Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Can the Leica M8 do decent colour shots?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2011 10:05 pm    Post subject: Can the Leica M8 do decent colour shots? Reply with quote



I think so!


PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2011 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
with or without IR filter? Twisted Evil Laughing


PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2011 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You tell me Smile


without


PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
important thing is that youre enjoying it!

could you tell me the difference between the m8 & 8.2?


PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:

could you tell me the difference between the m8 & 8.2?


New shutter (quieter, but with slower top speed), and various other details:
http://www.imx.nl/photo/Analysis/page121/page121.html


PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The M8 has some problems (not always) with black.

I would love to have an M8 even with those "terrible colours". Wink


PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks gang

re: m8 and m8.2 there is an interim model , the m8u , Iknow that, because...........

.....thats what I have! its the m8 with the upgraded lcd glass, viewfinder lines and shutter upgrade , these were added after purchase by the previous owner. It still has the red dot and the older style *leather* however

the m8.2 has all of that built in, plus it has a black dot ( looks cool!) and a vulcanite coating thats like the old Leica M3

Plus price

new m8 4995$ m8.2 6295
used m8 2200 used m8.2 3495

used m8u that the seller insisted was an m8 vanilla 2400 , then I received an email from Leica AG telling me that it had all the upgrades done to it, so I got it for about 1000 less than I should have!


PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
re: IR problems, this is what the sunset really looked like!!




PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
the real question is :

is the Leica M series worth its price ? some people say that it is really the leica glass that makes the images. if so would you justify buying a m4/3 or nex and using the leica glass on it?


PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Leica M series lenses are fantastic, if you do a quick lookon flickr, you can see shots taken with 4/3rds cameras and M glass that are phenomenal

Saying that however, the M8 and M9s have no anti aliasing filter and larger sensors, ( M8 is a 1.33 crop and the m9 is full frame)


PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Guys, I am thinking of getting a M8 after so many years being published. Is it still a worthy camera to go with? I am too much away from M9 budget.....

Most likely would be after the rumors of M10 release on May 10, M8 might go further slash on the price.....


PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you want my opinion, as an owner of M9...
The Kodak sensor is fantastic. Most resolving sensor that I ever used. It needs colour profiling though. The embedded profile is terrible, too unbalanced on the greens.
I have made my custom profiles for all shooting situations and I have perfect colours now.
Is it worth the money? Probably yes, but it's still a lot of money though.
I speak frankly: if there was a full frame NEX when I bought the M9 in beginning of 2010, I would have chosen the NEX. I am sure that the Leica is sharper and more resolving, just because nothing possibly can be more.
But still, with a full frame NEX I would have spent half the money, most probably. For a good enough quality, also probably.
I think that today the only reason to spend a lot of money on a Leica digital is the full frame sensor of the M9.
I am sure that Leica M8 is still a great camera, but it's a crop format, same as Sony NEX, and with NEX cameras available for as little as some 300 Euros, I think NEX is a no brainer purchase, even if the image quality of M8 is probably unrivalled by Nex.
But hey, we're talking of some 2000 Euros difference (on average) between a new NEX and a used M8. Both cropped sensor. A difference that is not filled by a difference in image quality in my opinion, if buyer's on a budget.
(if you are rich, then what the heck... Wink )
If my choice today was to buy between a M8 and a Sony NEX, I would buy the NEX no hesitation.
Of course, full frame is full frame... so if I could afford a M9, I'd still buy one.
But the day Sony will release a full frame NEX, I would also prefer it over a M9, always because of the price gap.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
imperian wrote:
Guys, I am thinking of getting a M8 after so many years being published. Is it still a worthy camera to go with? I am too much away from M9 budget.....

Most likely would be after the rumors of M10 release on May 10, M8 might go further slash on the price.....


i have read a lot about the digi M cameras, both 'expert' and regular folks on various forums. as orio said it seems the sensor, resolving power etc is excellent on both. if you require the RF 'experience in shooting the only other alternative is the epson rd1, at6mp, so really if its a RF patch you want, if its frame lines you want, thats it.

now for the negative. it seems universal dogma that these are not low light/high iso cameras. many folks on the rangefinder forum seem to have some other mirrorless cam, like the x100 or some new nex, for thise situations. the M8s REQUIRE that you put IR filters on your beautiful and expensive leica glass, because their technology did not allow them to compensate for their decision to increase resolving power at the expense of an IR filter. so without the filters the camera cannot render black and there is plenty of moire.

