I'm in the market for a Leica, and it's come down to either an M8 now or save up more and get an M9. Is there really much of a difference between both of them aside from the extra 8MP the M9 has and and the full frame sensor compared to the M8's crop? How much of an increase in image quality/ color rendering is there from the M8 to the M9? And is the M8 too dated, or is it still a good camera to use?
Is there any specific reason you're looking to buy a digital Leica? I'm asking because you don't seem to be bothered by crop factor.
>>2781439
I'm looking to buy a digital Leica because I got a chance to use one of my photography teacher's M240 and I really enjoyed using it. I have a couple film rangefinders prefer them to my SLR's for the type of shooting I do.
I'm not really bothered by the crop factor. I started photography with a 60D and then got a 5D mkii and full frame was nice and everything but I ended up going back to crop when I went mirrorless with my current camera, a Fuji X-T1.
>>2781468
If you already have film rangefinders and you enjoyed the Leica digital then go for the M8 if crop factor really doesn't bother you. I'd personally save up for the M9.
If you get the M8 then make sure to pick up some IR filters too.
If you're looking for an M mount digital camera with an OVF then it may be worth considering a Fuji X-Pro/X-Pro2 with the M adapter. You'll also have the shutter speed dial and a higher ISO range if those meet your shooting requirements.
It all depends on where you live, what lenses you have/use and how much you can buy an M8/M9 for in your country though.
M8 is completely obsolete. M9 should be your absolute minimum entry level to digital Leica.
Lol paying for a sub-par, overpriced, overated camera.
>>2781434
Crop factor on the M8 will probably be a pain in the arse for you, and lead you to want to upgrade to a ff body before too long.
M9's are starting to develop sensor corrosion and require repair. You might want to research this, cos I think Leica may be repairing this free of charge, but I could be wrong about this.
M240 is awesome, I've never regretted this purchase. I bought it used for just a little more than a 5dM3 or D810 would cost.
Leica naysayers can all get fucked.
Hey OP, I've owned the M8 for 6 months and the M9 for about a year afterwards and trust me when I say that the novelty wears off. I think if you're going to buy a Leica, either buy something from Sony's A7 series or a film Leica. I've had my M6 for a few years now and I've had an M8 and M9, and sold them both.
Buy an M6 and X pro 1 with M adapter for the same price as an M9 alone.
Leica digitals aren't exactly that great when it comes to ISO noise, and the photos all have to be extensively edited from raw to look any good. They come out of the camera looking pretty flat and lifeless.
>>2781683
so what's make leica so expensive and famous?
i' m serious and newby, just want to know
>>2781685
Glass
>>2781688
That only covers the famous part.
>>2781685
Rangefinders are not only expensive to produce, research and develop, but also a niche product. Leica sells very few cameras compared to nearly all the other manufacturers. Add in their high price point & manual lenses, and you're unlikely to see them in your average store.
They're also the only game in town nowadays when it comes to digital rangefinders, and possibly film too (now that Voigtlander have ceased production of the Bessa).
>>2781730
They also spend four hours hand-polishing the plates, which will then have paint applied to them. They waste tons of money to tell you about how much money they waste, so that they can convince you it's a "luxury product". Throw four robots onto that assembly line and you cut the cost per camera by about 60%, while also increasing production speed and consistency from body to body.
They put themselves where they are for very specific reasons. They want to be the exclusive super high end fashion accessory statement piece, and they do what they have to do to keep themselves there.
>>2781434
even if the crop factor doesn't bother you, be aware that the M8 has a weak IR filter, so certain things like black hair or fabric might look purple. You can fix it with a filter on the end of the lens.
If you're interested in IR photography though, that might be a good thing.
>>2781730
The fuji x pro series may not be fully manual, but it still is a rangefinder because the ovf is not through the lens.
>>2781434
>M8 now or save up more and get an M9
Buying M8 or M9 if you don't have money to spare is stupid. How are you going to afford lenses?
>How much of an increase in image quality/ color rendering is there from the M8 to the M9?
M8 was Leica's first real foray into digital (well, after the pitiful DMR) and it shows. But the IQ/price ratio is quite abysmal on both anyway, especially if you want higher ISOs.
Anyway, if you want to play with rangefinder focusing, get a film M or even a Bessa. If you want to use M-mount glass, get Sony A7something with an adapter.
