. Borger
06-20-2008, 04:22
I
Furthermore, the notion that a certain amount of noise is "acceptable", with anything above that being "unacceptable" is sheer nonsense. There are plenty of brilliant photographers, as well as amateurs, who like and use "high" noise to their advantage.
The best remark of the whole thread so far Tony ....could not agree more.
In fact i never ever use the M8 below iso 640 for that reaon :)
No need to discuss the cleaner high iso's of Canons and Nikons ... they are a fact for sure ... but it does not make them better cameras for everybody !
For those that missed it - here's my review of the M8:
http://x.chang-sang.com/blog/?page_id=92
On the page there is an image shot with the M8 @ ISO1250 in a rather dimly lit Irish pub and an image shot with the 5D under available halogen/fluorescent light. Take a look at the noise in both images and decide for yourselves. I've included 100% crops of both images.
Cheers,
Dave
I hadn't picked up your review before, Dave. Good one - I wish all were so fair.
Paul Kay
06-20-2008, 04:36
I don't care how many of you are offended, I need to tell the truth. Ara
Sorry Ara but for a start this isn't a particularly pleasant attitude and I think that you are confusing truth with your own opinion. I too am a (full-time) professional and own both M8 and 5D and use and like them both - different cameras, different uses. What I would say about this thread is that I am heartily fed up with rants like yours presumably trying to influence my opinions because someone does't like something. If you have some very specific point to make then fine, but to criticise any product because in your opinion it doesn't measure up to another, decidely different product is a pretty pointless exercise. If I'm flaming you then so be it, but as a positive suggestion, why don't you find a 5D forum and extol the virtues of the 5D there insted of in the 'M8 RANGEFINDER forum'?
jplomley
06-20-2008, 04:55
WTF! Another one has hopped on the flaming bandwagon. You bought it a few months ago. Therefore, if you did your research (as any "professional" would), then all the issues you have raised would have been known b4 you slapped down your cash. And now you are complaining in an open forum about performance issues which have already been divulged. Sorry pal, but you have no credibility with me.
Roger Ebert's primary rule for film criticism is to judge the film that was made, not the film that "should have been made."
$5500 is a lot to swallow. But those who want a Leica digital rangefinder will find something to like or LOVE.
Sometimes my $250 superzoom pi**es me off due to CA, butT can overlook that because it's cheap and does so many other things right.
I hadn't picked up your review before, Dave. Good one - I wish all were so fair.
Thanks Jaap.
You (as well as many others here) know that I spoke, at times, vehemently against the camera - but I really think that, yes, while it is an expensive camera (but so were Leica's film bodies - I could never afford a "new" M6 for example when I lusted after it.. even in the mid to late 90's), it's not a "horrible" camera. And after seeing what can be done with it, and actually printing out some stuff from it, it's not half bad and part of the equation is, to be honest, the fact that it's fun and light to use.
The only thing I would comment is that Leica's QC is pretty bad but then again, as I have stated elsewhere, with only 451 staff in the Solms location, you can bet that they don't have a huge production line running with QC folks everywhere. Larger companies can, and do, have larger QC divisions - even if Leica were to allot 10% of their staff compliment (quite huge when you consider the over all size of the company) to QC that's still only 45 staff - hardly enough for worldwide support.
Cheers,
Dave
Ray Kilby
06-20-2008, 05:43
First I’d like to say that to critise another persons work as a means to disagree is both childish and unhelpful. Ara Ghajanian has the right to voice an opinion, whether or not he is right or wrong and to ‘go for the jugular’ just shows that FioreVelviamo has no real confidence in any real argument.
As for the M8, well I agree it is not for everybody and some of us will love it, and some will not.
I did have an M8 for a while, and did get some very good shots out of it. I have always used an M6 when doing anything that is of a reportage nature and I believe that a range finder camera for this sort of work is the best. I like the lightness, the compactness of the body and the sheer quality of Leica lenses is second to none. The M6 is still is my favourite camera. The M8 however started to let me down. Small niggling issues such as back focus problems, odd colour shifts (Nothing to do with not using the filters,by the way.) and light getting into the body somehow. Not to mention it occasionally misfiring and scrolling during play back and being electronically eccentric while accessing the menus. I also didn’t like the interface with the camera, preferring the RD1 to be honest, but that’s personal and not an issue that I can really critise to be fair.
As for noise, well Leica have always had a noise problem with its digital cameras in my opinion and I could have lived with that. You just basically under expose with a digital image and it works out OK.
I began not putting the M8 in my bag if I was going on a paid job, but would take the Epson RD1 instead as my back up to my Canon 5Ds. So as my warrantee was about to expire I decided to send the camera back to Leica to be fully overhauled. I sent a letter and stills to show my concerns and to hopefully put them in the right direction. After eight weeks it came back from Sohms with no explanation and some circles on the prints around the problems and with indecipherable squiggles next to them. Not very helpful and not very useful for a camera body that costs around 3k to purchase.
I took the camera out to test it , found it to be the same. I then bench tested it against my M6 my RD1 for focus issues and found that the M6 and the RD1 were spot on but the M8 was not. I wrote to Leica, explaining this and never got a reply let alone any acknowledgement. I gave up, sold the M8 and purchased a Nikon D3 and a couple of Ziess Lenses. It is everything that the M8 is not and I might add Nikon have themselves been fantastically helpful and their pro scheme is excellent.
This posting on to the RFF saddens me. I want a digital M camera that is as good as the M6 or even slightly better than the RD1. But the M8, for me is still not it. I look at the M8’s in the camera shop, and keep hoping that Leica don’t shoot themselves completely in the foot with this flawed product. They have such a great history.
I feel that the M8 is just a luxury digital camera and I can’t afford the luxury of forgiveness or understanding when I rely upon a camera for work. I await with honest and open hope that suddenly the M8’s problems get fixed, or an M9 appears with all the issues of the M8 ironed out. ON that day I will be burning a hole in my credit card to get one.
Ara Ghajanian
06-20-2008, 05:47
If Sebastiao Salgado says the M8 is garbage, I'll listen.
If someone with garbage and blown red channel shots says the M8 is garbage, I'm sorry but I won't be listening.
In this case, the source is not credible. The M8 is not garbage :)
Did you realize that out of your 13 posts on this forum, 2 were direct insults toward another member who was offering his unbiased opinion on a matter? You act as if you were the sole designer of this camera and I insulted your life's work.
I'm disappointed because the camera has great potential, yet it falls very short of a much less expensive DSLR. Maybe if enough of us complain Leica will take it upon themselves to actually give us more than point and shoot quality in a tried and true camera design.
As far as your comments about my work, the band who paid me to shoot those shots loved them and hired me again. That's a professional. By the way, all the lights on stage were red. All of my other work done with live bands is shot with an M6. Leicas are great and I love my M6. I don't use DSLRs for this type of work exactly for the reasons Leicas stand out, compactness, portability, image quality, stealthiness, hand holding to low shutter speeds, lens quality.
By the way, this is a direct quote from this member sent to me as a PM:
"I am all you are, plus I don't cry over gear.
Your showcased work is garbage. Not the M8."
Folks, 640 should look grainless on the M8 if you just turn off the #$%$ sharpening and bogus noise reduction programs. Use C1, turn off all sharpening and LUMINANCE noise reduction and keep CHROMA noise reduction at about 65% and you will have great files.
Thanks Dan! I'm going to give that a try. I've been shooting everything at 160 and "pushing" it in ACR, then using Noise Ninja to clean up any residual noise I find objectionable, but I know I'm losing some quality in the process. I'm glad I waded through this cowpasture of a thread and found your post.
I don't care how many of you are offended, I need to tell the truth. I bought an M8 a few months ago. I liked it at first, but found a few things inexcusable. One thing in particular was the amount of noise in the photos. I found that 640 was the highest ISO I could set before noise made photos completely unusable. Even 640 was not very good. I sold it within a month and lost a few hundred dollars in the process.
I just purchased a Canon 5D. I took photos at ISO 1600 the other day with dim room lighting and there was no noise I could perceive in the images. How can a camera that presently costs $1899 produce images dramatically better than a camera which costs over $5000? I need Leica to explain this to me. I love their film cameras to death and would never stop using them, but the M8 is worthless to a professional.
Mind you, I AM a professional, not some amateur who doesn't know the difference between a prosumer and pro camera. I've used everything from Hasselblads to Mamiya to Nikon to Rollei. This camera is an insult to Leica owners and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Go ahead... flame me. I stand firmly by my opinion.
Ara
I also had an utterly frustrating 8 to 9 months before I got used to the M8. But then I started to get to work as I want it to. - I have had similar frustrating introduction periods with all my digital cameras, from the first 1Ds up to the 1Ds III - which I am struggling with now.
Sure, the Canons has lower noice on high ISO (640ISO pluss) compared to the M8. But the few pro photographers I know seem to be very conservative with the ISO setting because the quality demand is so high. Regardless of what camera they use. They seem to be a lot more conserned with mediocre quality of Canon optics. Not to say the brutal and intimidating look of a pro Canon D-SLR. Some small children start to cry when I point my 1Ds III at them. And celebreties get wary and suspicius when you approach them with a 1Ds III over your shoulder. And, as one here pointed to; 'a D-SLR is utterly vulgar'.
All that said, M8 is far from a perfect digital camera for all the excellent Leica M bayonette optics that are available. Both 2.hand and new. - I would be utterly suspicious of buying (any more) Canon zooms 2. hand. They have a rather short product life, something that is easy to see with a 21 mill. sensor.
The worst issue with the M8, has been, for me, is reliability. It is the only camera I have had (I have had a few) to return to the factory. Those sold today are far better, I hear.
Then there is this color fringe/UV/IR filter problematics. My brother-in-law finds the M8 to be 'some s*t' since it makes him look like some hotel doorman when wearing his nice black blazer, - it comes out purple if I do't wear a IR/UV filter.
Then there is the high noice level on high ISO issue. As you say, the M8 is not usable above ISO640. One more click stop would make a hell of a difference. But there wont be any M9 with an improved sensor if too few buy m8....
Then there is the crop factor. I bought the WATE with my M8 which solves the problem, really. I don't think that it is possible to make a FF sensor for the M-system in forseable future. But then 1,33 is'nt all that bad. I think.
Ray Kilby
06-20-2008, 05:52
First I’d like to say that to critise another persons work as a means to disagree is both childish and unhelpful. Ara Ghajanian has the right to voice an opinion, whether or not he is right or wrong and to ‘go for the jugular’ just shows that FioreVelviamo has no real confidence in any real argument.
As for the M8, well I agree it is not for everybody and some of us will love it, and some will not.
I did have an M8 for a while, and did get some very good shots out of it. I have always used an M6 when doing anything that is of a reportage nature and I believe that a range finder camera for this sort of work is the best. I like the lightness, the compactness of the body and the sheer quality of Leica lenses is second to none. The M6 is still is my favourite camera. The M8 however started to let me down. Small niggling issues such as back focus problems, odd colour shifts (Nothing to do with not using the filters,by the way.) and light getting into the body somehow. Not to mention it occasionally misfiring and scrolling during play back and being electronically eccentric while accessing the menus. I also didn’t like the interface with the camera, preferring the RD1 to be honest, but that’s personal and not an issue that I can really critise to be fair.
As for noise, well Leica have always had a noise problem with its digital cameras in my opinion and I could have lived with that. You just basically under expose with a digital image and it works out OK.
I began not putting the M8 in my bag if I was going on a paid job, but would take the Epson RD1 instead as my back up to my Canon 5Ds. So as my warrantee was about to expire I decided to send the camera back to Leica to be fully overhauled. I sent a letter and stills to show my concerns and to hopefully put them in the right direction. After eight weeks it came back from Sohms with no explanation and some circles on the prints around the problems and with indecipherable squiggles next to them. Not very helpful and not very useful for a camera body that costs around 3k to purchase.
I took the camera out to test it , found it to be the same. I then bench tested it against my M6 my RD1 for focus issues and found that the M6 and the RD1 were spot on but the M8 was not. I wrote to Leica, explaining this and never got a reply let alone any acknowledgement. I gave up, sold the M8 and purchased a Nikon D3 and a couple of Ziess Lenses. It is everything that the M8 is not and I might add Nikon have themselves been fantastically helpful and their pro scheme is excellent.
