Would you buy a Leica M8 for the cost?

If I didn't already own equipment and brands weren't an issue and lens pricing wasn't an issue, I'd choose the D3 on a $6000 budget.

As mentioned though, a 5D with a bunch of lenses wouldn't be a bad way to spend $6k either.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #6033344
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.

Its not my example I'm just commenting on the two images posted and the Leica image on the two posted has much better shadow detail.

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.

I've read that review a few months back, and don't agree with some point, while I do agree with others.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #6033258
It's not the glass, because the resolution of the sensor is not that high.

Nowadays, a sensor is (debatable) equal to 135 film. If the difference was visible on film (and it sure was), then I'd think it's visible in file as well...

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #6033258
But it's not doing it. It contines to offer an archaic notion of reliability and prestige, with no real world advantages,

Makes me wonder if you've ever shot a rangefinder...

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #6033344
So what?

Agree with you there...

airfrogusmc wrote in post #6033400
Its not my example I'm just commenting on the two images posted and the Leica image on the two posted has much better shadow detail.

which tells us very little....
Neither image looks great.

A friend of mine has shot Leica for years, and has an M8.
I like it's images. Would they be better or worse with a Canon DSLR? I don't know, and don't care frankly.
A rangefinder is more about a way of working then anything else.

For street reportage for instance, I'd rather have an M8 and 1 or 2 lenses then my 1D2...

Best line in the whole thread.

René Damkot wrote in post #6033433
A friend of mine has shot Leica for years, and has an M8.
I like it's images. Would they be better or worse with a Canon DSLR? I don't know, and don't care frankly.
A rangefinder is more about a way of working then anything else.

For street reportage for instance, I'd rather have an M8 and 1 or 2 lenses then my 1D2...

I think that's an important thing to say. What's important is the tool that gets you the photos you want in a way that you like. That being said, I wouldn't choose an M8 I don't think based on the reviews I've read of it by a number of Leica shooters. It really does seem Leica dropped the ball on both performance and handling.

emorphien wrote in post #6035273
I think that's an important thing to say. What's important is the tool that gets you the photos you want in a way that you like. That being said, I wouldn't choose an M8 I don't think based on the reviews I've read of it by a number of Leica shooters. It really does seem Leica dropped the ball on both performance and handling.

Leica was never really great on handling. The ergonomics were always the last thing to be considered. Just look at what it takes to load film in a leica.

Well judging solely on that review, the Leica is at least partially aimed at serious photojournalists operating in difficult conditions. On that level it's failed. However, the photographer does state that the camera could get photos when it may not be possible to use a larger body.

I'd use one at wedding ceremonies if the following conditions were met (leica or not);

1. Autofocus.
2. EF mount.
3. Noise levels equal to or better than the 10D (the review looked worse than the 10D to my eyes).

If those were met, it'd be perfect due to the elimination of mirror slap. Speed of changing settings isn't really an issue since the lighting is static.

I'll post what I wrote on FMF on a similar thread:

I think the DSLR proponents are missing something here.

There is a reason DSLRs are more popular than RFs - they offer greater convenience, AF, reflex viewing, etc. etc. If someone cares about specs, features, price/performance and all the various quantitative features, the DSLR will be the winner.

That is not why people consider RFs. RFs are about a particular way of working which makes the tradeoffs worth it. To use an analogy - a lot of people like to go out armed with a full collection of lenses/range of focal lengths b/c they want to be prepared for whatever they can find. Yet other people do exquisite work with 1 camera and 1 prime lens (eg Bresson). There is no logical argument to be made that says "1 prime lens is better than an array of lenses", yet in practice, sometimes too much choice of focal lengths can be a variable that gets in the way of seeing - while the photographer is busy swapping or selecting lenses, the moment passes. A fixed focal length forces you to see with that angle of view, which actually can make the photographer more receptive when it comes to capturing the decisive moment.

The RF way of working is sort of similar. Yes, there are lots of logical reasons why a DSLR is better than a RF. But some photographers dont need features - such photographers may need a tool which allows them to connect to their subjects better, and this tool could very well be a RF. If so, all the specs/measurements/etc dont matter, because ultimately, photography is about how well you can see and capture a moment. If a RF is better suited for someone's style of working, then it doesnt matter what the technical advantages of a DSLR are - that person will produce better photos with a RF (of course, the subject also has to be within the technical limitations of a RF. Macro, sports, action, wildlife, etc. are all better served with DSLRs).

All this specsmanship is basically irrelevant gearhead talk. And before I am accused of being a RF diehard - I am a DSLR user. But I do appreciate the RF style of working, and were there a digital RF solution for <$2k, I'd get one in a heartbeat. Some of my best street photography has been with a compact camera... I "see" a lot better when I am not encumbered by various bodies, lenses, etc.

Vandit

vkalia wrote in post #6037117
I think the DSLR proponents are missing something here.

That may be true for many people, but not all. Certainly I know the advantages an RF system typically holds over an SLR. To go further, how many of your DSLR proponents are familiar with TLRs, or view or field cameras? There are different tools for different jobs, however even considering that it seems the M8 has failed to live up to the standards of many of its predecessors.

vkalia wrote in post #6037117
I'll post what I wrote on FMF on a similar thread:

I think the DSLR proponents are missing something here.

There is a reason DSLRs are more popular than RFs - they offer greater convenience, AF, reflex viewing, etc. etc. If someone cares about specs, features, price/performance and all the various quantitative features, the DSLR will be the winner.

I think you're confusing a review of a particular camera and a review of rangefinders in general. And that guy clearly prefers rangefinder size, but a 1D with a 35/1.4 is one of his options.

Hence the feature comparison.

5D and f/2.8 zooms, IS where available and both f/1.2 primes and 35mm f/1.4

I'd have to spend some more, but i'd have a far far better set-up.

You really don't need IS on a 35 1.4.

And if you ever shot allot with either the 85L and the 35L you probably would undestand why so many love these lenses.
In a wide angle lens like the 35L and the 24L the difference in barrel distortion alone is a reason to use the primes.

I have owned one rangefinder in my life, it is actaully my first camera ever given to me by my dad.

Can someone explain to me what is the real advantage of RF? I don't buy the simplicity thing, because you can always just use 5D and 35L. Or even XS*+24L for small size. I don't it is still larger than RF, but probably not by much.

At least point, my understanding of people who bought M8 is not because it produces better picture, it is more like a hobie of owning it. Just like people like classic America car, not because its speed, comfort or reliability, it is just matter of taste and hobbie. I could be wrong, but I do want to find out the true advanrage, something I can do with RF but not SLR.

eelnoraa wrote in post #6047128
At least point, my understanding of people who bought M8 is not because it produces better picture, it is more like a hobie of owning it. Just like people like classic America car, not because its speed, comfort or reliability, it is just matter of taste and hobbie. I could be wrong, but I do want to find out the true advanrage, something I can do with RF but not SLR.

Back in the 60s the germans did have the advantage in the glass and the rangefinder lenses offered non-retrofocal designs, improving image quality and elliminating distortinon.

Also, because they're mechanical, it's easier to just make a shutter without the mirror flapping around.

Nowadays there's not many advantages.