>>2781805
>it still is a rangefinder because the ovf is not through the lens.
No. Do you even know what a "rangefinder" is?
>>2781805
It's rangefinder style, but it is not a range finder. The part that makes it a rangefinder is the dual window focus patch design.
>>2781814
An iPod touch is an iPhone because it looks like an iPhone but doesn't have the core functionality that makes it an iPhone
>>2781818
Are you implying that the X Pro 1 does not have the styling of a rangefinder?
>>2781805
>>2781814
Let's not split hairs. It has an OVF which doesn't show TTL like a traditional SLR. You can use M mount lenses on it.
The X-Pro 2 Also has dual window functionality with the HVF. It has 2 EVF's available. The larger full EVF and a popup EVF for use as a focus aid. It's fair to call it a digital rangefinder at least more than any other mirrorless camera that isn't a Leica.
>>2781930
Well, no. Since a rangefinder is a very specific construction and the Fuji doesn't have it.
I have (and absolutely love) an X100. I would Never claim it having a rangefinder.
It has a hybrid viewfinder from Fuji, nothing else.
>>2781962
Congratulations on being this pedantic. I hope it will serve you well in what's left of your life.
>>2781975
It's not a big deal, and the conversation is only ongoing because you're for some reason resisting...
Would you call a Sony RX1 an SLR? No, because it doesn't have the necessary requirements.
It's the same with a rangefinder. It's not the OVF or the shape of the camera that makes it a rangefinder, it's the single "rangefinder mechanism". That's all. It's not a critique of the camera, or of you, it's just a "hey, just so you know!"
>>2781975
im not the guy you've been replying to but your argument is actually retarded.
It's not a rangefinder because it's not a rangefinder, it just has an OVF, if anything its more similar to a contax t2 than a leica
you're argument is akin to saying that an em5 is an slr cause they have similar function
>>2781975
The two below you have already answered much better than I could, but calling the Fuji viewfinder a rangefinder is like calling a diesel car a gasoline or electric car. They kinda look the same and you use them to get around but they are fundamentally different in their construction.
A rangefinder works in a very specific way, physically. The Fuji doesn't.
>>2781930
With that description my Mju II has a rangefinder. A shitty disposable camera gphas a rangefinder since it has a non TTL viewfinder.
Mounting M-lenses as a qualification for being able to be called a rangefinder is silly, as the Fuji lacks any kind of rangefinder coupling and rangefinders aren't exclusive to Leicas. Hell, they aren't even exclusive to cameras.
>>2781993
Why do you imagine that that matters? Saying it's pedantic is still wrong, and the only reason we're still talking about it is because any number of people are still resisting for some reason.
>>2782015
>Saying it's pedantic is still wrong,
Are you denying that it's a minor detail? Even the anon says:
>That's all. It's not a critique of the camera, or of you, it's just a "hey, just so you know!"
>>2782024
I am denying that it is a minor detail, yes. Much like putting gas in a diesel vehicle. It may look more or less the same, and it may work more or less the same, but saying "I have a gas powered car" is incorrect, as the fundamental thing that makes it "gas powered" is not present, much like the only thing that makes it a rangefinder is not present.
It is a major detail, of minor importance.
>>2782030
I'm not even arguing that it's a rangefinder. I'm arguing that the absence or presence of a physical rangefinder is a minor detail.
It's pedantic to keep arguing over it.
>It is a major detail
Not really.
>of minor importance.
Absolutely.
>>2782037
How can it be a rangefinder if it doesn't have a rangefinder...
>>2782041
see
>>2782037
>I'm not even arguing that it's a rangefinder
Thanks desu
>>2782042
>I'm arguing that the absence or presence of a physical rangefinder is a minor detail.
While saying that it's a rangefinder camera, without it having a rangefinder.
>>2782045
They why the fuck are you making me have this dumb ass conversation...
>>2782049
>They why the fuck are you making me have this dumb ass conversation...
I'm not. You have free will, right?
All I did was call something pedantic.
I'm assuming that you keep mistakenly quoting me, despite me repeatedly stating that I'm not the same anon. I even put on a name to help you identify me.
I hope for your own sake that you catch onto these things sooner when tackling other situations.
>>2781730
>Rangefinders are not only expensive to produce
ffs can you leica lovers get over this shit?