every camera entails compromise. ive made them with my digi setup. the particular compromises demanded by the M8s were too much for me before i even considered price. once that was thrown in it became a fleeting thought. but thats me. its just a matter of fully understanding what equipment can and cant do and honestly pairing that up with how you in particular shoot and what you expect from your equipment. my only advice is to make this analysis with brutal honesty as it will save you disappointment in the long run.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, digtal Ms are not cameras for high ISO use.
For B&W snapshots, however, journalistic approach, they can be acceptable. I doubt that anyone would use a rangefinder camera for high quality night photography or sports photography, anyway.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
imperian wrote:
Guys, I am thinking of getting a M8 after so many years being published. Is it still a worthy camera to go with? I am too much away from M9 budget.....

Most likely would be after the rumors of M10 release on May 10, M8 might go further slash on the price.....


YES! It is worth it if you are interested in a digital M rangefinder. Used prices are coming into the 15-1800 range similar to the NEX7.
With the release this week of the Fuji XP1 prices will likely dip lower temporarily.
I predict there are a group of people mostly dentists and doctors (just kidding it's a funny stereotype Very Happy ) who are still holding slightly used M8's and will dump them for the new AF Fuji system.
After a while the prices will climb back to a even spot around 17-2000 as people realize the M8 is a very unique and capable image maker.
The only rival for a digital Rangefinder is an M9.

I'll keep m8 for now having been a long time RF user. It's served perfectly well and does exactly what it did when new now 5 years later.
I passed on the M9 as it is not enough of an upgrade fro the price. The m10 may be the next upgrade for me but, time will tell when it is released and to what benefit it brings.
The IR issues are non issues for me and my set of filters cost about $300 for my 10 or so lenses. The reality is all digital cameras have some IR interference from time to time.
Used and perfectly usable filters are available for $25-$40 from M9 adopters who, really should keep them as the m9 is far from immune to ir issues.
With Noise reduction of LR3/4 or NN iso 1250 is perfectly usable in the M8 if you print rather than pixel peep (some even will say to 2500).
In camera B+W high ISO is already quite comfortable with 1250 if (a big if) ... you expose generously enough. Most complaints about noise I notice are in underexposed photos!!

The bottom line question to ask yourself is,.... do you want a digital rangefinder or do you want a digital platform for rangefinder lenses?


PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
F16SUNSHINE wrote:

The bottom line question to ask yourself is,.... do you want a digital rangefinder or do you want a digital platform for rangefinder lenses?

Exactly. And: can you afford one? Wink


PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
i think its important to not pooh pooh the m8s negatives. to say all cams suffer from IR issues is i think not giving that issue on the m8 due seriousness. i certainly do not have the historic knowlege of other members, but i cannot remember any other camera ever that REQUIRED the use of filters on all lenses to operate properly. now perhaps that is not an issue for some. but i can say definitivelt it was virtually a dispositive issue for me. and since i always assume nothing unique in my analysis, i would guess it was a dispositve issue for others besides me.

this is what i meant in my prior post about doing onesself a disservice by not being brutally honest about the negatives of a given system measured against how one likes to shoot and what one expects from their equipment. if the RF 'expeience'- framelines and focusing patches- truly trump every other consideration, then the M8 may be for you, though you can avoid these IR filter issues with an RD 1 for half price. but definitey take seriously the downside and what they mean for your everyday enjoyment before making that heavy investment.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
i think its important to not pooh pooh the m8s negatives. to say all cams suffer from IR issues is i think not giving that issue on the m8 due seriousness. i certainly do not have the historic knowlege of other members, but i cannot remember any other camera ever that REQUIRED the use of filters on all lenses to operate properly. now perhaps that is not an issue for some. but i can say definitivelt it was virtually a dispositive issue for me. and since i always assume nothing unique in my analysis, i would guess it was a dispositve issue for others besides me.

this is what i meant in my prior post about doing onesself a disservice by not being brutally honest about the negatives of a given system measured against how one likes to shoot and what one expects from their equipment. if the RF 'expeience'- framelines and focusing patches- truly trump every other consideration, then the M8 may be for you, though you can avoid these IR filter issues with an RD 1 for half price. but definitey take seriously the downside and what they mean for your everyday enjoyment before making that heavy investment.


