Leica M8: Poor mans M Monochrome?

[twopointeight]

I shoot an M8.2 with mainly a 35mm Summilux Aspherical. I use it for B&W jobs, editorial and corporate in nature, and make 13X19 and 17X22 prints. That's at 640 iso, and LR4 processing. No M9 or MM to compare, but for me, and a few discerning clients, it works. I plan to use this combo for a couple of more years, maybe more?

[raid]

Originally Posted by CameraQuest

well, it matters to me.

Considering what the Monochrom sells for compared to a used M8 or 8.2

If B/W from the older cameras are even remotely close to the much more expensive Monochrome at slower ISO's that is GREAT news to me - I own a 8.2!

Stephen

I agree with Stephen, in addition to my dismay of having some people here say things that pretty much amounts to putting other people's opinions down.


I think that all cameras do well if you know how to best use each camera.
I have used the M8 in B@W, and I find th results beautiful directly from the camera.

[rbelyell]

Originally Posted by CameraQuest

So eleskin has compared Monochrome results to M8 results and gets criticized for sharing his results by people who have not done the same comparison?

By people who don't own either camera?
Really? Seriously?

There has to be other RFF members who own both cameras willing to share their results on this interesting comparison.

Stephen

yup, that was my point above. i just dont get it. i have neither, but found the OP very interesting, and in some ways eminently sensible. why some need to slam OP is beyond me...

[back alley]

ok, from now...disagreements will no longer be allowed on rff...is that what people want?

[doolittle]

Originally Posted by FrankS

You've got to admit that it flies in the face of logic though. A company like Leica, as driven as they are by image quality (its sort of their schtik) to design and build a new camera based on digital technology that is still improving, that is outperformed by their previous generation discontinued camera? That is just crazy man.

Do I detect a touch of irony or sarcasm here?
The underlying sensor is the same on the M8,M8.2,M9 and MM. Yes there some differences on the size of the sensor and the toppings on top, but there isn't really much of a generational difference between them, more nuisances. Biggest difference is the difference in processing between the M8s and the later models, the strengthening of the IR filter and the removal of the bayer filter on the MM. Thus I think the OP makes a valid aesthetic argument, which is of course a matter of taste.

It's not heresy to compare the pictures produced by each of the cameras. In film terms it's comparing Tri-X with Acros or the results achieved by different developers. It's the look and not mathematics.

Offering an opinion that newer doesn't have to mean better isn't ridiculous or illogical.

[jarski]

some comparison photos would be nice. personally dont believe M8 sensor would be better than later models, anymore than RD1 often having such comments here.

[bonatto]

Sometimes we seem to forget that our masterclass heroes used to shoot slow lenses, slow cameras, and slow film. What we have today is a huge spectrum of comforts and technological privileges. Today you can get a good M8 for £1000, so from a practical sense it's still much more accessible than an MM.

Are they different? Yes.

Vastly so? Maybe.

Does it really matter if you're taking pictures of a cat? Not really.

Bottom line, Canon, Leica, or iPhone, what really counts is what's placed within those four edges.

I must say though, it would be awesome to pixel peep 100%'s side by side from both cameras, especially with some fresh ASPH glass in front. May just remind us what a good value the M8 really is!

[leicashot]

Originally Posted by CameraQuest

well, it matters to me.

Considering what the Monochrom sells for compared to a used M8 or 8.2

If B/W from the older cameras are even remotely close to the much more expensive Monochrome at slower ISO's that is GREAT news to me - I own a 8.2!

Stephen

My point is that none of it matters when people are getting emotional over a disagreement. We're all here to enjoy the forum, yet people become so upset when others disagree over pointless speculation. Unless people can provide side by side examples, no one is correct.....and I have a Monochrom.

[leicapixie]

The M8 is a good camera even if Leica is busy burying it. It is not perfect. My M3 is not perfect. The OP made a valid observation. I have noticed on two of my digital cameras similar great B/W but sometimes awful color, the magenta problem. One of the boxes has a Kodak sensor.. Heavy magenta influence.
Cloudy days a special no-no. Yet both deliver superb B/W. No programs needed, no green channel adjustments. Leica's use of certain photographers photos, to publicize their camera, are very contrasty and sooty.
I am pleased with his observation. I have made similar observations about so called APO lenses. A few lenses sold as such, are not.

[Roger Hicks]

Like most people, I've not tried it. But:

(1) It is counterintuitive that the M8 should be better. This is not the same as 'untrue'.

(2) Without a thorough, long-term test it is impossible to say, "This camera, with which I am familiar, is superior to a camera I have tried briefly." Or, of course, vice versa.

(3) For B+W prints, wet-printed film still wipes the floor with digital as far as I am concerned.

Cheers,

R.

[mathomas]

Those that are printing at 17x27", are you doing it by reducing print DPI, or by interpolation? I ask because I have an M8 print at 13x19", and it is just beginning to pixelate. Just curious here since I'd like to print large sometimes.

I think the OP said something like the M8 seems comparable to a Fuji GW in resolution. I actually did some side-by-side testing with an M8 and a GW690, and the M8 held up very well at "normal" sizes. However, I think I could have milked more and more (and more) resolution out of the GW negatives, given the right (super-expensive) scanner.

