M8 (and RD1) niche untouched

[Lss]

Originally Posted by damien.murphy

I applaud others who play the M8/ R-D1 roulette, but its not for me.

I don't want to play roulette with my M8 and R-D1 either. Luckily they can still be used for photography.

[damien.murphy]

Hmm.. perhaps there's a market for an updated crop sensor digital rangefinder, but to be be honest, see nothing revolutionary in it. Nothing to show any sign of progress since the R-D1 or M8 were introduced. A reasonably priced full frame digital CL/ CLE-type camera would be a game changer. For those of us who shoot film Leica's (and I'm suggesting this is where the untapped niche is for a more affordable digital rangefinder), we want our lenses to give the same field of view on a digital rangefinder as our film one.

Those folks who were both willing to accept a crop factor and also the myriad of risks that came with buying a used digital rangefinder, have already settled for an M8 or R-D1. What I'm talking about here are all those shooting Leica or Bessa film rangefinders, these folks remain entirely unserved by both Leicas current offerings, as well as used Leica or Epson options.

The naysayers who say this can't be done (and for a reasonable price), seem to be many, and as naysayers go, all sound reasonable, but when is the last time the voice of moderation or reason was the fuel for advancement. To say there is no market for a more reasonably priced full frame digital rangefinder is ridiculous. I'm not sure how many film rangefinder shooters are out there, perhaps Leica M & Bessa production numbers would give us a good idea, but it easily numbers in the tens, if not hundreds of thousands, and to say that is not a market is simply ridiculous.

Something like that, could be the making of Leica, but to be honest they don't seem to have that much vision. I think they could do quite well with a digital CL/CLE serving as an entry level body, and a full M as their flagship. Less people might buy M9's, but that would be more than made up for by combined sales CL/CLE's & M's, as well as the fact Leica would now own an enlarged digital rangefinder market effectively, and put Leica on quite a stable footing simply through camera volume sales.

[Keith]

I never got over the crop factor with my M8 but for some reason it hasn't fazed me with the Epson ... probably because it's now the only rangefinder I shoot with whereas when I had the M8 I owned numerous other RF film bodies.

My 50 Sonnar is now my 75 ... my 35 Nokton is now my 50 ... my 25 Distagon is around 35 and my 15mm Heliar is a 23. I should grind all the markings off them and relabel them because it seems unlikely they'll be going on a full frame body in the near future!

[damien.murphy]

Originally Posted by Lss

I don't want to play roulette with my M8 and R-D1 either. Luckily they can still be used for photography.

Ha ha. Most I have spent on a camera body was 1500 euro, and that was for one that was new and worked. The prospect of dropping 2000 euro on a camera which for that price is used, many years old, and with a checkered history of reliability, is not for me. Like you, I would simply prefer to be taking photographs, and not worrying about the camera, or what will happen if something goes wrong.

No thanks, give me a Fuji, which is the real bottom line here, as the Fuji may scratch an itch, but is not a digital rangefinder, for those of us who love shooting with our film M's and would like a digital option too.

[sanmich]

the main problem I see with a crop sensor is the availability of fast wide lenses, which is important for most RF shooters.

[Archiver]

In Japan a couple of years ago I bought the R-D1 'mook', containing hundreds of photos of the R-D1 along with all manner of lens tests and image samples. Incredible book and something that tempted me to get the camera. In fact, Map Camera in Shinjuku had a few secondhand ones at decent prices. But I couldn't get over the 6mp sensor and 1.5 crop factor.

But now I have a Ricoh GXR and I have somehow rationalized the crop factor because the sensor is 12mp, it has no AA filter, and the modules are interchangeable with a number of other fun and useful things. I often use the GXR as a backup or complementary camera for the M9, but I still think about the R-D1. I hear the R-D1x is being dumped for much lower prices these days...

[Lss]

Like you, I would simply prefer to be taking photographs, and not worrying about the camera, or what will happen if something goes wrong.

I can understand that sentiment, but no warranty given by the manufacturer will cover the photographs and opportunities you lose. Especially those ones you lose while waiting for something that has not even been announced yet. With the M8/R-D1 I am not losing the photos or opportunities, although I would still prefer a full frame camera. Something else will work better for someone else.

[jarski]

Originally Posted by damien.murphy

Like you, I would simply prefer to be taking photographs, and not worrying about the camera, or what will happen if something goes wrong.

am reconsidering buying M8 again (will see if D600 from Nikon materialize this summer). Leica not working is not even consideration for me, I know it works.

[noimmunity]

Originally Posted by damien.murphy

Hmm.. perhaps there's a market for an updated crop sensor digital rangefinder, but to be be honest, see nothing revolutionary in it. Nothing to show any sign of progress since the R-D1 or M8 were introduced. A reasonably priced full frame digital CL/ CLE-type camera would be a game changer.