This posting on to the RFF saddens me. I want a digital M camera that is as good as the M6 or even slightly better than the RD1. But the M8, for me is still not it. I look at the M8’s in the camera shop, and keep hoping that Leica don’t shoot themselves completely in the foot with this flawed product. They have such a great history.
I feel that the M8 is just a luxury digital camera and I can’t afford the luxury of forgiveness or understanding when I rely upon a camera for work. I await with honest and open hope that suddenly the M8’s problems get fixed, or an M9 appears with all the issues of the M8 ironed out. ON that day I will be burning a hole in my credit card to get one.
Sometimes my $250 superzoom pi**es me off due to CA, butT can overlook that because it's cheap and does so many other things right.
Well but if I take this argument and look at the camera that was made, the M8 becomes pretty assailable; when something like image quality bothers you, suddenly you can't overlook it because it's expensive. More so if it does other things wrong too, such as if you're not a detacheable baseplate type of guy.
For the same reason the usual comparison with the 5D is obviously biased against the 5D, just like comparing $350 to $1000 laptops. It would probably be fairer to compare to a Nikon D3 which is in the same price league. I realize that not everyone has a D3 and therefore there are less people who can compare their subjective impressions of both.
I think this kind of thread really shows that the M8 is only for people who like the M8 form factor and viewfinder, who have a certain emotional investment in traditional Leicas, and who are willing to make certain sacrifices in features, cost and ergonomics for the sake of this form factor and traditionalism. The OP is apparently not among these people, other people are, which is perfectly fine for both.
Whether it's worth a flamewar is another matter. Guys, just remind yourselves that it's a camera, it's a consumable object, it's not a religion and it's not a question of right or wrong. Would you flame each other over hamburgers or car tyres or toilet paper?
Philipp
Ara Ghajanian
06-20-2008, 06:03
I would like to thank the people who pointed out that FioreVelviamo's response was uncalled for. Whether you like my work or not is not the issue here, but I AM a professional and the comment made is slanderous. If you do a search on Google for my name, this post will come up. Thus a potential client may see that someone has called my work "garbage" and decide not to work with me. It's unlikely this will happen, but it is still a possibility and I take this comment very seriously.
Once again, my comments were made not to bash this camera, but to light a small fire under Leica's ass so that in the future they may offer us a camera that is worthy of the Leica reputation.
Ara
shimo-kitasnap
06-20-2008, 06:07
Right On!
I love the film Ms too but I think Leica is slowly on it's way out. Frankly I think the only way they are going to stay in business is to make lenses (which are amazing) for 3rd parties like Zeiss with cheaper Japanese labor.
EOS, Nikon, Olympus, Sony, Pentax with purpose built summicrons and other lenses at competitive prices would be great along with M lenses and M film bodies to keep us happy.
They didn't jump into digital when Canon and Nikon did and when they did, they were ignorant, naive and stubborn to design a product that could compete with the DSLRs and they trying to call their M8 an "investment" offering to take cameras back to be upgraded while you fork over more $$$$ or euros and wait half a year. And even then the improvements still won't be able to compete with what Canon and Nikon will come out with next year for even less than the prices of they're new models this year. Don't even get me started on the IR cut filters on every lens........
tbarker13
06-20-2008, 06:08
The best remark of the whole thread so far Tony ....could not agree more.
In fact i never ever use the M8 below iso 640 for that reaon :)
!
Same here. My M8 is set, by default, at ISO 640 for this very reason. I prefer the look of the shots in B&W.
I'm not too concerned about the OP getting flamed here. That's pretty much what he expected to have happen when he offered his opinion as "the truth."
If the camera doesn't work for your style of shooting, sell it and move on. Though really, at this point, there's been so much written about this camera, it is just hard for me to imagine someone plunking down $5,000 without doing some basic research - which clearly wasn't done by the OP.
He could have saved himself a lot of heartburn and a few hundred dollars by spending a few hours reading posts here and on the L-Camera forum.
Someone mentioned working with the noise of the M8 at ISO's above 640 which is a relevant point and something I've just accidentally discovered myself. I had several raw images I shot at 640 ISO in very low light and underexposed somewhat ... which accentuated the noise when I tried to salvage the images with shadow recovery software. Then, dealing with the noise by filtering and smoothing it gave them a look I liked ... the excessive detail and sharpness which has always bothered me with digital photos just wasn't there ... so in a nutshell the M8 really fits with my shooting style!
Ara's case is genuine and his dislike of the M8's performance is driven by different requirements and preferences dictated by his style of photography, which is fair enough. Maybe he should have been a little less confrontational with his labeling of the camera as 'garbage?' That type of remark will always envoke some pretty strong emotions and reactions around here! :p
tbarker13
06-20-2008, 06:10
I would like to thank the people who pointed out that FioreVelviamo's response was uncalled for. Whether you like my work or not is not the issue here, but I AM a professional and the comment made is slanderous. If you do a search on Google for my name, this post will come up. Thus a potential client may see that someone has called my work "garbage" and decide not to work with me. It's unlikely this will happen, but it is still a possibility and I take this comment very seriously.
Ara
Oh please. Sure his comment was uncalled for and rude. But people have the right and the freedom to offer opinions of your work. That's not going to meet any legal definition of slander.
Oh please. Sure his comment was uncalled for and rude. But people have the right and the freedom to offer opinions of your work. That's not going to meet any legal definition of slander.
Hmm.. well... under Canadian law (after all, I am in Canada Eh :D).. what was written can be defined as libel versus slander.
That is; Defamation is written or spoken injury to a person or organization's reputation. Libel is the written act of defamation. Slander is the oral act of defamation. So, unless it was spoken aloud and heard, recorded etc. it's more than likely Libel versus Slander.
Proving that one's reputation was so egregiously damaged would be difficult - especially when talking about "teh intrawebs" :D
Cheers,
Dave
tbarker13
06-20-2008, 06:26
I doubt that offering an opinion on someone else's work is going to be considered libel/slander - in Canada or anywhere else.
And really, the original poster needs to hope so. After all, if he can claim that he has been slandered by a poster here. I would imagine that Leica Camera could make a similar claim against him.
I believe he did call the camera "garbage.":)
shimo-kitasnap
06-20-2008, 06:26
I fear the day when we can be prosecuted for what we express on teh interwebs.......Orwell's 1984 annyone?
The #1 problem in the world today is too many people take themselves too seriously and cannot stomach negative criticism. This gets worse when entire governments (they actually call themselves governments.....) get upset when outsiders criticize.
Ara Ghajanian
06-20-2008, 06:26
It's true, my labeling of the post is confrontational, but not towards other members. I want to get Leica's attention. I was born and raised in a nation whose premise is that all voices are equal and should be heard. I know it's an antiquated concept, but I like to still exercise it. I want Leica to hear our voices and produce a better camera. Maybe there is someone at Leica who is appointed to check these forums for customer feedback. Maybe my post and others will inspire them to work a little harder to produce a viable followup camera. At which point I will use the money I earn from producing my "garbage" to buy one.
Another note: I used this forum extensively for research on this camera and yes, these points were made before, but I stubbornly decided to take a chance and see for myself. My mistake. The sad thing is that these comments have been made since the release of this camera and all Leica could offer us was an overpriced upgrade package which doesn't address any of these issues. Moreover, as far as I can tell, no one has actually received this upgrade (correct me if I'm wrong).
The funny thing is that if we all took the opinion of the M8 being "good enough", then Leica would just produce it for the next 50 years. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have to sell a lot of "garbage" to make $5500.
I want Leica to hear our voices and produce a better camera.
A word of advice: whether it's a corporation, your wife, a child, a friend, or a co-worker, when you want someone to hear your voice, it's always a good idea to moderate it.
It's true, my labeling of the post is confrontational, but not towards other members. I want to get Leica's attention. I was born and raised in a nation whose premise is that all voices are equal and should be heard. I know it's an antiquated concept, but I like to still exercise it. I want Leica to hear our voices and produce a better camera. Maybe there is someone at Leica who is appointed to check these forums for customer feedback. Maybe my post and others will inspire them to work a little harder to produce a viable followup camera. At which point I will use the money I earn from producing my "garbage" to buy one.
Another note: I used this forum extensively for research on this camera and yes, these points were made before, but I stubbornly decided to take a chance and see for myself. My mistake. The sad thing is that these comments have been made since the release of this camera and all Leica could offer us was an overpriced upgrade package which doesn't address any of these issues. Moreover, as far as I can tell, no one has actually received this upgrade (correct me if I'm wrong).
The funny thing is that if we all took the opinion of the M8 being "good enough", then Leica would just produce it for the next 50 years. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have to sell a lot of "garbage" to make $5500.
You don't have to shout to get Leica's attention. I had a conversation with Mr. Daniel last week and listened to his presentation, and the forums are intensively read in Solms.
jan normandale
06-20-2008, 06:38
This hyperbolic style of thread is one of the reason's I'm not around RFF much these days. It's exceptionally personal and it's redundant. I'm not a Leica fan nor a supporter however I can point to several sources of excellent photographs from M8 users. Throwing rocks at anything is easy.
As "webs meister"/Fred pointed out.. "nothing new here, time to move on" but it continues relentlessly.
I can agree that the M8 is not for everyone. It is a frustrating camera to use at times. But it is a camera, like any film Leica before, that does force you to think about what you are doing. If you want something that will produce right out of the box, the M8 is not for you. I would suggest a good P&S. If you're the type of person who knows what they want, takes the time to see, and takes the time to process your files correctly (meaning shooting RAW), the M8 is better than anything out there. The files just continue to blow me away in terms of color, sharpness, and dymanic range.
I shoot a lot for a well known stock agency, and their tech guys always comment that files from this camera are some of the best they have ever seen.
I think the M8 is a camera that one has to grow into, get a feel for it's abilities. A zen experience like no other digital camera. Sure the M8 isn't for everyone but give it some time. Just because the camera doesn't fit your shooting style, don't post a thread calling it garbage. I remember when all the hype over the M8 was going on here Chris Weeks got his hands on one and wrote an excellent review. After seeing his photos & reading his review I simply came to the conclusion that most of the ones complaining about the M8 just simply didn't know what they were doing.
Honestly I don't think that the camera gets any better if it is cheaper.
It works how it works. If it cost $2500 then it would still not work for you, so it would still be too expensive. You, like me, need to wait for the next model, and buy it if we like it.
The cost, for me, would easily be covered by work, I just am not crazy about it.
Maybe and yet eventually work would take care of the cost of a camera, but since I am in China and here we are dealing with yuan, it would take significantly longer to absorb that difference in price, hence the comment.
its unrealistic expect M8 to compete competitively against Nikon and Canon in the digital arena even from price point. Analog bodies from Leica never were cheap compared to SLR either.
There again it is RF and SLR differences. I notice that some people dont care about it and stare at images instead of to judge how is to use the camera. Thats good, maybe not it. Some buy ZM lenses because they are sharp, other buy Leica because superior ergonomics etc. What can we really do if none has even didnt released 2nd generation digital RF.
So I wish those people good luck with bricks or "mobiles" :)
Nick De Marco
06-20-2008, 07:28
Sorry to be a pedant (I'm a lawyer) but it is libel when the defammation is by written word, slander when spoken. In this case describing a professionals work as garbage may well be libel, as describing the M8 as garbage would probably be too. The fact that the expressions are opinion is not a defence (at least in Englih law). Worse still, it is not only the person who wrote the comment tbat could find themselves in trouble, but the forum and web hosetr itself for publishing it.
On the other hand, I think we all agree (including me as a lawyer) that the intrusion of the law into creative, technical and artistic debate on this and similar forums is not helpful. A modecum of self restraint is thus called for. Instead of describing other people's work, opinions or cameras as complete garbage or other such hyperbole, a more reasoned approach to the argument would be healthy. In my opinion.
Sorry to be a pedant (I'm a lawyer) but it is libel when the defammation is by written word, slander when spoken. In this case describing a professionals work as garbage may well be libel...
Although it's a tangent, I'd love to know how many successful cases of either have been brought against critics of any artists' works. My admittedly uninformed guess is: virtually none. Critics publicly bash works of art (notably films) regularly, yet I don't see any of them (or their media sponsors) getting sued as a result.
