Leica M8 Special Edition White on sale in June for a very special $9,000
By Thomas Ricker 
posted April 23rd 2009 3:49AM
posted April 23rd 2009 3:49AM
posted April 23rd 2009 3:49AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I know how legendary Leica's are, and hell thats a fine rangefinder, but every time I see that logo, I think: Coca-Cola...
I think I'd rather spend $9k on Coke too.
Other Leicas may be "legendary" (many will disagree).
But, why the hell is the color so important? The black M8 special edition can be had for $4995.00.
Also, Leica has had many problems with the M8 series---the photo blogs are full of them.
Considering how netbook PC users must feel about overpriced goods, Leica must be going out of business or on the verge of bankruptcy. After all, nobody buys expensive products in this economy.
Overstock.com is selling some Kodak Easyshare camera for $85 that takes pictures almost as well as this Leica priced at $9000. Surely the Leica can't take pictures that much better to cost almost $8900 more. Oh, that's right, Leica is just cheating it's customers into thinking it's a better camera than a Kodak Easyshare. And Leica users are just arrogant dicks for owning something that most users can't afford.
I know most of you PC netbook users are happy with your Kodaks, so walk around proudly with your chests puffed out.
iphonerulez - wtf are you talking about?? *slap* go cry somewhere else b8tch about how everyone hates you for paying too much for crap.
Well, Leica really has been on the verge of bankruptcy for years now. Almost filed 4 years ago.
More expensive than the most expensive DSLR (Nikon D3x)? :o
Quick, someone do a new Hitler video!
Shhhhh.... Leica are German! Don't mention the war! :P
Heh... believe it or not, the D3x isn't the most expensive dSLR. Except perhaps if you only count "small format".
The only people who buy Leica's buy them for being Leica's. They're basically luxury collectibles more than a photographer's work camera. There's no real financial logic to buying these, lol.
i think i'll just buy me a scooter with that 9 grand!
One of these days I would very much like to have a go with one of these cameras to see how good they really are. It's hard to believe that with such a small size and high price that they would fare well against a modern DSLR but I know that people swear by them so I'd love to try it for myself and see what all the fuss is about. At a price like that you are no longer competing against DSLRs but more against medium-format cameras.
The imaging modality is exactly the same as a DSLR: a digital sensor captures the photo. It is purely the viewfinder and focussing mechanism that differs by use of a non-through the lens finder in conjunction with a rangefinding system. It is, in fact, because of this, and no need for a mirror, that the (usually wide) lenses can be much simpler as they are non-retrofocus. The M8's sensor is also without an anti-aliasing filter, which, although attracting moire patterns, does give wonderfully sharp images.
They are very nice cameras to use; they remind you of a much simpler time without 1005-pixel matrix metering, 51-point autofocus and live-view.
@lostmotel
I remember those times. LOL
It's not about how good the camera is, it's how good the photographer is. If your talent is small no camera at any price will alter that. If a RF camera suits your work and does the job easier than anything else then a few thousand notes for a Leica is worth it. I don't suppose Capa or Bresson would of been any less gifted if Leica's had not existed, as it was the Leica fitted their needs better than others. $9000 for a white one is for ornamental use. A standard Leica is capable of wonderful results if the photographer is.
I'm pretty sure anyone who buys this camera won't even UNBOX it before storing it away as an investment. It sure as hell won't get enough use to accumulate grime.
Why doesn't anyone make a cheap digital rangefinder that's *good* / $1000 or less?
Probably because there's no market for them, unfortunately. I would like to see a digital equivalent of the Voigtlander rangefinders, i.e. Leicas without the Leica tax.
I'd buy one!
I think the burgeoning micro-4-3rds segment comes closest to the dream of an affordable digital rangefinder. Small, quiet operation with a reasonable sized sensor.
I'd totally be in for that.
If Kyocera (I think that's who owns the rights to the Voigtlander brand now) jammed a 12 megapixel 35mm Sony CMOS like the one in the Nikon D700 into one of their Bessa cameras, man... I would buy it in a heartbeat. It would beat the pants off this polished turd above, too.
The Epson RD-1 was close, but not nearly close enough.
The market for Rangefinders is tiny as is. Plus this type of camera is inherently at a disadvantage in the digital realm. Digital sensors are less tolerant of the angle which light hits them. Wide angles of view can cause corners to smear. (this isn't generally an issue with dSLRs because the space added to accommodate the mirror means wider lenses are designed differently)
That all said, though not technically a rangefinder itself, the Panasonic G1 can adapt M-mount lenses easily.
Surprisingly high level of discussion for engadget... :P
There are presently two routes, the digital rangefinder like the M8 and RD-1 and the EVF interchanegable lens camera like the G1. I'd like to see a camera with an optical finder, but with lenses that have full electronic communication with the bodies, and, most importantly, a HUD projected into the viewfinder showing the framing lines and exposure settings, and other info. Make the whole thing look something like the Zeiss Ikon.
Personally I've settled for a Nikon D40 and the Voigtlander Ultron 40mm as the economical, available compromise.
there is...check out the Bessa R4
And for all you DSRL pixel loving idiots.....you as about creative as a chicken McNugget....
