M8 Vs Xpro/NEX/X100/OMD etc....

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by tomtofa

As far as IQ, probably not many people will say that other cameras outdo the M8 - until you go over 640 ISO . . .

I disagree. I've shot the M8 at ISO 1250 with similar or better results than ISO 1600 with cameras with smaller sensors.

[kanzlr]

I would go with the M8 or with a Ricoh GXR (with Mount Module).
The M8 is a rangefinder which is in itself a reason to get it, and the GXR was designed for M lenses, its image quality is amazing, the ergonimics are great, especially for its size, and it has the best electronic focusing aids available.

[Ben Z]

Here's my subjective opinion having at least had a look through almost every EVF out there: I don't care for them, not even the so-called best of them. It still reminds me of a camcorder and it doesn't look to me like direct view at all. Sure I could compose with one. Sure I might be able to manual focus with one. But to my taste there's a kind of "remoteness" to EVF viewing compared even with a mirrored SLR, and let alone a direct viewfinder.

I could see myself owning an EVIL-type camera + M adapter as an emergency backup to my M9 (in fact, I have a Panny LX5 with EVF for just that purpose), but if I had inherited an M6 and those lenses and didn't want to sell them for the very significant chunk of change they would bring, then I would shoot film with them in the interim while I saved for a true rangefinder body.

So what would I buy? Not an RD1. I had one, and agree it was a fine camera. But there is virtually no repair infrastructure for it anymore. Maybe I'd risk it for $500 at most.

M8? I had one of those also. Image-quality-wise, it's so close to the M9 I wouldn't pass it up on that criterion. The IR filters were an embarrasing if not infuriating band-aid on a $5K camera. But at their current cost and given the manufacturer thus far still supports them with parts and service (and a new M9 battery fits), and for 3-4 lenses, I wouldn't call the IR filters a deal-breaker either. What would concern me in your case is the fact the widest lens you own (28mm) gives a field of view roughly of a 35mm. You may well find yourself wanting to go wider, in which case if you buy Leica glass, you'll be putting in as much total cash as if you'd bought an M9.

But right now, with Photokina just a few months off, I would be very tempted to put some film in that M6 and get a leg up on the learning curve meantime. If an M10 comes out in the fall, and it isn't priced more than a grand over an M9P, I would expect at least a brief glut on the used market, driving down M9 prices, and most likely M8 prices as well. If you can wait a few months you might save yourself some money.

[Viktor Sebastian]

M8 or M9, the rest is a waste of time.

[jippiejee]

The thing, with everything else that's so enjoyable about it, about the M8 I like best is its immediate response when clicking that shutter. It feels like no shutter lag at all. No other non-dslr camera is this responsive. Add to that the bright rangefinder and there's a camera that's still hard to beat. Unlike those new compacts that still feel like game consoles rather than cameras.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Viktor Sebastian

M8 or M9, the rest is a waste of time.

Yeah, I mean you wouldn't want to waste time with capable cameras... when you can pay out the ass for Leica.

[dreilly]

1) It is better than all of the other mooted alternatives because it is the largest sensor bar 'full frame'. The APS-H sensor size is equivalent to a Canon EOS 1D MK III. It's the next best thing to a full frame, basically.

Next best thing to full frame, barely. it's not a huge difference from APS-C and still a ways off from FF. If "better" means sharper, the new generation of sensors that have lower (or no) AA filters can be wickedly sharp. My OM-D is impressing me with its sharpness. The GXR with the Zeiss 25mm was so sharp the dng files kept falling out of my hard drive, they'd just cut right through it.

If better means high ISO performance, it's generations old and the smaller APS-C Sony sensor in the Nex 5n, A57, Pentax K5, Nikon D7000, is really the bees knees. The new sensor in the Oly OMD is also quite good. That doesn't seem to be a priority, so I get that.

I'm sure there are other ways of debating image quality, including dynamic range and color, etc, but I would say that it isn't a better sensor just because it's a bit bigger.