I would like to thank the people who pointed out that FioreVelviamo's response was uncalled for. Whether you like my work or not is not the issue here, but I AM a professional and the comment made is slanderous. If you do a search on Google for my name, this post will come up. Thus a potential client may see that someone has called my work "garbage" and decide not to work with me. It's unlikely this will happen, but it is still a possibility and I take this comment very seriously.
Once again, my comments were made not to bash this camera, but to light a small fire under Leica's ass so that in the future they may offer us a camera that is worthy of the Leica reputation.
Ara
No, the quote isn't slanderous - nor libelous, which is what you mean. It's a dramatic overstatement, following a precedent which you set!
Your points are generally reasonable, but by going beyond that and calling the M8 'garbage' you are merely using up bandwidth. You invited the petulant responses by posting such a petulant thread. To be fair, its one in a series which sadly demonstrates how impossible it seems to have any sustained, reasoned debate on the camera.
A few things need to be said here:
1: There is no mysterious Leica conspiracy to use an obsolete sensor etc.
The reason this one is used is because it is the very best sensor for a RF camera. If there were a better one Leica would use it.
2: The same goes for the full-frame wish. If it were at all feasable Leica would build it.
One only has to talk to the people that build and design it to realise that. In fact, Zeiss has stated repeatedly that they woul build one as soon as they could....
3.Many high-level photographers think the M8 files are as good or better than any camera in the 135 class. One may disagree, but the issue is at least open to debate.
The Germans have a nice expression for those who think anybody is able to build a better DRF at the present time: They live in Wolkenkukuksland....
"If you're the type of person who knows what they want, takes the time to see, and takes the time to process your files correctly (meaning shooting RAW), the M8 is better than anything out there."
Then why can't Leica sell more than 20,000 of them? I see this claim all the time; but, why wouldn't all of these top pros for whom the cost is no issue be using the camera with files "better than anything out there." Why are they wasting their money on Canon and Nikon?
I do, though, agree that, whatever the M8 is, it's not garbage.
For any pro, cost IS an issue. If all you want is a jpeg for your news service or agency, the M8 is probably not the way to go. Leica doesn't have to sell 20,000 M8s. I'm sure it would be nice if they did. Leicas were never mass market cameras.
I think that the situation for both the two European camera producers are dramatic due to the drastic change in business environment. No, I will not draw another long rant about 'the falling dollar'. That's not neccessary. Now business here in Europe is in for a serious dip.
Obviously, to compensate for the very poor gross profit from the US market, Leica increased prices here in Europe. Here in Norway from about 27.000 to 38.500 - sales tax included. What Norwegian Leica enthusiast did was to travel to New York and buy their M-gear there, tax free, and save a sum greater than the flight ticket. If they bought a few lenses too, they had the whole trip covered, hotel fare and a dinner at Sparks Steak House - excellent by the way, included.
Hasselblad has also increased their prices here in Europe, obviously to compensate for losses on the US market. But now they have decided to 'run a campaign' with - essentially, selling H3's in Europe to 'American prices'.
Leica should do the same.
I find it hillarious that so many people always claim x equipment or y equipment is crap when in reality, it doesnt really matter if you are a good photographer.
A camera is a camera is a camera is a camera.
If Alex Majoli can use a point and shoot digital olympus 10mp camera and take as great reportage photos as he can, then im pretty sure this entire thread is moot as hell.
Its not the equipment, its the person behind it that makes the photos. Nothing is ever perfect so stop worrying about it.
Ara Ghajanian
06-20-2008, 08:31
As I said earlier, I'm talking about the noise issue. It has nothing to do with rangefinders per se. I love rangefinders and wish the M8 worked for me, but it doesn't BECAUSE OF THE NOISE ISSUE. Sorry I said it was garbage. Wow, I'm never logging into the M8 forums again. Say all you want about my photos now. You can ever say I have a small dick or whatever pleases you and helps you sleep better at night. I'll never see the responses. I'll lurk in the shadows of the Leica M forum. I have no complaints whatsoever with Leica film cameras.
You people are like the angry abusive father who beats his kid after a long day of work because the kid says "Dad, you look tired."
Goodbye,
Ara
"Dad, you look tired." = "Leica M8 ---> Useless garbage!"
Welcome to Ara's world!
As he (apparently) won't be re-joining us anytime soon, I suppose that it won't help to point out that if he had begun the discussion in a reasonably civil tone, it would not likely have degenerated as it did.
C'est le ton qui fait la musique...:rolleyes:
delander
06-20-2008, 08:50
I want Leica to hear our voices and produce a better camera.
The funny thing is that if we all took the opinion of the M8 being "good enough", then Leica would just produce it for the next 50 years. I don't know about the rest of you, but I have to sell a lot of "garbage" to make $5500.
It is amazing how all these rants turn out to be just to help Leica.
As a first digital M camera, and that is what it is, for me it is easily 'good enough'. Maybe I have been lucky but as the lucky guys dont come onto forums saying how great everything is, I feel that some balance is always required.
Jeff
tbarker13
06-20-2008, 08:58
Some basic rules of the Internet/forums. Whatever attitude you bring to the party is pretty certain to be reflected right back at you.
If you attack (and I'd say that calling the camera garbage qualifies as an attack) something that people care about, someone is going to get offended and respond in kind.
If you can't handle the flames, don't start a fire.
Darren Abate
06-20-2008, 08:59
For me, the most maddening thing about using the M8 wasn't the noise issue, although I did find it annoying. It was the other problems that the camera had, i.e. the horrible AWB, the unreliability, etc. Some of the image "problems" that it has can be worked around if you take the time to massage the camera for the specific shooting environment one is in, and also take the time to massage the image further in post, but when you're using it as a photojournalist's camera – which I would – then the little idiosyncrasies that some people are keen to defend make it nigh unusable in the field, IMO.
The M8 has it's strong points. Some like it, some hate it, some are indifferent. But for me, even with my personal list of pros and cons, the big looming question in the room – the one that Leica needs to ponder – is: Is the M8 really worthy of the Leica name? My answer is "No." I'm sure some of you will agree and disagree.
To defend my point, I will simply ask you to compare the number of M8-bashing threads to the number of threads bashing the film-body M's. It isn't even a contest.
Any camera that has the name Leica on it should conform to a certain standard. That is what we, as Leica users, pay for: something that is as close to photographic perfection as can be achieved. Something that is reliable all the time and is of the highest precision. Something that I can turn to when I'm in trouble, knowing that I will still be able to get the shot. Something that won't decide to flake out on me when I need it most. Something that I don't have to second-guess in the field. As it turned out, the M8 was not that camera for me. I sent the M8 tester that I had back to the dealer and bought a used R-D1 instead, and I love it. It is reliable, consistent, and IMO it behaves much more like a camera should. I do wish it had an updated chip and a longer baseline, but for what it is, it's awesome and serves me well in the field. 'Nuff said.
I hope that when the M9 comes out I will be singing a different tune. But until then, I hope that those of you who are happy with your M8 bodies continue to enjoy them, and I hope that those of you who hate them continue to refuse to buy them; input from both camps will help Leica make an even better camera for the future.
It is amazing how all these rants turn out to be just to help Leica.
Yep. Any marketing is good marketing.
Amazing how early in its life cycle the M8 has become a cult camera .... :)
tbarker13
06-20-2008, 09:08
To defend my point, I will simply ask you to compare the number of M8-bashing threads to the number of threads bashing the film-body M's. It isn't even a contest.
I won't disagree with much of what you said. But this is pretty unfair - the idea of comparing a new technology with one that is quite mature. It isn't a contest because it compares two very different things. Apples and oranges.
Darren Abate
06-20-2008, 09:11
I won't disagree with much of what you said. But this is pretty unfair - the idea of comparing a new technology with one that is quite mature. It isn't a contest because it compares two very different things. Apples and oranges.
I feel it is fair because it asks people to compare two incarnations of "Leica" and what is worthy of the name and the premium. Leica could have taken care of a lot of the M8's issues through more R&D and field testing in the hands of pros.
But to make it more fair, we can change it to a comparison of M8-bashing threads to M3-bashing threads. That evens the "new technology" playing field a bit. :cool:
ali_baba
06-20-2008, 09:22
i don't know where i stand.
i shoot alot of music, and for good quality color photos i can not go over 640.
if i must shoot 1250 its going to be processed B&W.
i have had 4 go back ( i use 2 bodies) and now have a set that functions without menu quirks, dead pixels etc.
i was thinking that i should use a 5d for stage work, but the character of the leica lenses and the overall digital m8 look is quite desirable. i'm going to stick it out, now if i could find a noctilux for a decent price my woes would be over. i shoot with the 75 1.4 and a 35 1.4 asph, and a 50 1.4 on stage generally and the only thing that would help would be a noctilux.
check out my flickr,
or my website @ web.mac.com/j_lir
for some live music shots.
cheers
All the cameras I have ever used have been compromises. They all have sucked in one way or another, some more then others. The Canon 1 Ds was an oustanding camera by any objective measure compared to it's competition and I used it for 3 years but I hated the camera and it's ergonomics. I wanted to shoot digital so it was a compromise I was willing to make. For others the Canon 1 series ergonomics where great, no compromise at all. To each his own.
My favorite film camera of all time was by any objective measure a temperamental Rube Goldberg contraption with oddball ergonomics and a wonky delicate wiring harness. But I loved the Plaubel Makina 67 RF, it was a perfect fit for my way of working.
I wish someone would make the ideal camera for ME and I wish it cost $300. but until then I'll be using cameras like the M8. Frustrating and annoying in their faults, limitations and dumb design 'features' but better then alternative cameras for my way of working. One person's piece of crap is another's working tool.
Leica really fell short of the bar set by the film M's but I wouldn't set my expectations to high for a boutique manufacturer trying to produce a ground up digital camera design for a tiny niche market. That is not a formula for cost effective leading edge technology. So if paying a hefty premium for the privilege of looking through an RF finder instead of an SLR finder seems idiotic to you there are plenty of good DSLR's to choose from.
I shoot the M8 RAW between ISO 100-640 with the EV at -2/3 -that's more latitude and IQ then I ever had with E6 35mm film. I haven't had any problems with the camera and I'll continue to use it for what it's good for and pull out a DSLR or MF digital when the job requires it.
I hope Leica survives and the M9 is a lot better then the M8 but I'm not holding my breadth. In the meantime I'm happy to have the M8 warts and all.
If you were a true professional you would have never bought the Leica M8 in the first place. Secondly buying the 5D was a bad idea because you could have bought the Nikon D3 and shot at ISO 6400 with no problem.
So, my conclusion is that you're either a Canon fanboy or a shill because your rant does not hold water and the plug for 5D is too obvious.
willie_901
06-20-2008, 10:21
While noise measurements alone can not fully summarize the aesthetic potential of a given sensor, this web site contains direct comparisons of the chroma and luma noise of several DSLRs and the M8.
The following link compares the 5D and the M8.
http://kammagamma.com/articles/noise-analysis-db.php?camera1=3&camera2=13
Each comparison is briefly discussed at the end of the page.
POINT OF VIEW
06-20-2008, 10:22
Ill give you $2500.00 for you garbage M8. By the way what camera did you use to take all the red pictures on your
Free Flicker account?
Id like to see your professional web site. Bill
FioreVelviamo
06-20-2008, 10:37
Ill give you $2500.00 for you garbage M8. By the way what camera did you use to take all the red pictures on your
Free Flicker account?
Id like to see your professional web site. Bill
I'm interested too... but it seems it is an insulting request.
POINT OF VIEW
06-20-2008, 10:58
I never could understand all of the M8 bashing when there is nothing to compare it too. It’s always Canon this or Epson that and yet nether Co. makes a comparable camera. Like it or not, in the hole wide world the M8 stands alone. I believe in this day of advanced technology and all of the great camera company’s, Leica is the only Co. to take the challenge to R & D the M8.
I for one am grateful they put there money and reputation on the RF digital line. Now lets see how long it will take these other big name companies to build a DRF camera. In two years I’ve seen nothing.
With all of this said you will still see every day, DSLR people telling the rest of us the M8 is a failure. Bill
delander
06-20-2008, 11:34
With all of this said you will still see every day, DSLR people telling the rest of us the M8 is a failure. Bill
And they take such glee in it. Why, do they simply want Leica to go down the tubes?
