Leica Leica M8/8.2

akulya

Regular
I seem to have been drawn, inextricably, to this quiet "M" forum - despite being superficially happy with m4/3.

I'm trying to work out if an m8/8.2 with a sensible 28/2ish (biogon, ultron, hexanon) lens will be the right camera for me, and noticed that a couple of users here seem to have such a combination, an M9 & 35 seems just prohibitively expensive.

Really the rangefinder gestalt strongly appeals, and the majority of my recent shooting has been with the 20/1.7 lumix - a focal length which I feel very comfortable with.

Can anyone here breifly sum up their experiences with regard to this combination versus a mu4/3 & 20/1.7?

I of course understand that the M is fully manual, and that the mu43 is also smaller, but people here seem conversational, and I am on a fence!
 
The Leica M is an experience. Forget about the electronic do dads and AF stuff.
If you want the experience in your photography, then the M8.2 is the way to go.
The 28 Ultron is a wonderful lens period!

Don't think about comparing IQ etc with any other camera. Just take the M for what it is.
In a short period of time, your vision will sharpen as the camera teaches you to fine tune your eye.
It will be at the ready always and never let you down.
Go for it.......!
 
Who said anything about an M9?
Frankly I don't have those sort of beans :)

The IQ issue is a tricky one, because I'm quite happy with the IQ I get from m4/3 - but so long as it doesn't get worse in the corners then I'm happy. Likewise for CA, I'm content with the performance of the 20 & 45 Lumixes, but wouldn't want anything more abberant.

Really it's the manual lens/rangefinder, and seeing outside the frame that holds my interest. I'm almost sure I wouldn't miss AF at all (especially this fly-by-wire sort) and I definately miss DoF scales and a hard infinity stop. I've tried manual lenses on m4/3 but it's just not right. The M8.2 seems like it ticks all the boxes.

This is my flickr, I think for what I like shooting one lens will do just fine - I actually find changing lenses annoying anyway, and so my 45 gets less use than I thought it would.
 
Once you have used a Leica - (say you get an M8) - the cost of the M9, although prohibitive, is not something that you will (eventually) resent as being "too expensive" - you will come to think that it is not expensive, (you will just feel that you cannot justify spending the money the M9 costs versus the other things that you need to buy), and even this in time will become secondary as you will feel that Leica is worth the asking price, (albeit a price that you do not wish to pay)

Leica and money should not really come into the same sentence - Leica is very expensive - Leica glass even more so - and Leica glass is magnificent and magnificently expensive - but, as I indicated, once you have "tasted" Leica you do not see the cost as a negative - it is more a question of having the money or not - if you get my confused drift.

Get the best M8 you can afford - the best ones are now £1500 - research your purchase well as you will be buying used - read up and look up on the internet all the M8 "quirks" - consider these and buy knowing them - but do not let any of these outweigh the supreme qualities of Leica products.

I would buy a M9 tomorrow - but I have other needs for my money - if I had £5000 "to spare" It would be a M9 in preference to any other camera

Zeiss glass is very good, VC glass is good - Leica glass (through the ages - from the 1930) - is maybe what photography is about from a certain aspect - owing a piece of Leica glass and using it, and getting to now it, has a special quality and feel both of which are of the highest quality.

buy an M8 with your "eyes open"

I have a M8 and a few Leica film cams plus Leica glass, (at the least expensive end - (never say "cheaper" when discussing Leica), I have a Zeiss 28mm, which is great and I recommend it on the M8 - (35mm FOV), plus a couple of VC lenses - (again recommended +++).

I also have a EP1 and G1 with dedicated and legacy glass, (Leica, VC, Nikon, Canon etc., etc.,) - and have compared them with the M8 - they are all (very) good but different.

Don't expect "miracles" when you use an M8, it is just a camera that feels great to hold and use - maybe you will take some great shots with it, maybe not

Leica is a "quality" "piece of kit" that has many critics who HAVE NOT used their products - and few critics who HAVE used their products
 
I used an M9 for a day and settled for an M8. Don't get me wrong -- I love my M8, but what I really fell in love with was the M9 + the 28mm Elmarit ASPH I tried it with.

As much as many people love the Zeiss 28mm, and even though I have a faster 28mm in the Voiglander Ultron, when I get another 28mm, it will be the Elmarit ASPH.

web.jpg
 
Bill, thank you Sir! Your elegance describing the only camera I ever felt at one with is much appreciated.

There ain't nuttin' Like a Leica.......
Unfortunately my wife has this silly notion that paying bills and the mortgage is more important than me having the M9.
What a fool she is..... It's getting close to ....
Wife Upgrading Procedure.....
 
I seem to have been drawn, inextricably, to this quiet "M" forum - despite being superficially happy with m4/3.

I'm trying to work out if an m8/8.2 with a sensible 28/2ish (biogon, ultron, hexanon) lens will be the right camera for me, and noticed that a couple of users here seem to have such a combination, an M9 & 35 seems just prohibitively expensive.

Really the rangefinder gestalt strongly appeals, and the majority of my recent shooting has been with the 20/1.7 lumix - a focal length which I feel very comfortable with.

