Leica Considering an M8 ... Thoughts and suggestions?

Penfan2010

All-Pro
Location
NJ, USA
Real Name
Ed
Carl - you may want to look at the Voigtlander range as well; I;ve had a great experience witht the 15mm Super-Heliar on my m43 kit, X-Pro, and now the M8. I was debating on whether to get a 21mm or 25mm (they go for a little over $400 new); I found a 25mm listed on eBay from Photovillage in NYC for a good price, and am looking forward to using it on both the M8 and my X-Pro. Good luck!
 

Vidar

Veteran
Location
Bergen, Norway
Real Name
Vidar
I love using the manual focus lenses, and the "slow" shooting. So I never regretted getting my M8 in december 12. I can´t afford an M9 for some time, but I am really glad I got the M8.

Good luck!
 

LLCT

New Member
I'm considering a M8 lately. However, could M8 use M42 lenses? If using an adapter, how could the lens focus? Please share your valuable experience. Thanks.
 
The only Leica M that can "easily" use M42 mount lenses with a simple adapter is the new M type 240. It has "Liveview" for focus, makes it a mirrorless camera. A Fuji, Sony, or other mirrorless camera would also take them easily.

It is possible to use the M42 mount 50/1.4 Super-Takumar and SMC Takumar with an M8 by making an RF cam for it, and attaching to the back of the lens. My M8 has the 50/1.4 RF-Coupled Super-Tak on it now, using a $20 adapter and an RF cam made from an old tripod leg.
 

Attachments

  • azalia_2_f14.jpg
    azalia_2_f14.jpg
    130.4 KB · Views: 197
  • pentax_50_14_baffling.jpg
    pentax_50_14_baffling.jpg
    161.3 KB · Views: 199

usayit

Veteran
Or is there an suggestion for great 28mm lens which fit for M8 mount (no need adapter) but not Leica brand? Thanks.

The very compact 28mm Elmarit seems to be a popular option. I personally was happy with the 28mm Voigtlander Ultron f/1.9 in LTM (with in expensive M adapter that brings up the 28mm lines). The only reason why I sold it was that I found myself using the 24mm more often.
 

LLCT

New Member
Thanks Brian & usayit. By using an adapter, how do you do the focusing (clarity) of M8? By guessing or experience?
 
Using the 28mm Ultron 28/1.9 with the Thread Mount adapter: RF coupling is maintained. The simple Leica 39mm thread mount to M-Mount adapters retain RF coupling.

With the SLR lens to M-Mount adapters, use "Scale Focus"- set the distance based on "eye-balling" it. This works for wide-angle lenses: I use a Nikkor 24mm F2.8 on the M8 and M9 without problem. Wide-angle lenses have a lot of depth of field, especially at F5.6 and beyond.

For fast lenses: RF coupling is essential. Best to go with a standard M-Mount lens, or a Leica thread mount lens. If you enjoy tinkering, making an RF Cam for several of the popular 50mm SLR mount lenses is not hard. It does give you a one-of-a-kind lens.
 

NJH

Regular
On the point of the rear screen I use mine quite a bit for 2 reasons;
1) To check composition in terms of insuring that the image I took hasn't cut off something that I wanted to get in the shot, particularly for shooting in portrait where the parallax error from the viewfinder is fairly big.
2) To check for blown highlights. I have it set up with the RGB histogram and will sometimes have a look at it to see what the camera is capturing. I haven't found the screen that good for actually checking exposure by chimping the captured image though.

I do wish the screen was much better but to be honest as a camera which doesn't have live view it doesn't really matter, its good enough I guess for what I use it for.
 

asiafish

All-Pro
Location
Bakersfield, CA
Real Name
Andrew
The big problem with the screen is the "coffee stain", which cannot be repaired. It does NOT, however, make the camera into a paperweight. It just makes the display ugly, but has no effect on pictures whatsoever.

If the display completely quits thats another story.
 

cobbu2

Regular
Location
Rockville, MD
Unless I missed it already being mentioned, the one thing the M8 shines is B&W rendering, especially in handheld Infrared; just slap on a R72 filter and you're all set at ISO640. AFAIK, no other digital camera can do that straight from the camera without extensive PP.

31207923640_25511abebf_b.jpg


35/2.5 Voigtlander Color-Skopar PII, R72 filter
 
17021713026_c6a2080872_b.jpg
I1016013
by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

I've done a lot with digital infrared, the unmodified M8 can be used to shoot some IR Ektachrome-like images. The above is with an Orange filter to block Blue light, leaving the blue-channel sensitive to IR only. The Blue channel is "equalized" to Green and Red, then Red and Blue channels interchanged in the DNG file.

This is made possible using M8RAW2DNG to get the full bit-depth to allow the IR to be pulled up to the other levels.
 

rbelyell

All-Pro
Location
NY Mtns
when i decided on an inexpensive way into digital rf shooting i chose the epson rd1 over the m8 for the following reasons:

huge 1:1 viewfinder vs .68 (one simply cannot overestimate how valuable this is in practice, as it allows shooting with both eyes open and provides the eye with exactly the view it would get not using a vf);
user-choosable individual framelines in VF vs camera-chosen cluttered 2 sets;
no need to fool with IR filters on lenses;
virtually no focus shift or color cast on any M lens vs problems with many UWA and some WA;
no need to 'code' lenses;
useable lovely results up to iso1600 vs cant shoot above the wierd iso640;
fold-into-camera lcd vs standard non moveable lcd;
ability for user to (pretty) easily align focus patch vs having to send m8 into the blackhole of leica service.

the sole 'deficiency' of the epson vs m8 is 6mp vs 10mp, but if anyone can tell the difference in side by side they have my undying admiration. i certainly couldnt, and even if i had, the ability to shoot at 1600 would more than make up for it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

asiafish

All-Pro
Location
Bakersfield, CA
Real Name
Andrew
when i decided on an inexpensive way into digital rf shooting i chose the epson rd1 over the m8 for the following reasons:

huge 1:1 viewfinder vs .68 (one simply cannot overestimate how valuable this is in practice, as it allows shooting with both eyes open and provides the eye with exactly the view it would get not using a vf);
user-choosable individual framelines in VF vs camera-chosen cluttered 2 sets;
no need to fool with IR filters on lenses;
virtually no focus shift or color cast on any M lens vs problems with many UWA and some WA;
no need to 'code' lenses;
useable lovely results up to iso1600 vs cant shoot above the wierd iso640;
fold-into-camera lcd vs standard non moveable lcd;
ability for user to (pretty) easily align focus patch vs having to send m8 into the blackhole of leica service.

the sole 'deficiency' of the epson vs m8 is 6mp vs 10mp, but if anyone can tell the difference in side by side they have my undying admiration. i certainly couldnt, and even if i had, the ability to shoot at 1600 would more than make up for it.

1.5 vs 1.3 crop factor is another downside.
 

rbelyell

All-Pro
Location
NY Mtns
sorry, i did forget to list that difference. whether or not its a disadvantage, or indeed an advantage, is i think in the eye of the beholder. it wasnt even a consideration for me, but might be for others. .2 less crop doesnt seem like much, as the difference between the m8 at 1.3 and the m9 is more. so if crop is a driving consideration, id get an m9, or an a7.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest threads

Top Bottom