Jeff
Richard Marks
06-20-2008, 11:41
I would like to thank the people who pointed out that FioreVelviamo's response was uncalled for. Whether you like my work or not is not the issue here, but I AM a professional and the comment made is slanderous. If you do a search on Google for my name, this post will come up. Thus a potential client may see that someone has called my work "garbage" and decide not to work with me. It's unlikely this will happen, but it is still a possibility and I take this comment very seriously.
Once again, my comments were made not to bash this camera, but to light a small fire under Leica's ass so that in the future they may offer us a camera that is worthy of the Leica reputation.
Ara
1. If you are a professional, it usually shows. You do not need to state this.
2. You make some very valid criticisms of the M8 but the title of your post is unnecessarily both allarmist and histrionic. The word "garbage" quite predictably is offensive to those who do own an M8 and do not share your opinions. I take objection to you referring to my camera as "Garbage".
3. You express concern that in some way postings on your thread might affect your potential client base. I doubt it, but it is a little late for that now!
4. If your commets are aimed at Leica and not the camera then the obvious place to make this point is to Leica. I am sure that a "professional" of your standing would have a greater impact via the front door.
best wishes
Richard Marks
Brian Sweeney
06-20-2008, 11:44
I'm sure that Nikon and Canon, looking at the less than 20,000 M8's Leica has managed to sell, are not particularly interested in the R&D investment for that kind of return on a DRF, when they can sell every digital slr and P&S that comes off the line.
That's more than the S3-2000 and SP-2005 production.
I can hope.
POINT OF VIEW
06-20-2008, 11:50
I'm sure that Nikon and Canon, looking at the less than 20,000 M8's Leica has managed to sell, are not particularly interested in the R&D investment for that kind of return on a DRF, when they can sell every digital slr and P&S that comes off the line.
Richard Marks[/quote]
My guess is you are right but there are thousands of M mount type lens in the world and more being developed every day. There are some really great M lens being manufactured , CV, Zeiss, Leica, Konica plus older models, all together the amounts are not insignificant.
By the way 90% can be used on the M8 with a adapter.
I think the problem is, Canon / Nikon don’t want to risk there reputations buy not being able to create a better camera than the M8. Ever notice how one company tries to add one more useless feature to out do the other. This how they ride on the R & D wave of each other. Every new DSLR camera has more wasted menu inputs than my Mac G4. The bottom line, they don’t have the gonads, to venture out side there safe zone of making fatter and fatter and fatter and fatter DSLR cameras. I predict the new fat cameras will have HDR and GPS turn by turn by the end of the year. Man what a great camera that will be. Bill
EtoileFinder
06-20-2008, 11:57
Ill give you $2500.00 for you garbage M8. By the way what camera did you use to take all the red pictures on your
Free Flicker account?
Id like to see your professional web site. Bill
I sold it within a month and lost a few hundred dollars in the process. professional.
He said it is sold.
I'm not sure to understand why you think there's no camera to compare with the M8. Maybe it is impossible to compare 2 cameras in all theirs properties, but I think you can made comparison on specific aspects by setting specific criteriions for specific condition of shooting. Like the noise in low light condition.
POINT OF VIEW
06-20-2008, 12:42
My guess is you are right but there are thousands of M mount type lens in the world and more being developed every day. There are some really great M lens being manufactured , CV, Zeiss, Leica, Konica plus older models, all together the amounts are not insignificant.
By the way 90% can be used on the M8 with a adapter.
I think the problem is, Canon / Nikon don’t want to risk there reputations buy not being able to create a better camera than the M8. Ever notice how one company tries to add one more useless feature to out do the other. This how they ride on the R & D wave of each other. Every new DSLR camera has more wasted menu inputs than my Mac G4. The bottom line, they don’t have the gonads, to venture out side there safe zone of making fatter and fatter and fatter and fatter DSLR cameras. I predict the new fat cameras will have HDR and GPS turn by turn by the end of the year. Man what a great camera that will be. Bill
That's more than the S3-2000 and SP-2005 production.
I can hope.
Those were limited runs of film cameras for which they had all the dies and components.
I have no doubt with their resources that Canon or Nikon could make a better and cheaper DRF especially if it was not hobbled by the digital unfriendly M mount. The problem is they have zero incentive to invest the resources into developing a camera based on a finder technology that was abandoned by the vast majority of photographers 50 years ago.
It's a niche market and it's very expensive to develop digital for small markets. They get more marketing cache from people seeing their AF DSLR's and lenses used at sporting events and at news conferences so there is not even a marketing incentive to do it at a loss for marketing reasons.
Unless Mr. Kobayashi at Cosina suddenly becomes a digital convert Leica is likely to be the only DRF choice for the foreseeable future. That's assuming Leica survives.
FioreVelviamo
06-20-2008, 12:52
Oh Noooooooooooooooooooooo!
Now we're back to the "Will Leica survive" kinda threads.
marco0782
06-20-2008, 13:25
On CMOS vs. CCD:
The main difference between the two is that CMOS is significantly cheaper to manufacture. Therefore it is easier to make cost-effective high-megapixel sensors. The only difference in image quality is that CMOS sensors are not succeptible to vertical smear like CCD's are.
People saying that CMOS sensors are less noisy or more sensitive than CCD are wrong. It all depends on the sensor design, the size of the pixels, etc. Neither technology seems to have an advantage in this regard.
Marco
Thanks Dan! I'm going to give that a try. I've been shooting everything at 160 and "pushing" it in ACR, then using Noise Ninja to clean up any residual noise I find objectionable, but I know I'm losing some quality in the process. I'm glad I waded through this cowpasture of a thread and found your post.
I will only get involved in this thread for one reason -- to publicly commend Dan States (again) for the tips he offers regarding processing the M8's high ISO files! Follow his instructions using C1V4. It works.
Doesn't this ISO 2500 shot look pretty clean? Downsized, yes, but hopefully large enough to judge.
Thanks for developing a great technique Dan!
http://www.tunachaser.com/modules/pnCPG/coppermine/albums/userpics/10001/Hex1-2001_1.jpg
Not just Dan, but expertly applied here as well, Gary. :)
looks pretty good! iso 3200 wow :)
At post #126 all I can say is ... "I still like my M8 and it's serving me well and I'll keep it until it no longer continues to do so!"
In the true context of life ... someone calling my favourite digital camera 'gargbage' means little ... the earth still turns and the planets still revolve around the sun.
When I think that all the elements that make up my M8 came from this particular planet's resources I'm reminded of what a clever bunch we humans are!
SOMETIMES! :p
kittyphoto
06-20-2008, 18:50
As I said earlier, I'm talking about the noise issue. It has nothing to do with rangefinders per se. I love rangefinders and wish the M8 worked for me, but it doesn't BECAUSE OF THE NOISE ISSUE. Sorry I said it was garbage. Wow, I'm never logging into the M8 forums again. Say all you want about my photos now. You can ever say I have a small dick or whatever pleases you and helps you sleep better at night. I'll never see the responses. I'll lurk in the shadows of the Leica M forum. I have no complaints whatsoever with Leica film cameras.
You people are like the angry abusive father who beats his kid after a long day of work because the kid says "Dad, you look tired."
Goodbye,
Ara
--ARA
I am not sure you read all the replies or not. A lot of people try to tell you about noise and a lot of sample too. Please read all the post again.
tmfabian
06-20-2008, 19:24
I'd never use that fuji re-branded PoS hunk of plastic that is the H3. Now pop a nice little digi back on say a 503 and you got yerself a dandy machine.
And would people stop comparing reliability to DSLR's...EVERY SINGLE DIGITAL CAMERA will fault, die, freeze up, have dead pixels, or come defective....i'm sorry but digital just simply isn't as reliable as film cameras....even though I love my m8 and have used it on $10k+ jobs, I will never ever have a bag packed with only digital equipment, there is always a film backup camera for every camera I use.
by the way i own an M8 and my personal experience is that
it is a bit overpriced , not as reliable as a Canon but
if you find your own work flow in post production you can get really good results
i printed up to 16x20 inches and the quality is great for my standards.
the way i see it if you have a big commission that the quality must be outstanding you hire an H3D .
in my opinion you can not compare H3D and phaseone with the M8.
tmfabian
06-20-2008, 19:30
... the earth still turns and the planets still revolve around the sun.
LIES!!!!!!! the earth is flat, and planets revolve around earth. speak your wizardry elsewhere. :p:p:p:p
LIES!!!!!!! the earth is flat, and planets revolve around earth. speak your wizardry elsewhere. :p:p:p:p
Sorry, I meant to add ... "except for Leica owners, where the sun revolves around the earth!" :p
infrequent
06-20-2008, 19:57
of course the M8 is not perfect. in leicaspeak this is called 'character'.
NIKON KIU
06-20-2008, 21:48
Listen to me clearly: I did not say the camera would instantly make me a better photographer than you. I stated that it was unacceptably poor at high ISO's.
There is no need to be insulting to the individual who makes this claim. If anything, my concern is that we deserve a better camera than what is offered. If Leica reads these forums then maybe they will put more R&D into their offerings before charging such high prices. We should expect more for our dollars (or Euros).
You sound like Magus!!!
Garbage don't sell for $5000!
Kiu
The M8's high-ISO performance is mediocre, something made worse by the absence of 1/3 ISO steps. To say it's garbage is an exaggeration. It is capable of very sharp results due to its weak AA filter, and is much more compact than any DSLR setup other than Olympus E410/420. The noise issue is well-documented (http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2006/11/23-1.html), why did you plop $5000 for it without researching the purchase?
The issue that bothers me much more about the M8 is the shoddy quality control. I had to reject three defective copies before settling on my current M8 (the first one had a defective sensor and misaligned rangefinder, the second's rangefinder was completely off, the third's was not aligned at infinity). I can understand Leica not mastering electronics or noise removal algorithms, but surely by now they should know how to adjust rangefinders?
Richard Marks
06-21-2008, 01:55
Dear moderator
Is it possible to provide a separate forum for those interested in using m8's and trading useful tips and also a separate "the leica m8 does not work etc. forum". That way we can all be happy. As things stand i think you risk loosing genuine m8 users (who are clearly happy in their state of ignorance)
Richard
Brian Sweeney
06-21-2008, 02:02
Those were limited runs of film cameras for which they had all the dies and components.
As already pointed out, completely untrue. The S3-2000 and SP-2005 were labors of love on the part of Nikon. I doubt that Canon will re-issue the VI-L, or that Leica will start manufacturing the M3 again. the MP is close, but the viewfinder is not as good.
and as far as High ISO and noise, no one threw out rolls of Tri-X because they got grainy when pushed to ASA 1600.
This hyperbolic style of thread is one of the reason's I'm not around RFF much these days.
Sadly I can only echo this sentiment.:(. Fortunately there are better forums on the Web in this respect. I have sent you a PM.
NickTrop
06-21-2008, 05:00
FWIW, my $0.02....
How did Leica get to be Leica?
Sure, marketing played a role. But:
They had a history of significant innovation in photography
- 35mm small format cameras
- Fast lenses in the 30's
- The Barnack
- Then the M
Since the 50's
- little to no innovation...
- lived off their name, though they still make great lenses and film cameras...
Instead of asking the question -
How do we make the best lens? How do we make the very best camera? How do we innovate? What can we innovate?
Now they're asking, "How do we survive?" How can we exploit the population with expensive Leica glass in the digital age?
Leica isn't "asking the right questions" and answering them. And hasn't for a loooong time... Hence the M8. Leica should have been "Adobe". Leica should have been the first out with a DSLR. Leica and the red dot should have been everywhere... They should have partnered more...
Leica stopped innovating. And when you're an innovator and you stop innovating your time has come. The M8. To me - don't own one, never will but it's nothing special. It's a very, very expensive camera that allows you to use Leica glass. "Digital camera" and "Rangefinder" - to me, is like a baloney and whipped cream sandwich. Doesn't go together.
If you have a lot of Leica glass, and insist on "going digital", and insist on shooting a RF. That is, you want your cake and eat it too... Well, there's the M8. And you'll pay an enormous premium for that piece of cake with little to nothing in the way of improvement in image quality over a DSLR like a Nikon D40 that costs 500 bucks.
|
FWIW, my $0.02....
How did Leica get to be Leica?