There doesn't need to be anything revolutionary in the updated crop sensor camera. In fact, people who want an affordable updated dRF *don't want anything revolutionary*, they just want the timeless RF body with a current generation APS-level output.

A FF model priced at 1/2 the price of the flagship model wouldn't make any sense for Leica, and is almost certainly not feasible economically. The only thing that really distinguishes the M9 from the M8 besides the enormous price differential is the FF sensor. Surely very few people would otherwise pay the premium for the convenience of menu coding and 1 stop better ISO performance.

I hope this doesn't become another thread of pipe dreams wishing for the Bessa-priced FF dRF.

[tom.w.bn]

From time to time I think about going M8 -> M9 but then I look at my lenses that fit nicely to the crop factor and besides the cost for the camera I had to switch 1 or 2 lenses. I think I'll stay with the M8 as long as it works.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by noimmunity

I have both, and I agree (with your disagreement). The XP1 doesn't replace a camera with a combined mechanical VF/RF. They do make a sweet pair, however, that does things an M9 alone for instance couldn't do.

I guess I wasn't as enamored with the mechanical RF as I thought...because my M9 is lonely since I got the X-Pro1. Some of the advantages of the X-Pro1 (close focus, weight, high ISO) have got me to the point where I feel I may miss something if I go out with the M9 alone. I haven't been able to bring myslef to sell the M9 yet though.

[noimmunity]

Originally Posted by jsrockit

I guess I wasn't as enamored with the mechanical RF as I thought...because my M9 is lonely since I got the X-Pro1. Some of the advantages of the X-Pro1 (close focus, weight, high ISO) have got me to the point where I feel I may miss something if I go out with the M9 alone. I haven't been able to bring myslef to sell the M9 yet though.

If you sell your M9, that may be a bellwether move.

I, too, use the M8 much much less now that I have the XP1. When I go out with just one body, it will be a choice between film and the XP1, depending on what I want. With two bodies, I almost always prefer to take one film RF and the XP1--unless it is strictly for landscape, in which case I will take the M8.

If the M8.3 were to sport a clean ISO 3200+, I would often prefer to take it instead of the XP1.

[donz]

Im still contemplating whether to sell my M6 TTL to go with M8. There are one shop wanna sell it at AUS$2750..which I think quite high ...

but at the same time the XP1 looks solid and promising...confused

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by donz

Im still contemplating whether to sell my M6 TTL to go with M8. There are one shop wanna sell it at AUS$2750..which I think quite high ...

but at the same time the XP1 looks solid and promising...confused

Do not get the Fuji as a Leica replacement. Get it because you like the Fuji. If you really love the mechanical RF, nothing is a substitute. Me, I like AF and mechnical RFs best... so the Fuji works for me.

One thing I could do is sell the M9 and get a M8 for when I'm jonzing for the RF patch.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by noimmunity

unless it is strictly for landscape, in which case I will take the M8.

I feel the same way. I'd use the Leica in that situation as well.

If the M8.3 were to sport a clean ISO 3200+, I would often prefer to take it instead of the XP1.

Me too perhaps, but I'm not so sure anymore.

[Rob-F]

How about an M8.3W (Wide), with 21mm framelines? If it had a 0.51 finder magnification, The 21mm framelines would be just as easy to see as the 28mm frame in the M8.2. The frameline selection would be 21/24/28/35/50. While we are at it, let's make the crop factor 1.25; it would only call for just a little bit larger sensor, and then the 28mm could have a true 35mm field. Leave the framelines normalized to a 2 meter distance, as they are in the M8.2.

[willie_901]

Originally Posted by noimmunity

......

Fast forward to today and I'm not talking about a FF replacement, but rather an update to a crop-factor model that would basically bring better high-ISO, user-definable lens-code menu, perhaps a better battery and LCD screen, and the framelines of the M8.2 into a new APS-H or APS-C M8.3 model.

How much thicker than the current M8 body would you tolerate for improved sensor performance?

[noimmunity]

Originally Posted by willie_901

How much thicker than the current M8 body would you tolerate for improved sensor performance?

I would prefer it not to be any thicker. What are the choices involved?

[Jobin]

There is a black paint, black dot m8.2 on craigslist right now that I would do unforgivable things for. Even sell my film gear...

[CrisR]

Having realised that my M6 had become my go-to camera over several digitals, i've just found myself in a position where they've been sold and an M8 purchased.

If the Xpro had been Full Frame, i would have considered it more, but in the end all i wanted was exactly what i had with my M6 (with regards to the shooting experience) but digital.

If Leica had introduced something similar in spec to the M8 on May 10th, for a similar price to the used market, i would have been all over it (i delayed my purchase so i could wait and see) but as was pointed out before, Leica have their Compacts, their X range and their premium M range - they have no reason to offer a cut-price M9. Buy an X2 or save up.