The camera companies are evolutionary, not revolutionary. Even the first 4/3s camera took the shape of the DSLR. Rangefinder types tend to be either Leica-snobs or more advanced photographers who know what they're doing really well. That's why selling DSLRs work - the cheaper models sell very well to those who recognize the large-sensor advantages but still need autofocus, autoexposure and the works while at the same time offering features that advanced photographers need. A
Leica copies the Pentax Km limited snowball edition. Heh heh...
Heck, I will buy 4 Tata Nanos, and spend the last grand pimping all of them up.
"ass accents"? Do I even want to know what that means?
Maybe I've lived too sheltered a life as I've got absoluetly no idea what "muck and ass accents" are...
The logo is Coke-like.
Can any photographer explain me why the rangefinder costs that much?
I can understand why some monster Canon or Nikon costs arm and a leg. But M8 is compact - but say 4/3 Panay or Oly are compact too, cost magnitude less, have more lenses and have comparable specs.
The camera isn't that high-end - outside it's sentimental value.
Where the hell from comes the $8000-9000 price tag?
No photographer actually uses them. And even back in the day, when they actually coexisted with SLR's, they were equivalent of a vacation camera, and were always considered inferior to a good mirror design. They're a novelty item for nostalgic douches...
Well, they are pretty high-end; it's a Leica ;) Add in that it's a special edition of an already expensive camera ($4000) and you get that price tag. Why's it so expensive in the first place? They are built incredibly well, and a hell of a lot of R&D went into them, so I presume they want to recoup that investment. Most importantly though, they're a niche item so they're not bought in huge volumes, and the people that buy Leicas don't really blink when they see such high price tags, so they can pretty much charge what they want and some rich ass will still buy it.
Like lostmotel said, these cameras are very high end. Moreover, they have (to my understanding as I've never been able to afford one) great glass. Lieca's have always been expensive.
And no, these are not just vacation camera's. Because they tended to be very good, very light, and very durable they were favored by foreign and traveling corespondents, who needed good pictures but couldn't nesicarly afford the weight or size burden of a full size SLR.
@lostmotel : While I agree that a lot of investment may have gone behind them, that happened in the 1940's. Factor in a ton of improvements until 1970. They made their money back, believe me.
What you're paying for here is first and foremost brand image. Yes, Leica have amazing glass, but it's not worth 9 large! It's that red and white Coke-like logo and the fact that this is a limited edition that drives price up. As someone said before, this is a collector's item, and perhaps something someone with new money and a penchant for exclusivity would buy.
Oh, and one other thing... buying Leica glass and putting a Panasonic imaging engine between the sensor and the end result.... you can forget about the glass!
Cheers
A
@Pretol
Vacation camera? Novelty item for nostalgic douches? The reason that rangefinders are considered by many photographers to be better than SLR's is that there is no mirror. This makes the camera body lighter and quieter. The rear element of the lens is closer to the film (or sensor) plane making the images generally sharper and without a mirror flapping up and down there is no produced vibration also enhancing the sharpness of the image. Rangefinders are more unobtrusive than single lens reflex camera and can be more effectively employed for surreptitious street photography. The most famous photojournalists and fine artists who shot 35mm use Leicas as one of their mainstay cameras. They are considered the pinnacle of design and devlopment. Are they overpriced? Sure they are. Are a lot of modern DSLRs more easy to use than the M8? Probably. This is definitely a collector's camera and has comes at a premium. But to say that rangefinders (especially Leicas) were "always considered inferior to a good mirror design" shows that you know a lot less than you think you do about photography and camera design. Mamiya 7? Contax? Leica?
@vooduboy: "The rear element of the lens is closer to the film (or sensor) plane making the images generally sharper [...]"
That's not true. At least Busch's dSLR book disagrees with you.
Film wasn't much susceptible to the problem of sharp light fall angle, but CMOS sensors work differently: if angle is too sharp, some photons might miss the photo-element well. Even modern sensors with microlenses on top of the well are not very good with sharp angles. That's why actually all vendors started producing dedicated lenses for digital cameras: distance between lens rear element and sensor has to be longer than that of film.
"[...] and without a mirror flapping up and down there is no produced vibration also enhancing the sharpness of the image."
Most vibration is produced by human pressing the shutter button - not by mirror. In the price class more or less all cameras have mirror lock up to avoid the issue.
"But to say that rangefinders (especially Leicas) were "always considered inferior to a good mirror design" shows that you know a lot less than you think you do about photography and camera design."
From what I read there is no inherit problem with rangefinder design. Except that you loose very important advantage of (D)SLR: seeing literally same picture through the lens as film/sensor would record it.
"This is definitely a collector's camera and has comes at a premium."
My impression from DPReview's M8 review was that it's really camera for fans of rangefinders. And nothing more. Souvenir. In older days, optics was a major point, as you could always buy a better film. Despite excellent optics, M8's sensor is clearly inferior. Yet it's very compact and light camera many pros would buy as a reminder of good old days.
It does seem that no Engadget reader actually own one...