Sure, marketing played a role. But:
They had a history of significant innovation in photography
- 35mm small format cameras
- Fast lenses in the 30's
- The Barnack
- Then the M
Since the 50's
- little to no innovation...
- lived off their name, though they still make great lenses and film cameras...
Instead of asking the question -
How do we make the best lens? How do we make the very best camera? How do we innovate? What can we innovate?
Now they're asking, "How do we survive?" How can we exploit the population with expensive Leica glass in the digital age?
Leica isn't "asking the right questions" and answering them. And hasn't for a loooong time... Hence the M8. Leica should have been "Adobe". Leica should have been the first out with a DSLR. Leica and the red dot should have been everywhere... They should have partnered more...
Leica stopped innovating. And when you're an innovator and you stop innovating your time has come. The M8. To me - don't own one, never will but it's nothing special. It's a very, very expensive camera that allows you to use Leica glass. "Digital camera" and "Rangefinder" - to me, is like a baloney and whipped cream sandwich. Doesn't go together.
If you have a lot of Leica glass, and insist on "going digital", and insist on shooting a RF. That is, you want your cake and eat it too... Well, there's the M8. And you'll pay an enormous premium for that piece of cake with little to nothing in the way of improvement in image quality over a DSLR like a Nikon D40 that costs 500 bucks.
|
quote["Digital and rangefinder don't go together!"]
:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
... more reasons for this 'theory' would be useful! :)
NickTrop
06-21-2008, 06:54
quote["Digital and rangefinder don't go together!"]
:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
... more reasons for this 'theory' would be useful! :)
"Sorta" like "form follows function" argument. RF is a method of solving the focusing problem pre-autofocus using a separate taking lens in the days prior to AF. To ME (imo, imho - etc.) this is a suitable solution for a film camera and it has distinct advantages over a reflex mirror solution (though that has advantages too) and certainly over scale focus or TLR focus and even modern autofocus solutions. A digital RF is like trying to fit a square into a circle. You're trying to make a camera fit a certain mold that doesn't make sense. A digital RF curtails some of the chief advantages of digitals (small sensor, optical zoom capabilities), while introducing digital drawbacks (it's not film).
RF is a tool for traditional film photography TO ME. Digital is a different animal all together - almost the opposite of RF-style photography. The only market I can see for a digital RF is you want the best of both worlds but the hybrid doesn't seem to be suited to this. And/or, you want to use your expensive Leica lens collection on a digital camera. Again, you'll pay for that premium. But if you're looking for $5000 worth of improvement in image quality over even an entry level DSLR, ain't gonna happen. The sensor/firmware combo will produce whatever it will produce and it might be different that the other sensors but not better.
I -BET- the firmware sw engineers at Leica wracked their brains trying to come up with a way to make image quality seem "better" than cheap consumer DSLRs - perceived quality. But the sensor will produce what the sensor produces and it ain't gonna be a helluva lot different than whatever Nikon or Canon's sensors produce.
Just my opinion - FWIW, you're welcome to disagree.
|
Leica stopped innovating.
I don't agree. I think that you make the mistake of assuming that innovation is only confirmed by broad market success. That may well be the prime motivation for companies to innovate, but certainly not the only one.
Innovations drive small (and even tiny) markets as well. Take Tim Issac's Thumbs Up accessory for the M8. No one would argue that Tim was not innovative, and yet there was never any pretense that his design would become a major money maker, etc.
The M8, in spite of all of its flaws, is innovative. It is the best digital rangefinder built to date (and is very good in many respects), and is certain to be refined further. It also allows the use of certain lenses which draw in ways which DSLR glass cannot.
Finally, almost all of the most vocal critics of the M8 confuse the issues by bringing up its retail cost. The issue of cost is really only relevant in terms of whether Leica can make the product work from a business standpoint. There are many, many products which most people do not buy because of price. But whether one is talking about an M8, a high-end watch, or automobile, etc., as long as there is a market to support the production, then it obviously isn't "too expensive".
RF is a tool for traditional film photography TO ME. Digital is a different animal all together - almost the opposite of RF-style photography.
|
For me photography is about seeing and the most important component on a camera is the finder not the sensor. The sensor won't change the way I shoot. Seeing with an RF is just very different then seeing with a narrow DOF reflex finder. Of course this only applies to a narrow range of wide to normal lenses but in the niche an M finder works well in, it is worth it's weight in gold to me (with Leica pricing that's not a figure of speech).
True on the sensor side the narrow flange to sensor distance and the Biogon style wide angles of RF cameras were an advantage where as in digital they are a big minus. The lack of mirror slap has been made up for by IS and VR in camera or in lens.
So all that is left is the finder and the compact size. All the other advantages in IQ and handling that RF had in the film days are gone. But the finder and the compact size are still huge factors for some.
RObert Budding
06-21-2008, 14:34
"I don't agree. I think that you make the mistake of assuming that innovation is only confirmed by broad market success. That may well be the prime motivation for companies to innovate, but certainly not the only one."
Great. Innovative and extinct. You have to make $$$ to survive.
These sub threads that we get within threads are fascinating to me and one of the reasons I like this place. People who abandon the forum because they feel it is degenerating into repeatative sh*t fights over the same issues constantly ... are missing something IMO. A thread can start off with someone calling the M8 'garbage' then progress to some pretty interesting opinions on the original object of derision ... seldom dull!
I find Nick's posts in particular always create a challenge ... well he always tends to throw one up and I've noticed he never ducks! :)
OT at this stage ... but just my two cents as we say!
tmfabian
06-21-2008, 15:14
Not a chance these figure are right...
2007
Nikon made a net profit of 29 billion on revenue of 440 billion.
That is 440,000,000,000. Again that is BILLION not a measly 766 million.
Canon had earnings of 41.9 billion.
Leica earnings were 2.8 million.
in other words Leica earned about what Nikon probably spent on stationary.
Crap, i put a decimal in the wrong spot(didn't read the fine print....post deleted for having too many drinks before supper.)
leica sales were roughly $200m don't know what their net profits actually ended up being.
Man, $440b, I wanna sneak a peek at nikons factory, that place must be the size of disney land.
tmfabian
06-21-2008, 15:21
You read 'em wrong, Nikon and Canon are huge companies. :p
yeah, i knew the figures seemed wrong in my head. no way leica outsold canon but i just wasn't paying close attention.
edit:also, your $2.8m was for ONE quarter "...for the quarter under review were € 1,803,000..."
edit2:this is why i didn't go to business school, reading reports is terrible, last time i'm ever looking at one haha.
ZebGoesZeiss
06-21-2008, 15:26
People who abandon the forum because they feel it is degenerating into repeatative sh*t fights over the same issues constantly ... are missing something IMO.
Speaking about "abandon", anyone seen NB23 the last couple of days? It's been awfully quiet...
tmfabian
06-21-2008, 15:27
Speaking about "abandon", anyone seen NB23 the last couple of days? It's been awfully quiet...
was just getting ready to say...hey anyone seen ned around?
Great. Innovative and extinct. You have to make $$$ to survive.
Really? I had no idea. Thanks for the insight. Oh, and by the way, you might want to try reading the whole post before responding next time.
was just getting ready to say...hey anyone seen ned around?
I was thinking the same thing ... the silence is deafening! :p
Yes I agree ... I think we shoulld all go off and find Ned!
Ciao! :)
For me photography is about seeing and the most important component on a camera is the finder not the sensor. The sensor won't change the way I shoot. Seeing with an RF is just very different then seeing with a narrow DOF reflex finder. Of course this only applies to a narrow range of wide to normal lenses but in the niche an M finder works well in, it is worth it's weight in gold to me (with Leica pricing that's not a figure of speech).
True on the sensor side the narrow flange to sensor distance and the Biogon style wide angles of RF cameras were an advantage where as in digital they are a big minus. The lack of mirror slap has been made up for by IS and VR in camera or in lens.
So all that is left is the finder and the compact size. All the other advantages in IQ and handling that RF had in the film days are gone. But the finder and the compact size are still huge factors for some.
IQ? It used the same film as SLR's.
hankg, well said. I thought digital RF could bring me a lot of joy. but short battery times and memory cards get me crazy when I go out for a few days. I have to take so many electronic crap while I could take only film cartridges and film body and lens. no more. What I could call, calmness in the mind in the preparation or action. Another big thing: you can snap quickly even the camera is not used for long time.
Still digital RF is a RF. Much more RF than Rollei 35SE which I have. I couldnt call 35se as real rf but m8 is surely more RF than that. :) if you understand what Im talking about
Funny how this thread follows the exact same personality of previous digital threads. I guess I've been in the digital world in my studio for ten or eleven years. My first digital system was a Dycomed scanning back and then a Nikon D1. After owning and shooting the D1 and D1x I wanted to move forward to a full frame sensor. Canon introduced the 1Ds and Kodak introduced the 14N. Kodak made statements like this is the most advanced and "BEST" digital camera on the market. Believing the hype I placed my order for one and waited. I hadn't tried one but I knew from good old and trusted Kodak that it must be the "BEST". Well fortunately for me they were in a backorder situation and I had to wait for about three months before expecting delivery. Meanwhile Kodak had a digital seminar in my area and I went with my compact flash card and shot with the 14N. That was all it took for me to realize Kodak was full of BS. The first thing I did the following morning was to cancel my Kodak order and place an order for a 1D and 1Ds Canon. After receiving my Canons and following the discussions on Rob Galbraith's forum I became suddenly realized that there are groups of people that will defend the brand Leica, Kodak, Canon, Nikon or whatever, to their death. No matter whether the product is a fantastic machine or a total piece of junk there are folks that will defend it with their lives. The same post appear in this and other M8 / Leica or whatever brand threads that appeared in the 14N threads. If you're not familiar with the 14N or 14C it was a total disaster. Kodak introduced the camera and the majority of the users had multiple issues with image and camera quality. Basically all but a few cameras were unusable for professional work. Noisy images above 160 iso, banding, uneven color, incompatibility with specific lenses, slow write times, firmware issues, short battery life plus a long list of other problems. Does this sound familiar? Kodak promised firmware corrections that never came and finally they discontinued the camera and introduced a new and truly a "Best camera in the world" replacement. Meanwhile Kodak dropped support for the old 14N and abandon their original customers. To make the story short the new camera had it's own set of faults with little to no improvement over the original. Finally the "best camera in the world" died a slow and painful death. Kodak is out of the pro digital business thank goodness and they're peddling their chips to other manufacturers unfortunately. To me there's a parallel of the 14N and the M8. When they work they work well within strict limits but most or many have major issues. To me as a professional it's much like having a car that will only run 30 days a year and you don't know what day is the day it will run and will only make left turns and not get out of first gear and runs at 10mph if you're lucky. I know of no other people other than the brand loyalists that will tolerate the problems of some cameras, cars or whatever you want to discuss. Brand loyalty plays a bigger part than the actual function of the product. No thank you! I'm hot interested in drinking the CoolAid for this or any other product. The purpose of a camera is to record my vision and thoughts, not to occupy my time with workarounds and trying to get the machine to function properly.
We all know 50+ years ago Canon made top quality RFs that shared the LTM and are still quite popular. It seems to me with Canon's enormous financial resources they could produce a digital M mount RF if Leica eventually drops out or fails to soon update their digital body to at least compete with the current state of the art. Just a dream, but I see Canon as the only manufacturer that can pull this off as they practically lead the pack in digital photography development.
oh well now we talking about death of leica. hehe it is so fast how it turned out from being called garbage :)
CameraQuest
06-22-2008, 10:02
I moved this thread to M8 Reported Problems, and also changed the title of it from Leica M8 - Garbage to Leica M8 - Not Happy.
As currently the best digital M mount rangefinder, and possibly the best for a long time if other manufacturers do not see fit to invest into our small niche market, the M8 generates more than its share of threads. However there is no need to insult Leica or by inference, happy M8 owners, when discussing the M8.
Stephen
I posted some time ago that the worst thing Leica did was to choose a chip from Kodak for the M8 and I got berated. As Don mentioned above, Kodak professional digital cameras have been plagued with many problems.
Lets hope so, even if it means Leica using a chip from a more mainstream manufacturer such as Panasonic (Sony).
I still believe the basic design concept is very strong, however the D3 has just blown away the Kodak effort, using a much more mainstream approach to engineering a full frame sensor.