I had the M8 and the Epson R-D1 and though I loved the classic ergnomics of the M8, I far preferred the output of the R-D1. Why wouldn't that be a contender?

I had an M8 and I liked it...certainly

[f16sunshine]

Originally Posted by jippiejee

The thing, with everything else that's so enjoyable about it, about the M8 I like best is its immediate response when clicking that shutter. It feels like no shutter lag at all. No other non-dslr camera is this responsive. Add to that the bright rangefinder and there's a camera that's still hard to beat.

This statement is good caution and not to be underestimated although I did edit out the Game console part which I disagree with (no disrespect to jippiejee).

Being an early adopter of the Xpro1 (and RD1 all those years ago).
The M8/9 and RD1 are truly a instant RF experience. No Mirror like SLR/DSLR. No refresh time and Shutter lag like Evil cameras.
I miss this aspect of the M8 after moving sideways to the Fuji Xpro.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by dreilly

I had the M8 and the Epson R-D1 and though I loved the classic ergnomics of the M8, I far preferred the output of the R-D1. Why wouldn't that be a contender?

Perhaps he wants to print large?

[dannynono]

I use an M8 and Nex-5 as back-up. Aside from the fact that my M8 is beginning to show its age (i.e. needs servicing) it provides a much better, more natural shooting experience (night/day) from the Nex. My primary issue with the Nex: focus is still hit-n-miss (even with fringing turned on) especially if the lens is wide open. I do like having the option to shoot video (albeit inadvertently sometimes) and low-angle TLR-like shooting (with the screen flipped up) - so I've no plans to get rid of it.

[Manuphoto]

At this point, I doubt a M8 would be the way to go. True, it'll give you the rangefinder experience, but IQ will be outclassed by 2011-2012 cameras. By IQ, I don't only mean sharpness (the M8 is good with that aspect), but also colour rendition, dynamic range and ISO performance.

APS-C cameras and even Micro 4/3 are really impressive, especially for the price. I use a Sony NEX-7, and I'm always astonished by the results. It has a very thin AA filter, and sharpening is incredible, so are colours and DR. It's also very lightweight, sturdy, has a side EVF (it did take me some time to adapt to it, but it's incredible, it doesn't have the "waterfall effect" on lesser EVFs.

Lumix GX1 and Olympus OM-D are also very impressive. I've seen incredible 16x20 prints from all these cameras. Same goes for the Fuji X-Pro 1, even if I really don't like the "rangefinder wannabe" style of the camera (an MP or M9 is a rangefinder, not this), I prefer Sony's modern approach.

Another factor is the cost. A brand new Sony NEX-7 is less than $1200, an OM-D is $999... Even if you add $200 for a good adapter for M glass, we're still far from Leica's range, even used!

For all these reason, I strongly suggest NEX, Fuji or M 4/3 in our day and age, except if you can afford the M9 without selling a leg and absolutely want the rangefinder experience. But believe me, the NEX-7 isn't that far from it. Once set up, it's so instinctive to operate, nothing like my old SLRs. But it is a different approach and philosophy, and I understand people can disagree with it.

[Viktor Sebastian]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

Yeah, I mean you wouldn't want to waste time with capable cameras... when you can pay out the ass for Leica.

What ever man, there is no better body for the leica M lens then a Leica M. The other systems have their own good lenses better suited to their strengths.

[Symeon]

Quality wise, the M8 for sure. Investment wise, the M8 for sure. But accept its limitations and learn to live with them.
regards.

[Ben Z]

Originally Posted by Manuphoto

Another factor is the cost. A brand new Sony NEX-7 is less than $1200, an OM-D is $999... Even if you add $200 for a good adapter for M glass, we're still far from Leica's range, even used!

You have to remember his widest lens is a 28. That's 42 on the NEX and 56 on the OM-D. So add to your estimate another $3-600 for a used Voitlander 15 or 12. That brings him into M8 territory, price-wise, and those are quite slow lenses compared with his 28 Cron. Then there's the factor of DOF. Anything <APS-C and fuggettabout subject isolation via selective focus, except with really fast lenses, and even then it's not what it is on an M8 or M9.