I sold my M8, but I sometimes miss using it as a B&W camera. May get an M9 someday, since the M8 has been dropped from Leica support :-(.

[leicashot]

How about we agree that they will be different? Better is very subjective, and besides that, people will see what they want to see in a way that suits them best.

[ChrisN]

Originally Posted by eleskin

I have an exhibition up right now with 27" wide prints from my M8 and everyone is blown away by the image quality!

Another point: The Image quality from the M8 blows away my M6 with film and is more like shooting with my Fuji GSW 690. We are getting spoiled by pixel peeping these days. I have been using film since the 1980's and have an MFA in photography from Pratt Institute. The M8 was my first digital camera and I feel the M9 was too close in performance to upgrade. For me,
I shoot for the final print and I am very happy with what the M8 can deliver. I tested the M9 3 times and printed 17" x 22" and I thought the M8 delivered crisper files.

The M looks like a nice camera, and so does the MM, but I like many do not have 8K lying around and feel from a cost/perfomance perspective, The M8 combined with the X Pro 1 makes more sense for me and others.

I thought you were making a good case right up to last statement. At that point, your argument stopped being about image quality and became an argument based on the cost of a particular camera.

I'd love to see your exhibition prints though - and also see prints made with the same workflow from the MM. I'll bet 99% of the people viewing would be thinking about the images, not what camera was used.

[PatrickCheung]

all words no photos... I own an M8, would love to own an MM some day, but probably won't in the near future. I'm a little colour blind so I convert most of my files to B&W unless my girlfriend helps me correct colour. I'm happy with what the M8 gives me. I usually only print as gifts to friends, so print size doesn't matter much for me. The M8 has a certain quality to the images it produces that can't be replaced by the newer digital M's (which I find produce files that are a little too plastic-y).

I don't know if it's better than the MM, but here's what I do with my M8, and I'm happy. I don't think the OP is delusional or absurd.

[Phil_F_NM]

Pixel-for-pixel, my M8 always made sharper images than my M9 so one might conclude that the Monocrom would fare the same against the M8. With regard to tonality, the monocrom probably has the advantage but the ability to manipulate color channels selectively with the M8 could also give it an edge.

Me, I'm back to film rangefinders.

Phil Forrest

[rpsawin]

Originally Posted by PatrickCheung

. here's what I do with my M8, and I'm happy.

Perhaps this is the real point.

Best regards,

Bob

[GaryLH]

Originally Posted by rpsawin

Perhaps this is the real point.

Best regards,

Bob

+1

In the end that is really all that matters.

Gary

[jaapv]

I can get great B&W images from my M8 - always have and personally I think it is slightly better than the M9 in this discipline, but I can assure you they don't even come near to the results I get from my Monochrom. The image count on it is over 3000 now

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

(3) For B+W prints, wet-printed film still wipes the floor with digital as far as I am concerned.

Cheers,

R.

I will come back to this one when I get some prints done by the dedicated Monochrome Whitewall-Leica service. I find the print I got from Leica at the introduction of a Sobol shot quite impressive, but his style does not lend itself to technical comparisons.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Rangefinderfreak

Depending of what your aims are: M8 is perfectly OK for web images ( Flickr etc.) but if you are after Exhibition images, M8 will not deliver.

Surely the M8 has been used in many an exhibition. Also lesser digital cameras have been too.

[steveniphoto]

im sure we all now that the camera only matters to a certain extent. in fact here's the perfect example.. photos shot by Magnum's own Alex Majoli on old Olympus digital p&s cameras

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...id=7-6468-7844

the issue here is whether the <2k M8 can produce better files than the 8k MM at lower ISO. i dont care either way but it would be interesting if we could get some comparisons up. they're both great cameras and if you could afford that type of stuff then more power to you.

[daveywaugh]

Originally Posted by back alley

ok, from now...disagreements will no longer be allowed on rff...is that what people want?

It's the way things are sometime said around here. As a moderator you should know this ;-) You make a valid comment, but perhaps just tone down the wording a little. We don't need to put people down even if we violently disagree. Disagreement and debate is great - but being 'smart' isn't.

[Rangefinderfreak]

I try to post a few images, keep in mind that they have gone thru the "Flickr mill"
First the M8 image: It shows a nice "grain", I like it, but when viewed in original size, arguably nowhere the quality of the M-M image further down.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/4014628...ream/lightbox/

Then two M-M images, one full and other, a crop.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/4014628...in/photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/4014628...n/photostream/

Also the M-M shows a little camera shake. I am sorry, but maybe you get the idea ?

Hope this proves my point in my first post on this subject. I also agree with Stephen: It is funny when people have opinions, even they haven`t touched the M-M ...

[leicashot]

I think the skills between photographers will negate any differences people perceive between the cameras.

[FrankS]

Yes of course, it is the photographer that is more important than the gear, but that isn't the question, which is: Does the M8 produce Tecnically superior files/output to the M9. Isn't this somewhat like saying that a 35mm camera produces Tecnically better results than a medium format camera (all other things being equal)? By "Tecnically" I mean sharpness, rich tonality, dynamic range, lack of digital noise, etc.