This has nothing to do with a "more mainstream" engineering approach. The Kodak sensor was built by a very reputable fab. But the Nikon sensor is 18 months younger, enough time, according to "Moore's law" do double speed/capacity/etc. of a semiconductor device.
It's called progress, inherent to digital cameras and has nothing to do with brands.
Roland.
Why so rude??? I don't remember personally insulting you, if I did sorry???
Sorry, Fred, if it came across like this, did not mean to attack. Please re-read my post, still not sure how I attacked you in person.
Recognize though, please, that the newest Nikon sensor is more sensitive and can translate the information to the camera, partially because it is more modern (different technology node).
Most camera users know of Nikon/Canon technology leap frogging - because they see the end product and product label.
Underlying this, however, the different semiconductor fabs are leap frogging, following Moore's (business) law, and it's (from an engineering, not price perspective) unfair to compare today's technology to technology from 18 months ago.
Wether Leica or anybody will use the newest technologies for a new digital RF is another question .... I personally believe Nikon will, but Canon or Leica could too, IMO, if done right.
Roland.
I don't care how many of you are offended, I need to tell the truth. I bought an M8 a few months ago. I liked it at first, but found a few things inexcusable. One thing in particular was the amount of noise in the photos. I found that 640 was the highest ISO I could set before noise made photos completely unusable. Even 640 was not very good. I sold it within a month and lost a few hundred dollars in the process.
I just purchased a Canon 5D. I took photos at ISO 1600 the other day with dim room lighting and there was no noise I could perceive in the images. How can a camera that presently costs $1899 produce images dramatically better than a camera which costs over $5000? I need Leica to explain this to me. I love their film cameras to death and would never stop using them, but the M8 is worthless to a professional.
Mind you, I AM a professional, not some amateur who doesn't know the difference between a prosumer and pro camera. I've used everything from Hasselblads to Mamiya to Nikon to Rollei. This camera is an insult to Leica owners and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Go ahead... flame me. I stand firmly by my opinion.
Ara
Hello everyone,
This is my first post on this forum. I am a professional too; whatever that equates too really, as I will always be ready to learn from others whomever they are.
i use an M8 for my work, (and recently did a wedding with it, and I'm certainly not a professional wedding photographer) and as for the quality of the results, I find the camera really amazing. It produces great shadow detail and it very rarely loses anything in the highlights when shooting raw. My main point is this: Why is there this continuous complaining about noise? Did you people never use analogue cameras loaded with 1600 film? The next expectation is to always compare the M8 to the Canon 5D. Now I know this camera has broken new ground with its lack of noise at high iso speed, but really: the two cameras are completely different species. The 5D camera is big, clumsy and would be intimidating for the sort of work I do. It is also far too automated in that it continues to follow the modern camera evolutionary trend of producing something that almost makes the photographer unnecessary. I was pleased when Leica rumoured the development of a digital rangefinder. I was pleased that the resulting camera was small, used the usual little prime lenses, was quick, had manual, conventional controls, and was 'almost' quiet to use. It certainly retained its anonymity as a 'professional' camera, which is also useful. Surely, these are the points to consider when deciding which camera to buy.
I actually find the files quite free of offensive noise. I've supplied 1250 ambient light files to picture editors who commented on their quality. These were shot raw and turned into jpegs using Capture One, and these are picture editors so used to seeing pictures supplied by people using the usual D something/something D brands with everything flashed in anyway. I very rarely use 2500. After all, another reason for using a Leica rangefinder is so that you can use slow shutter speeds. Well, having said all that, I will quietly add, I just hope my camera remains reliable!
Regards,
jgw.
I don't care how many of you are offended, I need to tell the truth. I bought an M8 a few months ago. I liked it at first, but found a few things inexcusable. One thing in particular was the amount of noise in the photos. I found that 640 was the highest ISO I could set before noise made photos completely unusable. Even 640 was not very good. I sold it within a month and lost a few hundred dollars in the process.
I just purchased a Canon 5D. I took photos at ISO 1600 the other day with dim room lighting and there was no noise I could perceive in the images. How can a camera that presently costs $1899 produce images dramatically better than a camera which costs over $5000? I need Leica to explain this to me. I love their film cameras to death and would never stop using them, but the M8 is worthless to a professional.
Mind you, I AM a professional, not some amateur who doesn't know the difference between a prosumer and pro camera. I've used everything from Hasselblads to Mamiya to Nikon to Rollei. This camera is an insult to Leica owners and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Go ahead... flame me. I stand firmly by my opinion.
Ara
Here is another thread that makes me laugh. The only person that is right on the money is ........FioreVelviamo.
He is right to question OP's level of professionalism as his comments ARE based on him calling himself a professional. "M8 is worthless to a professional" - he says - so let's see if he is one.
Yet, everyone jumps in being so politically correct - you are too rude, you can't say this, blah, blah - c'mon people - a professional should be able to take some critisism -after all he himself says that M8 sucks! So, what's wrong with questioning his credibility? Amazing - we always here are afraid to say ANYTHING to critique - and why? If someone's photos suck - they should be told so - maybe they can improve them. We are all (or most ) are here to learn.
Jeez - everyone is so sensative, talking laws and lawyers. Amazing!.
And as far as M8 goes - as someone already said - you don't like it - don't buy it. Most issues are known. I don't own one and am not planning to. But that's a different story altogether......
Hi jgw,
This is my first post on this forum. I am a professional too; whatever that equates too really, as I will always be ready to learn from others whomever they are. [...]
Great first post. Welcome to the forum!
Philipp
hlockwood
06-23-2008, 11:33
Agreed, that was a cheap shot.
However, if you like the 5d better use the 5d, I prefer the m8 and the images it produces far better than the 5d and owning both, I see very little difference in the noise quality between the 2, the real issue is that people don't understand how to read the meter in the m8 properly. I've said it before and i'll say it again, exposed properly, the m8 has very little noise.
all of these were shot at 2500iso(they ain't good, just a test after listening to people unable to expose properly complain about m8 noise, so they all pretty much have large areas of solid colors or darkness)
http://picasaweb.google.com/tmfabian/ISO2500
I'd say you've proved your point with these shots. I'd also say that some of them, contrary to your disclaimer, are very good.
Harry
Shutter is more quiet and less vibration.
False, it is the very same shutter that it has always been. Unless you got a jump start on the $1,000 "Fix" for the embarrassingly loud and awkward sounding shutter, it is the same one.
I did a workshop with Eugene Richards at Look3 / Festival of the photograph a couple weeks ago. It was on photographing people.
I was trying to do a piece on displaced Black American families. Since there were daily deadlines to consider, I started with the M8, but the damn shutter made me put it away and pull out my film M's. It's not just loud, it sounds odd and it lingers, "Clack-screeeeech". Terrible. I almost got my ass kicked due to how audible it was.
But the film M's, damn near silent, brilliant images, my keeper rate went up 400% over the M8, even in low light where I was able to hand hold lower shutter speeds with my 35 1.4 due to lack of crop factor...with ASA 400 black and white film.
I also use the M8 in some commercial work, it is great at ISO 320 and lower, but 640 and above is tough, it creates more computer work..and even though I am a Mac expert, I would rather be a photographer, so JAAPV can praise his high ISO all he wants, I need to take pictures, not make them on a computer.
I am keeping my M8 now, but only because one of my camera bags put an odd textile mark on the top cover so I would not likely get more than $3000 for it. And it does fill the need for a digital option in my small M bag.
The M8 does put out some nice files, but I really do wish it was not rushed out to market like Leica has personally told me that is was.
Thanks Dan! I'm going to give that a try. I've been shooting everything at 160 and "pushing" it in ACR, then using Noise Ninja to clean up any residual noise I find objectionable, but I know I'm losing some quality in the process. I'm glad I waded through this cowpasture of a thread and found your post.
I'll try it too. If it is not a huge departure from my proper workflow and it works, I'll be good to go.
You don't have to shout to get Leica's attention. I had a conversation with Mr. Daniel last week and listened to his presentation, and the forums are intensively read in Solms.
All the forums are checked and read several times a day by Leica USA and Solms. There is not a lot Leica can do about the M8 as it is now, it is what it is and that is all it ever will be.
But they have learned a ton and you can be sure that the M9 will not be a rushed product with the level of M8 flaws.
Gabriel M.A.
06-24-2008, 12:51
JAAPV can praise his high ISO all he wants, I need to take pictures, not make them on a computer.
Good digital photographers must know how to use a computer and software to handle digital negatives. Just like analog photographers must know how to handle their film, and if they print (e.g. "make them on a darkroom") themselves, they need to know how to use a darkroom and chemicals.
Welcome to the 21st Century! :)
Good digital photographers must know how to use a computer and software to handle digital negatives. Just like analog photographers must know how to handle their film, and if they print (e.g. "make them on a darkroom") themselves, they need to know how to use a darkroom and chemicals.
Welcome to the 21st Century! :)
Yep,
Been shooting digital professionally since 1995, I know how important it is to be able to post process. But I try to work with a lot of pre-sets so I can have a life. Some of those do work with M8 640+ files but sometimes they don't.
The M8 is fine, but it is a frustrating camera for those who expect the full Leica experience. It's gorgeous at ISO 320 and below, I will give you that.
gDallasK
06-26-2008, 08:57
There is a LOT more to image quality than a sensor. My M8 gives me access to some of the best lenses available. I also own some of the best lenses available for my 1DS2. They fall far short of Leica, Zeiss or even CV glass. The fact that my 1DS2 comfortably outperforms the M8 at high ISO is entirely negated for 90% of my shooting by th M8's optical superiority.
ChipNovaMac
07-01-2008, 22:09
Given the Nikon D3 and now the D700 the M8 pales in comparison in IQ.... but nothing can beat the M8 in size and weight..... we learn to live within limits....
I carry my M8 and 3 lens in a bag that would never be able to fit just the body of one of those SLR with high IQ and a normal lens. Maybe I could carry one of those compact SLR bodies with pancakes but I would sacrifice a great deal of quality in my pictures. Carrying a large SLR is what made me quit photography for a few years. My M8 is what made me enjoy it again, simple, light and always with me... unlike the SLR which is always at home.
Hello everyone,
I've been reading the forum for some time but this is my first post here.
I have been an avid Leica user for nearly twenty years and my M6 is the best camera I could dream to have.
I mainly shoot people in different occasion, always with available light, often in very light conditions and during long trips and the M6 have given me everything I wanted, allowing me to shoot in every occasion always delivering the best I could sort out of the film.
I went digital with a Canon 5D, which I find excellent, but I missed the compactness and ability to put my in contact with the subject of the M6, so I decided to make the jump to the M8 in January, expecting to find the same allround qualities of the M6.
Unfortunately I didn't.
Yes, lens quality and compactness are there, but anything new in the camera is disappointing, and I would say unacceptable (in my humble opinion) for a camera that's branded Leica and that is sold at that price level.
First big disappointment is the sensor: even though I am not a fan of noisless images I find images shot over 640 ISO nearly unusable.
White management is just crazy: maybe it is my camera but I find differences (heavy differences in color balancing) even in two consecutive shots with exactly the same conditions.
The shutter is nothing near what it used to be: noticeably noisy and vibration inducing: with the M6 I could easily shoot at 1/4 without any problems, here even at 1/30 I am afraid of having unwanted blurred pictures.
I personally find focusing trickier, probably due to the backfocusing issues with some lenses.
Add all this to the fact that the 1.3 cropping factor obliges you to use shorter lenses to have the same results and that if you are used to a 35mm you have to go to a 28, loosing at least one stop of maximum speed, you will see that shooting in low light conditions become a very difficult situation, while (for my personal experience) it was the strenght of the M6.
There are also some practicalities that are disappointing:
Battery duration is deceiving: I can barely shoot some 200/250 raw images without using the LCD. It may seem much, but it is not if you are travelling in remote places where access to energy is not granted every day.
The capacity of accepted SD cards is limited to 2GB. I know there are a few 4GB cards accepted, but I couldn't find them on the market. If you shoot Raw this means around 180 images, so a pack of cards (or a backup system) to be brough in a long trip.
It is true that in the old days you had to bring packs of films with you, but seeing what other manufacturer are doing (I have the example of the 5D which battery is incredibly longlasting and it easily accepts high capacity cards) it is really hard to understand the reason of these limitations
Also (and I understand it is a question of tastes) I personally find questionable the choiche of the center average light metering, compared with the M6 semi spot which allowed me a much greater control on exposure.