Rangefinders aren't much more expensive to produce than SLRs. Leica bends you over because of low sales and because they can since they have a monopoly on the market.
An Xpro does not have a working *mechanical* rangefinder.
It does have digital rangefinding capabilities (which is why it's able to give you parallax correction predictions and a digital focus scale in the viewfinder)
You'll all equally right and wrong, depending on how autistic you are. There are many types of rangefinders besides mechanical optical rangefinder cameras.
>>2782030
I believe you're confused, anonymous.
Diesel is often gaseous. The most common source of it is even literally petroleum.
Please be wary of confusing your colloquial nomenclature with science. Gas to liquid diesel is tired of your cismaterialist shit.
>>2781992
>A rangefinder works in a very specific way, physically. The Fuji doesn't.
What do you think that specific way is? Moving mirrors? You can build a mechanical rangefinder of the sort very easily.
But...you think that's how *ALL* rangefinders work? Come forward to the present, there are many wonders to show you. like LRFs.
If LRFs are too high-class for you, and not specifically enough classical rangefinders, then we can use this oldie but goodie attached. This is a rangefinder. Why doesn't it work in a very specific, physical way? It doesn't even have any moving parts anon!
>>2782095
So what you're saying is that literally any camera with a distance scale is a rangefinder, and are pretending to not understand what is meant when people refer to Leica rangefinders as rangefinders...
>>2782111
Pls stop reading between the lines ellipses anon...
>>2782111
No, not at all. There's a reason I said digital distance scale with no reference to a physically carved one.
I am saying that any camera that uses raw data coming from the physical position of the lens' element to determine focus distance so that it may show you an accurate-ish depth of field scale and preview in real time in a digital viewfinder is, in practice, a rangefinding camera.
It's the calculated use of that data by the camera that bears the distinction, just a a piece of cardboard with some numbers drawn on it held out at an arms length is a rangfinder due to your brain calculated use of the data it provides.
The act of setting a physical distance scale, though not the distance scale itself, is indeed also a form of rangefinding.
Sorry to underline the pedantry displayed in this thread with hardier pedantry. Someone had to do it to you. :)
>>2782156
I am. She's better than some of the autists we have desu
It's better that she responds to posts one by one. Some people in this thread are overly confused by simple concepts.
>>2782156
back from...?
Holy shit, I go to sleep for a few hours and this becomes the most autistic thread of the month.
I can't even tell what the fuck you are arguing about
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
Why are Fuji users such dick wads?
>>2782212
pls explain
>>2782212
Not as bad as m43 babbies.
>>2782212
Our cameras foster better critical thinking abilities due to their slow responsiveness.
We're basically the nazis with the slow-firing rifles.
Feels good to be a A6000 user.
Best argument fujicucks can come up with is comparing themselves to an irrelevant format like m43
>>2782234
>Feels good to be a A6000 user.
Feels good to have an aperture ring and shutter speed dial.
Best argument sonycucks can come up with is sensor size.
Ricoh GXR is better value
>>2782235
Good luck focusing with those dials.
>>2782240
But there's also focus aids, the focus aids literally zoom into a point that you define. This is a standard feature.
Good luck doing this without going into a menu on a Sony camera :^)
>>2782162
Your ban, home boy. ;^)
>>2782240
Why would he be trying to focus with his shutter speed dial? What are you even attempting to suggest here?
>>2782240
>sony users think shutter speed dials and aperture rings are used for focusing
hahaha the sony spillover is /v/alidated in this post
>>2782234
Lenses, physical controls, and compact design would be my go to over Sony. Then probably image quality, Fuji system support, and maybe styling, if I was feeling particularly annoying.
>>2782248
I got banned for like 24 hours two weeks ago. Dunno why you thought that was still ticking, home guh.
>>2782254
Because your incessant pedantic off topic trolling hasn't been very prevalent since then.
>>2782234
The big difference between Sony and Fuji users is that Sony shills are constantly trying to insist that their cameras are the greatest in the world and make all others obsolete. Most Fuji users understand that their cameras are quirky compromises, enjoy the way they handle and operate, and use them as secondary cameras to supplement a DSLR setup.
>>2782285
isi's shitposting has always had a natural ebb and flow
Most probably a mix of the tide and hormones
>>2782285
>pedantic
Oh boy.
No less pedantic than what's already been presented in this thread.
