Would you buy a Leica M8 for the cost?

Would apply $6000 to the purchase of a $7000 Mamiya digital back that fits their 645 format body!

I wouldn't get an M until they get there sensor straightened out but once they do. Now an M 4 and a 35mm lens. No 35mm camera can touch that combo so its just a matter of time. Maybe a little arrogance at Leica thinking that serious pros wouldn't jump so quickly to digital maybe kept them from developing things they should have but they'll catch up. And they'll be cameras that support older lenses. I wish Canon would have done that.

V8Rumble wrote in post #6024259
Very revealing review. But why is that guy crying about ISO 2500 when it was fine?

For $6,000 it looks like sh!t to me.

DrPablo wrote in post #6023834
I'd sooner get a used Leica M6, a few Leica lenses, and a good 35mm scanner. Much better use of your money and you still get the Leica glass.

Exactly. I think the M8 has some deficiencies in terms of quality - they didn't quite get it right and probably should have released new versions just like canon did every year or so.

This would've given them more RD money and the leica crowd wouldn't die out.

They also should've released a cheaper rangefinder to the likes of canon rebel, with the leica name but manufactured somewhere where the labour is really cheap.

But I'm rambling. I'd get a film rf as well.

ImRaptor wrote in post #6024046
Wow.

Leica M8

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Canon 5D

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Both shot wide open that absolutely blows me away that even without alterations the Leica image could be that much farther behind.

But look at the shadow detail in the Leica image and the vignetting and the lack of shadow detail in the canon image. On this example I think I would rather have the image from the Leica as a starting point.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #6031808
But look at the shadow detail in the Leica image and the vignetting and the lack of shadow detail in the canon image. On this example I think I would rather have the image from the Leica as a starting point.

I think there is a change in the point of focus in those two photos. The 5D on the fronts guys face the M8 on the tools on the ground. Not to mention different framing and DOF. Hard to judge a camera on a photo on the web besides (not to mention the word of a war correspondent that does not test his equipment BEFORE he heads into the field).

Doc I don't think Leica would benefit from cheaper labour they are not a mass produced product and so their production is better off in a country whose workers have high output and quality.

Leica has always caused a certain degree of strong opinion. Often from people who have never used the gear (by used I mean worked with it a bit). It is a specialized kit and nothing but a rangefinder can do what a rangefinder does (and the Leica rangefinder quality if very high). It is not for macro or tele work, that is for the SLR. Leica is not for everyone or everything and it can be beaten for quality quite easily by larger formats.

I think Leica made a big mistake with the M8 and that was they cut corners to make it an acceptable price. Only the price is not acceptable to many who do not like the format of the camera. They should have kept it silent and kept it to under $12,000. People who needed it would have still bought and they would have been happier with the best quality bar none. That would have meant making the sensor replaceable and full frame (at least in a future generation, as in we can't make full frame fit today but that technology will come and we will implement it). They are known for not building in obsolescence, as if that need to be said.

Quad wrote in post #6032390
full frame

Leica already did a pretty amazing job with the current 1.3 crop sensor; a DSLR is *very* different from a rangefindfer: A wide lens on the M series has it's rear element just a few centimeters from the sensor. Flange to sensor is 27.95mm. On a Canon DSLR that's 44mm!

Rene'

Check out how much better the dynamic range is on the Leica than on the 5D. The shadow detail is fantastic on the Leica image.

Quad wrote in post #6032390
Doc I don't think Leica would benefit from cheaper labour they are not a mass produced product and so their production is better off in a country whose workers have high output and quality.

Of course they'd benefit.

Leica of the days of old offered real advantages: mechanical reliability and better glass than japan.

What does the M8 offer today that is not offered in other brands?
It's not the sensor.
It's not reliability.
It's not the glass, because the resolution of the sensor is not that high.

Leica should've caught up with the change, release and improve their lineup often. You can't be a "traditional" in the world of digital.

If leica wanted to be competitive, it should've had different series - budget, mid-range and pro. And it should've released M14 by now.

But it's not doing it. It contines to offer an archaic notion of reliability and prestige, with no real world advantages, whereas in reality canon and nikon both make perfectly reliable cameras which probably last longer.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #6033166
Rene'

Check out how much better the dynamic range is on the Leica than on the 5D. The shadow detail is fantastic on the Leica image.

That might be the post processing. If you get a linear RAW it will show a lot of detail as well... i think.

To answer the original question, I'd buy a bessa with a couple of lenses. A used nikon body with 135/2 DC.

That's set me up 2 grand and I'd be done

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #6033258
Of course they'd benefit.

Leica of the days of old offered real advantages: mechanical reliability and better glass than japan.

What does the M8 offer today that is not offered in other brands?
It's not the sensor.
It's not reliability.
It's not the glass, because the resolution of the sensor is not that high.

Leica should've caught up with the change, release and improve their lineup often. You can't be a "traditional" in the world of digital.

If leica wanted to be competitive, it should've had different series - budget, mid-range and pro. And it should've released M14 by now.

But it's not doing it. It contines to offer an archaic notion of reliability and prestige, with no real world advantages, whereas in reality canon and nikon both make perfectly reliable cameras which probably last longer.

They'll catch up but check the shadow detail on the Leica is much better than the 5D. The dynamic range is much better. And the real bonus you bought a $5000 lens 15 years ago you can still use it.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #6033266
That might be the post processing. If you get a linear RAW it will show a lot of detail as well... i think.

The OP said they were both straight outta camera. I take him at his word. But all the variables come in were they shot raw or JPG and what was done on the conversion. But all said and done I've shot with M series and M glass and it just destroys everything else. Maybe some of Canons better Ls are close but that Leica glass just rocks.

What is your point?

But my point is that wouldn't remain "top" for long. For one, it's impossible to just make a "top" product out of nothing - they were making little springs and gears for the last 100 years. Why do you think they'd be able to just switch their specialty and beat the japanese at making an electronic camera?

Second, even if they did make a camera that gave higher quality that canon/nikon flagships, they'd make something better in a year.

If leica wants to remain profitable, they should stick with the stuff they're good at: lenses. They already offer lenses on panasonic, they can make lenses for canon/nikon mounts.

They might find a niche where mechanical excellence is needed, but I don't know where that is.

And in the end, I disagree with you. Mass production does not mean lower quality. Leica's archaic assembly process benefits no one.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #6033300
The OP said they were both straight outta camera. I take him at his word. But all the variables come in were they shot raw or JPG and what was done on the conversion. But all said and done I've shot with M series and M glass and it just destroys everything else. Maybe some of Canons better Ls are close but that Leica glass just rocks.

Straight out of camera? So what?

There's a computer inside the camera that post processes the image. They're not equal and 5D has a stronger curve.

The only way to compare two images are linear RAW files - so your example is a flawed comparison.