Now: I still use my M8 for photographying people as I prefer the rangefinder "philosophy", but I really feel somewhat cheated by the brand: beside the "old" qualities of the M system (rangefinder and lenses) anything new has been largely under the expectations.
If I had known what I know today I would not buy this camera again. And selling it today, with some little use marks and with the Leica "buy back" program which has made it less expensive than when I purchased it, would make me lose quite a lot of money, making the experience even more painful.
I was tought by my marketing teacher that a Brand is a promise. I truly don't feel Leica kept its word.
tmfabian
09-13-2008, 16:15
HA! HA!
tell me, did you spend your own time writing that, or did you just copy and paste the generic "i hate the m8" article?
+1
/fail
Hello everyone,
I've been reading the forum for some time but this is my first post here.
I have been an avid Leica user for nearly twenty years and my M6 is the best camera I could dream to have.
I mainly shoot people in different occasion, always with available light, often in very light conditions and during long trips and the M6 have given me everything I wanted, allowing me to shoot in every occasion always delivering the best I could sort out of the film.
I went digital with a Canon 5D, which I find excellent, but I missed the compactness and ability to put my in contact with the subject of the M6, so I decided to make the jump to the M8 in January, expecting to find the same allround qualities of the M6.
Unfortunately I didn't.
Yes, lens quality and compactness are there, but anything new in the camera is disappointing, and I would say unacceptable (in my humble opinion) for a camera that's branded Leica and that is sold at that price level.
First big disappointment is the sensor: even though I am not a fan of noisless images I find images shot over 640 ISO nearly unusable.
White management is just crazy: maybe it is my camera but I find differences (heavy differences in color balancing) even in two consecutive shots with exactly the same conditions.
The shutter is nothing near what it used to be: noticeably noisy and vibration inducing: with the M6 I could easily shoot at 1/4 without any problems, here even at 1/30 I am afraid of having unwanted blurred pictures.
I personally find focusing trickier, probably due to the backfocusing issues with some lenses.
Add all this to the fact that the 1.3 cropping factor obliges you to use shorter lenses to have the same results and that if you are used to a 35mm you have to go to a 28, loosing at least one stop of maximum speed, you will see that shooting in low light conditions become a very difficult situation, while (for my personal experience) it was the strenght of the M6.
There are also some practicalities that are disappointing:
Battery duration is deceiving: I can barely shoot some 200/250 raw images without using the LCD. It may seem much, but it is not if you are travelling in remote places where access to energy is not granted every day.
The capacity of accepted SD cards is limited to 2GB. I know there are a few 4GB cards accepted, but I couldn't find them on the market. If you shoot Raw this means around 180 images, so a pack of cards (or a backup system) to be brough in a long trip.
It is true that in the old days you had to bring packs of films with you, but seeing what other manufacturer are doing (I have the example of the 5D which battery is incredibly longlasting and it easily accepts high capacity cards) it is really hard to understand the reason of these limitations
Also (and I understand it is a question of tastes) I personally find questionable the choiche of the center average light metering, compared with the M6 semi spot which allowed me a much greater control on exposure.
Now: I still use my M8 for photographying people as I prefer the rangefinder "philosophy", but I really feel somewhat cheated by the brand: beside the "old" qualities of the M system (rangefinder and lenses) anything new has been largely under the expectations.
If I had known what I know today I would not buy this camera again. And selling it today, with some little use marks and with the Leica "buy back" program which has made it less expensive than when I purchased it, would make me lose quite a lot of money, making the experience even more painful.
I was tought by my marketing teacher that a Brand is a promise. I truly don't feel Leica kept its word.
Petroleum V. Nasby
09-13-2008, 17:01
I think the Kodak Pro 14n produces better, sharper images than the newer SLR/n, and I have both.
If you take the 14n out on a bright, cloudy day, the images it produces at ISO 80 or ISO 160 are better than any full frame DSLR on the market today.
It's a pity Kodak stuck their sensor in a consumer Nikon body, then abandoned the DSLR business. I think they would have had a nice large niche market for people who are capable of using the camera properly.
Don't get me started on the Kodak DSLR's. I could write a book. BAD firmware and RAW software crippled this camera when it was new, and it never reached its potential.
Those who have a 14n and even an SLR/n are lucky.
Petroleum V. Nasby
09-14-2008, 03:29
PS: Fred, you do not want a Kodak 14nx (the one upgraded by the factory).
This suffers multiple mainboard failures and runs hotter than the plain 14n or the SLR/n
Avoid buying a 14nx upgraded camera like the plague. No fix available for under $2000 and parts may not even be available if you do want to fix it.
The price of an eBay SLR/n is the same as the 14nx.
No, actually I have never read that article.
After writing that post that made you laugh so much Leica launched the M8.2 and a new firmware which solved a great part of those problems that you see as ridiculous...
probably they weren't laughing so much.
Still the problems with colors and low light remain, and you have to pay 1300 euros to update the M8.
Continue laughing...
Ray Kilby
12-09-2008, 01:31
I sold my M8 and to be honest I miss it terribly. I still use my M6 and I continue love that. I a now use a Nikon D3 with ziess lenses and that is a wonderful if rather bulky camera. Nikon has it's problems, Canon too. So does the M8. I just stopped putting it in my camera bag when going off on a job as I couldn't trust it, regardless of the fact that I have made some wonderful images from it. (Quality of the image, not my own ability I mean. I am not that sure of myself!) What am I trying to say here? I guess what I am saying is, all cameras have their advantages and disadvantages and it is a personal pay off as to which you like and dislike and can live with.
All that said. Have Leica ironed out the back focus issue, accuracy of the range finder lines missfires and odd electronic glitches. I don't mind about a bit of noise.
Could anybody tell me? Because if so I will be wanting to get my hands on one again.
jsrockit
11-19-2009, 10:34
Man, did you guys kill this guys love of photography? No pictures on flickr since this post...
nixphotopix
11-26-2009, 02:07
wow...i hate the noise above iso 640 and i'll avoid it at all costs. that aside, its a great camera, and the only camera apart from the epson in that category we have to choose from....deal with it. if you don't like it don't buy it. eventually leica will sort there thing out and catch up to the big name standards (maybe). something i look for too. what i really want though is a version from cosina without the epson sensor
I don't get it.
I just saw your flickr shots. There are many other issues waaayyy before the noise issue.
I find this post hilarious because yeah his Flickr is suspect, but here are like 30 photos of the same band in the same setting, you should have peeked at his website, he's got some good stuff.
bo_lorentzen
12-05-2009, 14:26
LOL....:D
He is a professional - don't try this at home.
Funny, art is normally thought to be in the eye of the beholder, but calling a critic "slanderous" seems a bit ambitious. if one of his clients do a web-search, they might just find... wait.. nothing of interest what so ever..
Ara volunteers his considerable photography skills at his church.
and is a graphic designer for industry and packaging..
Too bad the M8 don't quite live up to his cutting edge demands, Im sure there will be a DLSR which will please him in the future.
EDIT: I should edit this, it was funny to see the OP's statements, I'm sure Ara is a nice guy, but maybe with a little too big thoughts about himself in this perspective. I understand he have been learning wedding photography the last year so at this point is probably a working professional on Saturdays. Wonder if the M8 have found its way into production by now, there is nothing in google to say what type of professional photography Ara does, my comments is mainly based on his concern what a client might find if they google him...
Bo
www.bophoto.typepad.com (http://www.bophoto.typepad.com)
Man, did you guys kill this guys love of photography? No pictures on flickr since this post...
ROTFL...
nice zombie thread that was pulled out of the grave.
had a read and made me laugh a bit :)
I love Leica and been using it for a few years now - but the M8 has its limits and so the M9.
True 5D and D700 and the likes beat it on the noise department by miles. And cost less.
And ? Live it with. Its the price we have to pay for such compactness and be able to use our M lens.
So even the M8 beats a Hasselblad digital at ISO 640 and that costs 4 times as much... and ? I dont see MF digital users complaining about it...
Every good photographer has to discover the limits of its camera and/or film and use it to hes best ability.
To be honest, when I want to shoot BW with my M8, I never go lower than ISO 640... the noise turns into great grain and I tried every plug in on earth.
Go figure.
Hmm maybe that is the compromise Leica. color at low ISO BW at Hi iso. SOund smart to me =)
I am a journalist. I use mine in dng/ color up to 1250 Asa without noise-reduction. And in b+w/ fine jpg at 2500 Asa. And it works if you meter well. If not you will have a lot of noise in the darker parts of the foto.
Have a look here (click on the foto to enlarge it):
2500 Asa:
http://mimpresion.blogspot.com/2009/12/aminatu-libertad.html
http://mimpresion.blogspot.com/2009/11/straenkunstler-46.html
http://mimpresion.blogspot.com/2009/11/straenkunstler-45.html
1250 Asa:
http://mimpresion.blogspot.com/2009/12/ich-frage-mich-wie-lange-europa-das.html
benmacphoto
12-19-2009, 22:48
And it works if you meter well. If not you will have a lot of noise in the darker parts of the foto.
This is the main problem with the ISO quality of the M8 and its users. ISO 1250 looks good if the shot is exposed properly.
ali_baba
12-19-2009, 23:27
i have been using a pair of m8's for the last 2 years.
i have finally achieved digital leica happiness with the m9.
however, i was able to get great images sometimes upwards through the ISO range.
the m8 was a ripoff i will say, but it was a good ripoff.
i'm much happier shooting still with my m8 over my d3 for anything other than long focal lengths, which is why i have a d3.
the m8 was fine, now it's old news.
who wants to buy mine?
thanks
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_lir/4189152600/http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2644/4189152600_69b37b3c9c_o.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_lir/4189152600/
NickTrop
12-20-2009, 04:08
But, as I'm reading on the M8, it seems there's a lot of disastisfaction, that's the other reason why I bought the r-d1. I can understand the frustration when you just throw away about 5000 $ for an M8, and it is not fufill some minimal expectations. By the way, for a cheap alternative for shooting in low light condition, there's the shoot and point fuji f30.
Brand defense!!! Woot woot! These threads are hilarious. Some of youse defend Leica's honor more than you'd defend your wife's. There ARE minimal expectations of cameras. Technology has reached a certain threshold, a certain minimum standard. Leica failed to meet it with the M8. Period. Years prior to the arrival of the M8, an quality/ISO capability standard was set by Nikon and Canon's DSLRs. Leice fell way short of this while at the same time continued to charge Leica prices.
Yet, they still absolutely gouged their "cult" - and that's all that it can be described as. You Leicaphiles are like Moonies, climate change deniers, "birthers" (who believe Obama is not a US citizen) etc. No point in arguing with you.
I have a sibling of the F30, the F20 - same "Super" CCD by Fuji. No problem shooting up to ISO 800. Fine. 1600 is even okay for small prints. That camera cost a couple hundred bucks new when it came out, round the same time as the M8. It is unacceptable that a camera that costs 25X as much as this can't do ISO above 320. Every pro camera can, every cheap consumer DSLR can, and the whole rangefinder thing is all about natural and low light shooting. Add to this the ridiculous fact that you have to slap a filter on the thing because of their IR sensor issue...
Please.
Clearly, you're paying for a little red dot. And that's it. And the M8 is a dog. Beautifully manufactured, sure, but a dog none the less. But a photographic tool isn't about how well the thing is manufactured. It's about capabilities. They manufactured a beautiful "golden slide rule" to the highest manufacturing specifications in the age of cheap graphing algebraic calculators you can get for 1/25th the price. The person who started this thread was only being intellectually honest. Defenders need deprogramming.
|
Thing of it.... In defending this $5000 camera, someone suggested getting a used Fuji Finepix that go for around $100 used and didn't cost more than $200 new - that is to say, buy this cheap consumer point-n-shoot to "fill the gaps" of your $5000 Leica. Please. Quit giving Leica a pass.
NickTrop
12-20-2009, 04:36
Down boy down!
Sorry, Dfoo... But for the cost of this camera, the M8, there should be no compromises. It should be cutting edge. It isn't. It even fell way short of the standards as a photographic tool set by consumer-level DSLRs at its release. Add the that the kludge of having to slap an IR filter on your lens (and what if you have many lenses with different sized threads? Wha - ? Do tell. A filter for every one? Or just "deal"... )
Don't like the problems of the M8? Sell it and throw a couple more thousand and buy the corrected M9.