Can anyone here breifly sum up their experiences with regard to this combination versus a mu4/3 & 20/1.7?

I of course understand that the M is fully manual, and that the mu43 is also smaller, but people here seem conversational, and I am on a fence!

I think people either love or hate the M. I used to think it was the most overpriced camera in the world (whether it's the M8, 8.2 or 9). Why in the world would anyone want to buy an expensive camera without auto focus, with a horrible LCD screen, and lenses that cost more than the camera? That all changed one day. Not quite sure what it was. Probably Steve Huff's contagious enthusiasm and fanboyism towards Leica. I found myself lusting after a M camera. I bought a M8. And then like Bill said, all of a sudden, the M9 didn't sound as expensive anymore. Of course, to the rest of the world, that sound nuts! How can the M9 not be expensive? Beats me. Maybe it's because once you are so deeply into something (or someone), then spending a lot of money on it or her or him (assuming that one can afford it) just doesn't seem all that horrible.

Using a rangefinder is almost a form of art. It slows you down. It gives you more time to think. And there's a romantic feeling about it.

Between the M8 and M9, I thought that the images from the M8 were a tad bit sharper. And the M8 also has a top shutter speed of 1/8000 vs. 1/4000 on the M9. The high shutter speed is a HUGE plus whenever you are using fast glass during daylight. Otherwise, w/o the 1/8000, people have to stop down their Summilux from 1.4 to 2.8. Heaven forbid anyone would spend $3000 - $4000 on a 1.4 lens to then stop it down to 2.8 (other than for additional DOF). Hehehe.

Wow, I'm all over the place with this post. So I have the GH2 + 20mm. Awesome combo. Much easier to use and handle than the M9 + 35mm. But the quality of the images from the M9 are clearly superior to my eyes.

I say, get the M8 and the 28 Elmarit. You can probably find a 28 Elmarit used for about $1500 - 1800, and cheaper if it's an older version. That should be about 36mm in EFL. The 28 Elmarit is tiny. And also one of the cheapest Leica lens too. Of course you can always go all Cosina Voigtlander like I did, and save loads of $. I always see the CV as 90% of Leica quality, for 10% of Leica price. I have the CV 21/4, 35/1.4, 50/1.5, 50/2.5 and 75/2.5. All lenses are great, IMO.

Ok, enough rambling for now!
 
A coworker noticed a post of mine on the company photo list -- asked if I had Nikon or Canon because he'd like to swap lenses. I told him Leica, which he'd never actually held in his hand.

A few minutes later, I arrive at his office, M8 in hand. He found the rangefinder mechanism easy to focus.
 
I bought an M8 in Jan 2010, slightly used- under 400 clicks, looked like new- was $2500. Almost 8000 pictures on it, decided I really liked it, just bought an M9. I'm keeping the M8- but it would sell for almost what I paid for it.


I do not have a lot of shots uploaded using the 28/2.8 V3 Elmarit, just some tests:

At F2.8



at F5.6.



The lens was bought used, with IR cut filter, hood, and caps for a little over $900.

Get the M8. Try it out, if you decide it is not for you, resell it. A good place to check for them is rangefinderforum.com classifieds. There are some up for sell now.

Just one, as an example.:

Leica M8, Black with original box, charger, etc. - Rangefinderforum Photo Equipment Classifieds
 
I say, get the M8 and the 28 Elmarit. You can probably find a 28 Elmarit used for about $1500 - 1800, and cheaper if it's an older version. That should be about 36mm in EFL. The 28 Elmarit is tiny. And also one of the cheapest Leica lens too. Of course you can always go all Cosina Voigtlander like I did, and save loads of $. I always see the CV as 90% of Leica quality, for 10% of Leica price. I have the CV 21/4, 35/1.4, 50/1.5, 50/2.5 and 75/2.5. All lenses are great, IMO.

The CV 15mm is about the size of the 28 Elmarit, btw -- teeny lens for what it does. Add a 50mm to the mix and you've got normal, wide, and OMG-that's-wide (human eye angle of view is about 95 degrees; the 15mm is about 100 on an M9, but only about 81 degrees on an M8).
 
I have an M8.2 which I carry everywhere with me, am loving it. The M9 still looks very expensive to me, although it does look somewhat less expensive than it used to. I would really prefer the M9 because of the full frame and the 18MP images which will allow me to crop. It's the poor man's zoom really, of which would be good with the M9 because of course the rangefinders have less telephoto range than a DSLR would.
 
Actually, I was wondering about the idea of Leica + poor man's crop. These two ideas just had a matter-antimatter collision in my brain.

deirdre, exactly my point..... worlds collide....it ain't a pretty site I tell ya.... shooters walk around in a kinda foggy unfocused state.....very ugly......

The last time someone mentioned the 2 words Leica and CR*P in a sentence, the time continuum almost came to an end..... Leica immediately introduced the CL to save the world.....

I need meds.... I might have nightmares this evening..... I can hear my M's shaking in the cabinet.....it's getting ugly.....
 
Back
Top