meandihagee
Well-known
Hello,
On the lookout for a rangefinderesque digital. However, as I look on Flickr I don't like digital images at all. They have this plasticky, glowy feel, that looks really bad compared to film, especially on the human white skin. But maybe it's just the screen. On a nice paper, the digital might catch-up.
Anyway, to my eyes the M8 is the only one who gives a film-like, beautiful texture (is it the camera..., is it the lens...?).
I like the idea of the X100 and X-Pro 1, but both of them produce those ugly digital files I was saying about.
So, my question is this: is it worth buying an M8 in 2012? I don't have a problem with loud shutter, filters, but I would like to go above 640 ISO on a camera that costs the same as the X-Pro 1...
Also, can I get big expo prints with the M8?
On the lookout for a rangefinderesque digital. However, as I look on Flickr I don't like digital images at all. They have this plasticky, glowy feel, that looks really bad compared to film, especially on the human white skin. But maybe it's just the screen. On a nice paper, the digital might catch-up.
Anyway, to my eyes the M8 is the only one who gives a film-like, beautiful texture (is it the camera..., is it the lens...?).
I like the idea of the X100 and X-Pro 1, but both of them produce those ugly digital files I was saying about.
So, my question is this: is it worth buying an M8 in 2012? I don't have a problem with loud shutter, filters, but I would like to go above 640 ISO on a camera that costs the same as the X-Pro 1...
Also, can I get big expo prints with the M8?
Damaso
Photojournalist
You won't get the same high ISO abilities as you would on some more recent cameras. That said I still use a M8 and am happy overall with it. You may be able to get some extend range using Lightroom plugins to deal with noise. And of course if you have a nice fast lens it becomes less of an issue...
IEDEI
Well-known
the M8 is a fantastic camera....and IF you are shooting black & white....you really cannot do any better, unless you are getting a Monochrom.
PatrickCheung
Well-known
I have an M8, and I really like the files it produces. Not plastic, not quite like film... A happy medium. And yes, black and white converted files from the M8 are beautiful.... I end up converting most of my RAWs to black and white.
Plus, with their prices decreasing... The M8 becomes more and more of a viable choice for a digital rangefinder.
Plus, with their prices decreasing... The M8 becomes more and more of a viable choice for a digital rangefinder.
Chyn
Established
I've had it for nearly three years, and it's been a rewarding experience shooting and getting very decent results from the camera.
I rarely use mine beyond ISO 640 as the sensor simply doesn't produce the results I need. Budget some fast glass, as you will need more light-gathering power.
I rarely use mine beyond ISO 640 as the sensor simply doesn't produce the results I need. Budget some fast glass, as you will need more light-gathering power.
bonatto
looking out
With lightroom 4 you can use 1250 iso b/w if properly exposed, no problem. Under exposing means banding in the shadows.
640 is the sweetspot if you like some grain, and at 160 the files can blow you away.
That's at 640, processed in lightroom, color corrected from raw, etc.
That's a 100% crop, compressed for the web, etc etc.
640 is the sweetspot if you like some grain, and at 160 the files can blow you away.
That's at 640, processed in lightroom, color corrected from raw, etc.
That's a 100% crop, compressed for the web, etc etc.
ramosa
B&W
Nothing wrong with the M8, which I have had for five years. You know the main shortcomings (e.g., shutter sound, performance at higher ISO, cropped image). As has been noted, it does very well in B&W and well in color.
Per your mention of film, film is film--and digital does not equate with it today. Nothing is the same, not even the MM (though I'd love to have an MM). The process, the rendering, the DR, the grain, use of ISO, instant option for color vs. B&W: "everything" with film differs from digital.
Per your mention of film, film is film--and digital does not equate with it today. Nothing is the same, not even the MM (though I'd love to have an MM). The process, the rendering, the DR, the grain, use of ISO, instant option for color vs. B&W: "everything" with film differs from digital.
LCT
ex-newbie
Then the M8 is not for you, unless you like its "grain" at 1250 / 2500 iso.
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
Pass on the M8
jippiejee
Well-known
I've had my M8 for about a year now and it has become my favorite camera. The ccd sensor output is almost film like I think. With some fast glass and staying under iso640, as others already suggested, it isn't too limiting really in daily use. I even take it to low light concerts without worry.
Just curious, what size prints are you guys routinely making with the M8?
ChrisLivsey
Mentor
Just had two 20 x 16 inch canvas prints done of head and shoulders shots, very happy for people to walk up and count the eyelashes which show no digital artefacts, it was carefully sharpened, but you can't put in what wasn't there to start with. I have had paper prints of the same size made previously from several frames with no issues at all. All these are full frame. I can see the point of more pixels if you are needing to crop at all extensively.
twopointeight
Well-known
M8.2 here. A great camera for good light, especially backlight which becomes quite translucent. Main lens is a 35mm Summilux, tack sharp wide open. If and when the LCD unit breaks, I'll be ready to upgrade to full frame. I like the looks of the ME and also the fact that it still uses the CCD sensor.
ray*j*gun
Mentor
Plus 1.... I actually just bought an M8u and it has changed how I feel about digi! Also, THE ONLY way to tell how prints will look is to do prints. I have compared wet prints from my dark room to prints from my M8 and Epson 3000 and its pretty damned close!
I've made 12x18" prints and I start to see it look it is deteriorating upon up close inspection, so what do you mean by no issues at all? Meaning at a viewing distnace of a few feet? The native print size for a 10mp sensor is 8x12" or so... so, it's only natural that it starts to go downhill after that. I have a feeling my larger MP cameras are spoiling me and making the M8 large prints not stand up anymore. However, they are no worse than any c-prints of that size I've made with 35mm film.
ramosa
B&W
i have made quite a few 11x17 prints. the M8 files work fine at this size.
denizg7
-
The only reason why people buy the m8 (i hope) and the only reason I will buy one again is simply because of rangefinder focusing on m lenses...
If you don't feel attached or extremely used to rangefinder focusing like me , buy a xpro 1 it's better than the m8 in every way... (high iso performance , sensor pixel count , features list goes on)
If you don't feel attached or extremely used to rangefinder focusing like me , buy a xpro 1 it's better than the m8 in every way... (high iso performance , sensor pixel count , features list goes on)
IEDEI
Well-known
not really. for B&W photography it doesn't get much better than the M8....in any price range....current or past.
nobody buys a camera JUST because of pixel count, etc....you buy a whole package.
raid
Dad Photographer
I find that using the M8 side by side with an M9 makes the perfect set. The crop factor is not anymore a problem, and using the M9 for higher ISO is also possible. I use the M8 for B&W while I use the M9 for color. The M8 is for portraits, while the M9 is for wide angle. Both manage the normal perspective well.
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
These days you would buy an M8 these days because you want more then what you can get on a RD1, but you don't remotely have the money for a M9. Save your money and get the M9, or the X1 pro.