I know what that red dot is. It's a testicle. Leica's got balls.
|
NickTrop
12-20-2009, 04:51
Do you think Leica released the M8, knowing it was inadequate, as part of an overall marketing stratergy to get you to buy two cameras that cost $5000 in the span of a few years... knowing that the Leica cult would pitch their M8 on the used market (which doesn't benefit Leica) to fund the purchase of their "fixed" M9?
Leica's success always had as much to do with branding - product, price, placement, and promotion as it did with their mechanical engineering prowess. Leica gets - what, around $12,000 in revenue from each cult member is a two-three year span, using this marketing stratergy... Build up anticipation... when are they coming out with a "digital rangefinder" - oh when, oh when??? ... till the demand is like a star about to Super Nova, the cultists were waving their credit cards and check books to their messiah ready to buy anything with the little red testicle symbol on it.... Then God comes down from the mountain, camera raised high about his head, and gives the cult member the sacred "beta" - a camera with enough annoyance to be discovered like "easter eggs" in video games, 'cept these weren't fun ones... Hey - ISO looks crappy!!! Hey, what's with this filter!!! Thus, these annoyances prompted the cult to ditch the "beta", sell it on the used market to the poorer cult members, thus funding the second $5000+ camera purchase in a couple of years...
Hilarious... What a grift.
Instead of "cutting edge" photographic tools, Leica gave us "cutting edge planned obsolescence"... Nice.
Remember... Red dot = testicle. Leica's got balls.
|
NickTrop
12-20-2009, 05:41
Nick, why are you interested in [discussing] a camera you would never buy even if it cost $500? Seems odd to drag up this old thread.
I was in the mood for a little Leica bashing this morning over a cup of coffee. That's all...
|
Gabriel M.A.
12-20-2009, 05:51
Brand defense!!! Woot woot! These threads are hilarious. Some of youse defend Leica's honor more than you'd defend your wife's.
1) I do not "defend Leica's honor"; I highly question the intelligence behind people's bashing motives. Usually, they're blinded by ignorance more than they are by the price tag.
2a) The hyper-generalizations spewed in Leica threads by those who have a huge Leica chip on their shoulders then (laughably) turn around against those who point out their fallacies and call them "brand defenders"
2b) I refer to these people with a "Leica chip on their shoulder" Leica Pirates who also hold the "brand" as their Moby Dick.
3) I don't have a wife. Not everybody fits you pirates' world pigeonholing.
NickTrop
12-20-2009, 06:09
But it is like making fun of someone wearing a brand new Rolex. Too easy.
... yeah, truth be told, though I'm a little pissy cause I have two feet of snow do dig out from under. It was either bash Leica or kick the cat. I chose Leica. My cat is grateful.
|
:D
But it is like making fun of someone wearing a brand new Rolex. Too easy.
I'd take a nice shiny new Rolex over an M8 any day of the week! :-)
NickTrop
12-20-2009, 06:17
@Gabriel MA - Oops I did it again. You're as angry at my dissing your camera as you would be if I dissed your spouse if you had one. I knew someone would take the bait and prove my point. Now don't go gettin' all Yosemite Sam-y on me. All in fun.
I'd take a nice shiny new Rolex over an M8 any day of the week! :-)
Only some of us are photographers. ;)
jsrockit
12-21-2009, 04:19
Instead of "cutting edge" photographic tools, Leica gave us "cutting edge planned obsolescence"... Nice.
If you want cutting edge, you don't buy a rangefinder. All camera companies are dealing in planned obsolescence. Jeez.
micromontenegro
12-21-2009, 05:58
I know it is not PC, and I have never really done it, but sometimes my cat deserves a kick. Of course, Leica bashing is just much more fun.
Brand defense!!! Woot woot! These threads are hilarious. Some of youse defend Leica's honor more than you'd defend your wife's. There ARE minimal expectations of cameras. Technology has reached a certain threshold, a certain minimum standard. Leica failed to meet it with the M8. Period. Years prior to the arrival of the M8, an quality/ISO capability standard was set by Nikon and Canon's DSLRs. Leice fell way short of this while at the same time continued to charge Leica prices.
Yet, they still absolutely gouged their "cult" - and that's all that it can be described as. You Leicaphiles are like Moonies, climate change deniers, "birthers" (who believe Obama is not a US citizen) etc. No point in arguing with you.
I have a sibling of the F30, the F20 - same "Super" CCD by Fuji. No problem shooting up to ISO 800. Fine. 1600 is even okay for small prints. That camera cost a couple hundred bucks new when it came out, round the same time as the M8. It is unacceptable that a camera that costs 25X as much as this can't do ISO above 320. Every pro camera can, every cheap consumer DSLR can, and the whole rangefinder thing is all about natural and low light shooting. Add to this the ridiculous fact that you have to slap a filter on the thing because of their IR sensor issue...
Please.
Clearly, you're paying for a little red dot. And that's it. And the M8 is a dog. Beautifully manufactured, sure, but a dog none the less. But a photographic tool isn't about how well the thing is manufactured. It's about capabilities. They manufactured a beautiful "golden slide rule" to the highest manufacturing specifications in the age of cheap graphing algebraic calculators you can get for 1/25th the price. The person who started this thread was only being intellectually honest. Defenders need deprogramming.
|
Thing of it.... In defending this $5000 camera, someone suggested getting a used Fuji Finepix that go for around $100 used and didn't cost more than $200 new - that is to say, buy this cheap consumer point-n-shoot to "fill the gaps" of your $5000 Leica. Please. Quit giving Leica a pass.
Nick,
You are going on the same road than those Moonies you are bashing.....
Yes a Fufjifilm F20 may have better ISO performance than a M8. And your point is ?
The Leica M8 or even the M9 has limitations. First because the M8 was one of the first ( well second behind RD-1 ) groundbreaking designs : a digital rangefinder.
That involved a lot of R&D and things will get better with time.
Groundbreaking designs and technology ( micro lenses in the sensor, IR sensitivity to deal with, etc etc ) , when they are new have lot of issues.
Heck mate, we even had to deal with green lines and God knows what.
But we prevailed. And we have a great camera. Sure, has its limits and limitations but nothing is perfect, otherwise we all would lug a H4D and a trolley of lenses around.
Which by the way, many point and shoots have better high iso performace than most medium format camera which costs in the region of 30 to 40k usd... and I dont see people complaining.
The M8 is just that : a different tool.
Like a digital medium format camera is a different tool.
And they shouldnt be compared to outside their format : but within.
Compare the M8 with the RD-1.
Yap, dSLR's have more fps, better ISO, yadadada. And ? They are AGAIN a different tool.
Horses for Courses my friend.
As far as I recall, no one forced anyone to buy a M8 or a M9.
If you dont like it, sell it. Move on.
Some people, like me, the ability of using my collection of Leica lens on a digital body is simply fastastic, even if that comes with tradeoff's, which are well known.
For you might not be the case. So go on and take pictures with your F20 and I will take with my M8. And we BOTH are happy.
You are a moonie my friend. The type I see everytime I park my car and start mumbling that a super duper Toyota/Nissan/Japanese Car whatever-model-that-is-that-ends-with-lots-of-red-letters-and-Z-or-R has the same or better performance than my car for one third of the price and I'm silly.
Perhaps.
But I'm a happy silly man driving my Porsche.
Only some of us are photographers. ;)
This phrase and the one you quoted one, deserve a Tshirt :)
Brilliant !
Yep..my 2 M8s are lousy cameras. It is just that I like them and I enjoy taking photos with them.
Nobody should flame you for not liking the M8. But wouldn't it be better
to sing canon's praises in the canon forum?
Regards.
Sorry, Dfoo... But for the cost of this camera, the M8, there should be no compromises. It should be cutting edge. It isn't. It even fell way short of the standards as a photographic tool set by consumer-level DSLRs at its release. Add the that the kludge of having to slap an IR filter on your lens (and what if you have many lenses with different sized threads? Wha - ? Do tell. A filter for every one? Or just "deal"... )
...
I don't have an M8. I don't like digital photography. But if I did before the M9 was released I would hve bought the M8 for the simple fact that its a) a rangefinder and b) I can use my M mount lenses on it. What other reasonable game is there in town?
Gabriel M.A.
12-21-2009, 14:35
@Gabriel MA - Oops I did it again. You're as angry at my dissing your camera as you would be if I dissed your spouse if you had one. I knew someone would take the bait and prove my point. Now don't go gettin' all Yosemite Sam-y on me. All in fun.
You indeed are a m0r0n. I am not angry at "my camera being dissed". I am angry at you being a m0r0n.
Sorry, Dfoo... But for the cost of this camera, the M8, there should be no compromises.
|
Honestly.. you say too much and add nothing.
I am defending Leica ? No. Its a great camera but its not perfect in any mean.
Yes it costs a great deal - and there is some compromises.
In every camera you have compromises. If we stick to your marevellous and thought out logic, a Hasselblad H3D with a 39mp sensor, at nearly 40k , should be heaven on Earth but hey...
Costs 10 x a M8 but the M8 has better noise performance. And can shoot more FPS ... Oh no... off you go to the Hasselblad forum to piss off H owners ...
Im being ironic here but there is one comment that I do get offended :
@Gabriel MA - Oops I did it again. You're as angry at my dissing your camera as you would be if I dissed your spouse if you had one. I knew someone would take the bait and prove my point. Now don't go gettin' all Yosemite Sam-y on me. All in fun.
Gabriel is a nice and valued member of our community. He helps constantly and posts constantly throught this forum - either new or older members, always giving his opinion in a cordial and respectfull manner. On top of that he is a talented photographer who often shares his pictures and everyone has a good time watching them.
The same cannot be said from you, who parachutes out of no where and start offending existing members, in this case Gabriel.
If you want to make an open discussion, do it in a cordial manner and leave wife's and the sorts out of it. Get some manners and if your rethorical skills aren't the best - mine arent but then again English isnt my first language.
But there s aline to be drawn.
Here's some help, go read it and then come back so we can keep chatting about Leica fan boys :
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fisher-Price-Little-People-Good-Manners/dp/B002ILN5WY/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1261482272&sr=8-5
It's a DVD : Fisher Price, Little People : Good Manners.
Should help you.
Let me first appologize for not reading the entire 8 pages worth of bantering about what brand is better and who's loyal to which company. That aside, has anyone actually thought about the way they expose their images on the M8 in low light?
Shooting the M8 in low light is not quite the same as shooting the 5D2 (which I also use). You cannot under expose the image with an M8 at high ISO and push the settings in the RAW conversion like you do with the Canon files without drastically amplifying the noise. What you need to do is shoot to the right of the histogram and perhaps even clipping parts of the image. Once you push the exposure back down in post, you will have a MUCH higher signal-to-noise ratio and will find that your images will have less noise. How much of the image you clip depends on the subject matter, your experience with the camera and what you want the final image to look like.
Also, keep in mind that the M8 files are 8 bits which means there is less flexibility in how much you can make your images brighter if your images are underexposed to begin with. When in doubt, shoot to the right with the M8. If you're the type that shoot jpegs, then, you'd probably be better off with a point and shoot.
IMHO, if you expose properly, you can take very usable images even at ISO1250 on the M8. ISO2500 is a little sketchy but can still be used in B&W but it's stretching it.
M8 files are NOT 8 bits. They are compressed and when expanded during RAW conversion behave like 12 bits files, especially in the shadows. If you treat them like 8 bits in post (which you shouldn't even do with real 8 bits files!) you run into trouble.
If you are "not happy" you have done the right thing by selling your M8
I have an S95 which I think is great
I have an EP 1 which I think is also great
I have a D300 which I think is marvellous
I now have an M8 which I enjoy using
(all for different reasons)
I could go on
A Leica is not a Canon, Nikon or Olympus - it is a Leica - why are you trying to compare or justify one against the other - you either like them or don't and in this "free world" you have a choice - as I said I love my S95
Just keep taking the pills, (sorry pressing the shutter)
I am surprised that you're surprised about the M8's high iso. There are myriad threads that make the point that you can go to 640 on color and 1250 in b&w. That is what it is. It's nothing new, and new firmware isn't going to make it go away.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.