Mountains and mole hills Tony seriously. Filtering lenses is absolutely no big deal. I know you have a great issue with this IR thing believe me, if you had the m8 for a while you would never even think about it at all.
And yes, IR was an issue for the RD1 as well. I owned one side by side with my M8's.
It wasn't until I started using the IR filters on my lenses that i saw the best performance from my Rd1.
The m8 admittedly has the lowest protection from near IR of any consumer camera yes that's true. Some MF backs have thinner filters as well some digital video recording devices.
Filtering for IR is a fact of life for Digital sensors. Different manufacturers and situations have it handled in different ways.
One of the reason for the M8/M9 file resolution is that there is little between the sensor and the lens. A benefit that comes with a caveat.
Filtering is a no brainer and not an issue for long time users of the camera.
I, like many people, filter lenses the moment I purchase them. Of the few new lenses I own, none of them have ever had their front element cleaned... ever because, I filter them straight away.
To me a high quality filter is as important as a hood for shooting outside of the studio.

All Filters can cause some flare issues in extreme conditions that's true. In those cases I have pulled the filters on occasion. I can count those occasions on one hand with the m8 and maybe twice as often with my 5D. It just does not come up often.
Bigger issues are missing focus or being to slow on the draw. Or spending too much time online and not being there for the shot Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
andy i have read recently that technology has advanced to the point where the AA filter can now be pretty much dispensed with and there is no corresponding moire issues. that is one of the big advances in the fuji xpro1 i believe. even the new omd has a severely weakened AA filter with no adverse IR effects. i think its just a matter of waiting for technology to sufficiently advance so the resolving power can be achieved without moire. i take no issue with the many who like using filters as a matter of course and i,m sure you dont take issue with the many who dont like them. for many using them is indeed a 'no brainer', for other its like showering wearing a raincoat--just a matter of preference, but a very real and significant prefence nonetheless. my only point is that one should consider which side of that fence one is on before making the investment in an m8 where such filters are not a matter of choice.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2012 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think the real discrimination point is: do you want it full frame or not?
Because full frame vs. crop format is the big difference that influences the use of lenses - much more than IR filters.
Keep in mind that, differently from SLR cameras, the typical use of rangefinder cameras is 90% of the time related with wide and standard lenses, and only 10% related to tele lenses.
If you want full frame, there is no digital alternative to M9 as of today.
If you take also APS-C, then you have choice between M8, Epson RD, and Sony NEX line. And you can then start reasoning about the features, the useability, the prices, etc.
and take your choice based on the combination of all factors.


PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
it can do night shots, but it has to bee bright out though







and some more vivid colour




PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
For me the "IR-Problem" is a pro as the m8 is able to make nice IR shots with an filter without any hardware modification Smile
Also on B/W you get very nice discreet panchromatic effect which are perfect for potraits and skin tones
And the colors wihtout any filter are not that bad to my eyes.

Bye the way, as far as I know the biggest practical issues in many reviews of the M8 was that the exposure correction was a little circumstantial while the 8.2 or the M9s don't have this issue.

I already started saving money for an M8 bye the way Smile


PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That car looks great! I've just started using my first rangefinder today, the Olympus 35 RC. I love the focusing mechanism! Can't someone release a fixed lens digital rangefinder with a T* or some Leica on the front? Something about 40mm f/2 will be fine thanks!!

In all seriousness, I'd love an M8 or M9 but I just can't justify it. Film is cheap though Laughing


PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks MF-G!

Im really liking the M8 and the rangefinder experience, i recently discovered 2 things that should come to fruition within a few weeks ( once the shipments arrive) once I get the *stuff* and if it works as I hope , Ill post some shots.

also: to the people crapping on the High ISO capabilities of the M8, here is one at ISO 2500 using an Elmarit 135/2.8 , handheld at 1/45th of a second ( and at f2.Cool



I also discovered a trick to make Higher ISOs work , overexpose a bit and then drop it in post processing as the M8 has quite a lot of dynamic range available (Over exposed works best , if you try the other way you get a LOT of noise)


here is another except is a B+W JPG straight out of the camera at ISO 2500



PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dude163 wrote:

I also discovered a trick to make Higher ISOs work , overexpose a bit and then drop it in post processing


Agreed.
Another tactic, convert the photo to B&W by dropping the noisier channel (usually it's blue).
Instant gain of a couple of stops Wink
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Rangefinder / Viewfinder Cameras
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2