[jaapv]

I have to say I have been looking at these cameras pretty intensively as a replacement for my DMR that is getting long in tooth especially with the lack of reliability of the R8/9.
The Xpro was the clear winner in IQ and concept, but an absolute PITA to focus manually. If only it had focus peaking. The NEX 7 was reasonably good IQ but too much of a glorified point and shoot and horrible ergonomics and the OMD was handicapped by the Micro 4/3rds system (although far better than I expected) but a brilliant concept with the EVF, IS in the camera and handgrip to turn it into a real camera. But all fell short of any fullframe DSLR, the DMR and even for shorter focal lengths M9 and M8. I will have to wait for the next generation. Maybe Leice will come with a good APS-H EVIL. That would be brilliant.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Viktor Sebastian

What ever man, there is no better body for the leica M lens then a Leica M. The other systems have their own good lenses better suited to their strengths.

I agree completely... but you said all other are a waste of time... which isn't completely true. There are some great cameras being made right now that aren't Leica that can use M lenses.

[thegman]

Originally Posted by Viktor Sebastian

What ever man, there is no better body for the leica M lens then a Leica M. The other systems have their own good lenses better suited to their strengths.

Not really buying into that, first of all with film Leicas, it makes no difference. Second of all, with digital you make the assumption that only Leica truly knows how to make a good M camera, but the fact that they required to use IR filters where Epson did not shows that technical skill is technical skill regardless of the name of company you work for.

Assuming that one thing is better than another simply because it's made by a certain company reminds me of the Mac/PC wars, or the AMD/Intel wars, or the ATI/NVidia wars which still persist in the computer scene. IMHO it's allowing companies to set your thoughts for you, rather than form them yourself. Not talking about you in particular, but the general message your post sends.

[Archiver]

I find the Ricoh GXR and M-module to be a wonderful complementary camera for M-lenses. The image quality is, dare I say it, very close to the M8 and perhaps better, even at low ISO's. The focus peaking system works pretty well, although better with shorter focal lengths and wider apertures. The GXR is in my bag just as much as the M9 these days.

[kanzlr]

hm. I prefer the Hexar RF to the M7 and the Ricoh GXR to the M8
both dedicated M mount cameras, of course.

and the GXR even works nicely with my MD and Leica-R lenses (and almost every manual SLR lens ever made)

[Ben Z]

Originally Posted by kanzlr

hm. I prefer the Hexar RF to the M7 and the Ricoh GXR to the M8

The Hexar vs M7 I agree with you (loaded & rewound much faster, 2 stops faster shutter speeds for using fast lenses wide open outdoors, built-in motorized advance). It's a pity they're basically unrepairable nowadays (though that's probably why they're so inexpensive), vs the M7 which is fully supported and also mine is worth more now used than I paid for it new. But about the GXR, it's a 1.5-crop (DOF issues in re selective focus for subject isolation) and it has an EVF, which may be a good one but it still (to my feeling) lacks the directness/immediacy of the Leica. I could use a brightline finder, but only practical with ultrawide lenses, or with others if stopped-down and zone focused. I realize this is a very personal objection. Most people I know have no issue with EVF's.

[kanzlr]

sure, but the GXR has very nice ergonomics. It is easy to hold and the customizable controls are easy to use. image quality is superb. and the focusing aids are nice. I dislike EVFs quite a lot, but with the nice focusing aid it is as easy to work than SLRs are. Not that I like SLRs that much

[donz]

GXR looks and feel promising..but the M8 have its own strength ..but the technology of M8 is pretty down the road...maybe wait another few months to get the M10 (maybe)

[viramati]

the only camera apart from the leica Ms with a sensor specifically made for RF lenses is the GXR. So if you want to shoot wider than a 35mm lens IMHO the only possible option is the GXR....