http://www.dpreview.com/

am I the only one who thinks this camera is dissapointing?
I mean 10 mp and not FF sensor ??

its way too far from the current digital playing field.
big shame. would have been exactly the sort of camera for me if it had been better.

Probably.

The gap in actual resolution between an AA filter less 10 MP M8 and the 1ds2 is likely to be very small.

Besides, the M8 being a 16 bits camera, it is likely - just like the Leica DMR - to have best in class highlight handling, which is one of the major limitations of the 1ds2/d2x class cameras.

Giving up on FF sensor for a camera meant to be used mostly with wide angle lenses is a completely reasonnable choice.

Overall, I feel that the M8 appears to be a very promising camera.

One thing is sure, it will have an image quality better than any 35 mm film ever had, and those films were good enough for all Mx shooters until now...

Cheers,
Bernard

yes. why do you need that extra bit of resolution?

For Leica lovers it's close to the holy grail. Sure FF would be nice but only a few years ago Leica was saying that making the M digital was technically impossible (because of the closeness of the lens).

- DL

The only disappointing thing to me is the price.

It's a premium brand, we all accept that, but at least one feels one can amortise the cost of the lenses over 10 years. The old M bodies too for that matter. But will the M8 really last as long?

The lenses are usually around £1500 each and the body is going for £3000.

So even with the new 16-18-21 to take care of wide-angle I still feel I'd be looking at 2 more lenses - probably a 35mm as a "normal" lens and perhaps the 90mm for portraits.

£7500 is a high entry price.

For the same money you can get a 5D plus a few L zooms, and a Zeiss Ikon with lenses, a scanner and entry-level 5x4 camera from Tachihara too! But you won't own a Leica.

Hopefully so, but perhaps that's wishful thinking. I shot with a 1939 model Leica from 1960 til 1980 and it was still functioning fine when I sold it, as is my R4. The bigger risk is that technology will take a leap forward (eg three layer sensor) before the camera wears out.

- DL

Yep, but the images taken with it until then will still be superior to those shot on film with Mx cameras for the last 50 years, meaning good enough I guess.

Cheers,
Bernard

I think the M8 looks like a fantastic camera. 10MP is enough for most uses, and it is extremely small and discrete. If image quality is a good as the DMR then it will be the prefect digital street/travel camera. If I could justify the cost I would buy one. The price is actually quite reasonable if you consider that it is only £1000 more than the M7, and you are getting all that digital goodness.

So I wish Nikon would put out an FM3D, so I could use one a a "poor man's M8". The D80 sensor in an FM3A body for around £1000 would sell like hot cakes IMHO. And there are all those second hand AIS lenses on the market, so you can build up a quality lens collection without breaking the bank (unlike with Leica!).

Does anybody else wish for a camera like this? Come on Nikon!

Julian

Hmmm...how about with a monochrome sensor and/or infrared option...? A monochrome DMR module would be very intereting as well...

I couldn't agree more. I'd buy one of these in a heartbeat. Frankly, it doesn't matter how great the M8 is, I can't afford one. I would be interested in the Digilux 3 (aka panasonic L1) excpet for two major drawbacks:

1. ~$2000 USD is too much of a premium for what the camera offers.
2. The available 4/3s lenses don't interest me. I don't want a zoom for this sort of camera, I want a fast, normal prime and neither Leica nor Olympus seems interested in producing one.

A digital, manual nikon would give me the interface I want and the ability to use the lenses I already use. That said, this sort of talk has been floating around for a few years and Nikon has unfortunately shown no real interest in producing this sort of thing.


--
Daniel Bell

I'm so glad that you respond in reasoned argument stephen.

my issues with the camera center on the fact that its been reverse-engineered, which sounds reasonable on the face of it, but in reality has led to some unhappy compromises.

because the M series is a small format rangefinder and has true wide angle lenses, that creates angle of light path to sensor issues (as near everyone here knows), this means a sensor can't be full frame (angles steeper in corner etc) so has to be partial frame. a less than ideal situation. (crop factors)

hence the specially designed sensor from Kodak, with its offset micro lenses.

but kodaks sensors are not very good at high ISO's (take a big pinch of salt with Leicas statements on low light) so those files are noisy. in the comparisons a 5D at 1600 is way better than an M8.

the desire to retrofit digital to a film era design seems a sound one, and its good to be able to use old lenses, but means serious crop factor and less Mp, of course, and in turn lower light sensitivity (Kodak). these all matter a lot, despite what some may wish.

perhaps a clean sheet design would have been better - while allowing the M's to grow old gracefully?

all imho, of course.