[lam]

Some very valid points in this thread.

I do agree that to get the 'digital rangefinder experience', yes the R-D1, M8, M9 and M-M and future M10 are the only ticket.

The Fuji cannot replace that experience completely, but for some of us who have experienced this "roulette" or aforementioned digital mechanical rangefinders, I think the Fuji does a good job of 'faking the funk' as it will that a mechanical RF offers. I say this, in the sense of having aperture control at the ring of the lens, shutter speed dial on top, and an Optical viewfinder. No rangefinder patch and mechanical framelines that move about.

It's just in my experience, the costly nature of repair for the aging digital rangefinders is too rich for my blood (right now); as is the dedication to spend that much up front for it anyways. I understand the "Pay to Play" aspect of owning those cameras. Maybe in the future when the M9 is within the few thousand, range it may become viable again, as an image producing machine to take out and have fun. I tried using my M8 for work photography and it did work, I racked up 8k actuations in a matter of a few months before the sensor decided to have a dead pixel and a $250-300 dollar remapping.

If you love it that much and wish to pay, then by all means there is no replacement. (I thought this way for a long time too, Noise performance, PAH, ~640 ISO hand-hold that shot) For some of us, the film M's are good 'enough' for that experience.

Sidenote, it's kinda neat being able to do 'Macro' with a OVF camera ! Like JSrockit mentioned about some of the advantages.

I'd get another M8 for fun, but as a main digital, probably not.

[Rotarysmp]

I bought an M8 a couple of months ago as my M2 and 50 summicon has been stored unused for years when I went EOS digital.

Since getting the M8, and then a 28 summicron, I have used the M2 more in 2 months than in the last 10 years. Getting the M8 was a win-win.

28 - 50 is a good pair for me on the M8.

[dreilly]

I had an R-D1, sold it for a GXR, then sold the GXR for another R-D1. Roller coaster. The R-D1 was one of the most enjoyable digital photographic experiences, from ergonomics to image quality. Just loved the camera. Didn't love the lack of versatility to do different kinds of shooting (OMD does that for me) and didn't love the spectacularly poor battery life. But otherwise, it was great. Looking at the X100, it can't be more expensive to manufacture a mechanical rangefinder than that hybrid viewfinder, can it? And there's little to no R&D for a mechanical rangefinder. Anyway, an update of the R-D1 would be fantastic...enable it for live view shooting for those who like it (at times) and give it better high-ISO capability with the 16mp Sony wonderchip. Maybe lose the quaint shutter cocking lever? Soften the shutter noise. Bang. Win.

[CrisR]

Despite not enjoying shooting with it, I retained the NEX3 with adaptor for 3 reasons

1. It shoots video
2. It's tiny
3. It was $150, so what's the point in selling it?

I sold the 60D because

1. i didn't want to invest in 2 separate lines of quality glass
2. it didn't feel like shooting with a Leica did

Technically it can be argued both are "better value" than the M8. It could also be said that at 14mp and 18mp, both are "better specced" cameras.

None of that made any difference when i picked up the M8 and it was everything i love in my M6 and nothing that i hated about my NEX or 60D.

You pay the money for a Leica, because anything else feels wrong.

Ps. the M8 is the most money i've spent on any single item since my car - i saved a long time and didn't make the purchase lightly, so i'm certainly not speaking from a position of "get a better job, plebs"

[furcafe]

I've had this discussion w/Dave Burnett & others, & while I agree there is certainly a market for a "discount" full-frame digital w/traditional optical RF/VF, it's still a niche market & I don't think we would see one for less than the $3K range. Even if Nikon, for example, were to dust off & upgrade their resurrected SP 2005 assembly line to make a DSP, I can't see them selling it for much less than Leica-like prices. A crop-factor body would probably be easier to make & cost less, but it's possibly an even smaller niche (though I could be wrong given all the folks using RF glass on their mirrorless bodies).

Originally Posted by damien.murphy

The naysayers who say this can't be done (and for a reasonable price), seem to be many, and as naysayers go, all sound reasonable, but when is the last time the voice of moderation or reason was the fuel for advancement. To say there is no market for a more reasonably priced full frame digital rangefinder is ridiculous. I'm not sure how many film rangefinder shooters are out there, perhaps Leica M & Bessa production numbers would give us a good idea, but it easily numbers in the tens, if not hundreds of thousands, and to say that is not a market is simply ridiculous.

Something like that, could be the making of Leica, but to be honest they don't seem to have that much vision. I think they could do quite well with a digital CL/CLE serving as an entry level body, and a full M as their flagship. Less people might buy M9's, but that would be more than made up for by combined sales CL/CLE's & M's, as well as the fact Leica would now own an enlarged digital rangefinder market effectively, and put Leica on quite a stable footing simply through camera volume sales.