All interesting arguments. I for one, have advanced ordered one, as it will fill my needs for a second light weight system to supplement my 1DsII not replace it.
Over on Fred Miranda's site in the "Alternative Equipment" forum, a number of posts over many months have been by a gentleman pro Photographer named Guy Mancuso. Guy's posts went from adapting Zeiss and Leica glass to his 1DSII's, to actually selling off his Canon stuff, buying two R9's with two DMR's. His comparison side by side shots of his commercial work showing both systems convinced him the dynamic range, color etc were better with the Leica. Whether you agree or not, I have seen his commercial work, and it speaks for itself. At any rate, another opinion.
Very best....
Dave G in NJ

I'm just gutted that they didn't include a mirror lock up button on the camera, or for that matter a one touch button to print images on a printer.

The proof of the pudding for this camera will be the image quality. It is an interesting concept for a camera, however, with its manual focus, manual or aperture priority and limited metering options, is it still relevant to today's photographers and their needs?

Bernard, where did you find out that the M8 will be 16 bit? I can't find a reference in any of the reports I've read so far.

Cheers, Gary

If this is a reference to the somewhat infamous Puts "review", it should be noted that he broke an embargo on publishing any discussion of image quality while only beta-test cameras were available. There has been much about this over at the Leica Customer Forum, including a lot of very useful input from Sean Reid.

The images posted by Puts - and since removed - were shoddy in the extreme (including those taken with the Canon 5D), and should definitely not be taken as any kind of guide to what the M8 can offer. For that we will need to wait until production-test cameras come available.

What does the proposed FM3D body have that the D200 does not? The D200 does have very intuitive manual control i.e. two dials to control aperture and exposure. It is not that big or heavy. The view finder is bright. It has MLU. And DOF preview.

Or do you want FF? Or a metal body with angular corners that is uncomfortable in the cold (which is all too often in the UK).

Leif

HA! So true...

Um, mega dollars like this for a camera you won't be able to grow old with? IMO it doesn't make any sense. As stated before, next year, or so, it's going to be a dinosaur with a great bod. that's about it.

Makes me wonder if these camera companies can, or more importantly, WOULD, be able to design high end cameras that are able to be fitted with new sensors as they become available? food for thought. surely they make a hell of a lot more money bringing out model after model in the planned obsolescence mode...Could they figure out a worthy profit scheme from making these cameras flexible enough in their design to accomodate sensor upgrades?

Ok, maybe it makes sense if you have that kind of cash to throw away.

Somebody did make one, but not Nikon. Take a look at the new Pentax (the 10) with the pancake primes. The body alone will sell for about $900. I'm up to my nose in Nikon DSLR gear, but if I weren't...On the other hand, what you're describing is not unlike a D200...




A lot less than a Canon 1Ds2, about the same as a D2x, and has qualities that neither of those do. For example, the Leica without a battery weighs 545 grams. The 1Ds2 without battery weighs about 1200 grams, and with a battery, about 1565 grams. And lens-for-lens, the Canon Ls weigh more, too. (I hasten to add that the DSLRs have qualities that the Leica doesn't.) Because of its special qualities, the whole planned (first) production run is apparently committed. The legitimate reviews that have come in so far are *very* good. I'll always have the Nikons around, but I've preordered an M8.

JC

yes , all true, but its a gorgeous machine and the canon, nikon and on and on are dslr bods. they are just what they are, mass produced and run of the mill.

The question for me is the question in my first post. why can't they produce a body that could be fitted with newer sensors? and, is this even possible?

the digital explosion has produced a whole new bunch of products that encourage waste...waste waste, printers, cameras, scanners..products that cost multi thousands of dollars that are essentially, disposable. It's absurd...I believe that the designers of these products need to become more forward in their thinking, including those at canon, nikon, etc.