@Dummy00001
Here's dpreview's final statement in their review of the m8: "So what's the bottom line? I have to admit that I've been turned, from a skeptic to a believer, certainly the M8 isn't a camera everyone is going to afford, but a rangefinder is certainly something any 'serious' photographer should try at some point in their life. It's changed the way I shoot, I've found myself going back to manual focus more even when I use DSLR's and being more selective about lenses and depth of field, and more creative in my framing. My advice on the M8 would be, if you can afford to then get one, be aware of its limitations, shoot RAW and rediscover 'capturing moments'."
From what I read in dpreview's review, their chief issue with the camera is the cost.
More from dpreview:
" Extremely sharp RAW capture thanks to lack of anti-alias filter
Fairly low noise across the sensitivity range, maintains detail at higher sensitivities
Good dynamic range at base sensitivity; about eight and a half stops"
As far as your point about mirror vibration not being as big a factor as hand shake: "Most vibration is produced by human pressing the shutter button - not by mirror." You're just plain incorrect. There are many, many references to substantiate this. Here's one: http://www.everyjoe.com/thegadgetblog/the-fatal-flaw-of-slrs/
I think you're missing some critical points. You should go get yourself a film camera, maybe even a rangefinder, and shoot some rolls. It will surely enhance your photographic skills by making you really think about what you're doing without the immediate results of the digital medium. Dpreview basically says this as the key point of the m8 review. A little more experience will pay significant dividends to you photographically, artistically, and will help you articulate your photo curiosities more completely.
@vooduboy
Street-photography is not about quality, it's about catching the moment. Rangefinder is simply a POS of the 40's-70's, until it got replaced by the plastic junk in 80's.
The only GOOD thing about a rangefinder is the size... The distance from the lens to the film/sensor is optically IRRELEVANT to the clarity of the picture (in fact, on the contrary, both sensor and film respond better to the light that hits it directly-straight)... The mirror vibrations is a made-up argument (If this problem ever existed, it was probably in the late 40's, when SLR's were first produced, but most likely it never existed, and simply appeared in the minds of rangefinder fanatics).
I've learnt about photography on a rangefinder, then I used 110mm camera (non-SLR, dual lens), and then I had a 35mm SLR...
Optics-schmoptics... everyone has great optics... It's as if, someone has reinvented the wheel. Are you serioiusly going to claim that Leica has better optics than Olympus, Nikon, Canon? I hear this BS all the time. I've used many cameras, and they ALL have crappy beginner optics, and they ALL have great high end optics. If you have a study showing a significant difference in clarity between different branded optics, I'd like to see it. Good indepth reviews of optics will always point out a strong point and a weak point of any lens.
My solution, for what it's worth, is to use classic rangefinder film cameras (Leila III and Nikon S2) I then scan the negatives with a Nikon Coolscan 9000.
The scanner is flexible enough to work with medium format film too, so I get 130ish- megapixel images for the cost of a midrange DLSR, and can use SLR, rangefinder, or twin lens camera as the mood strikes me,
Serious question: what type & speed film gives you 130mp of REAL detail?
With the ever-popular ASA 400 you could probably make out the size and shape of each grain which isn't really useful. 4mp is probably a better equivalent.
Large format would do it I would think. I have one sitting right here behind me. 4x5 film plate
What no one has addressed about the Leica is that it allows a photographer control over all the parameters of focus and exposure without the buttons and menus of almost every other digital camera. Aperture, focus and shutter speed are controlled by feel- exactly as they have been on Leicas since 1925.
The expense comes from the extremely high quality materials and construction. The optics are considered second to none. This is a precision tool for those who know how best to use it.
Leica is not really competing with anyone.
If they would just put a 24mm x 36mm sensor in it they would really have something.
@yem
It's simple: film grain is organic in nature, pixels are squares arranged in a grid. When visible film grain is far less objectionable than pixels. Visible pixels can really ruin a picture.
Scanning film is a great way to have the best of both worlds: film and digital.
@stern
4000 dpi scans from a 6x9 (2 1/4" x 3 1/4") would give you 106 megapixels.
.......because my name is "lavish" and "bountiful extravagant" SOG.
ass scents maybe? i don't know, really
Routine negative film has a resolution of about 5000 linear dots per inch. That means that a shot on 35mm film contains about 33.5 megapixels of data. Since the original post talks about medium format film, we have to consider negatives up to 6x9 centimeters (6.25 times the size of a 35mm frame or the sensor in a 'full frame' digital camera). That's about 209 megapixels of data.
There are subtleties here involving the resolution needed to capture individual gains in high contrast regions of film, and you might if you were being extremely conservative cut these numbers in half. That would take you to about 16.75 megapixels for a good 35mm camera, and 105 megapixels for medium format.
Cheers.
"... we have to consider negatives up to 6x9 centimeters ... That's about 209 megapixels of data."
From what I heard, medium format lenses were never that good. Picture was large but nothing more: they were not very sharp. IOW "209MP" is exaggeration.
At such resolutions, optics becomes the bottleneck. Even if you cover 6x9 area but optical resolution is low, you would get "209MP" which can be converted to say 30MP without loss of information.
Considering that modern optics for digital cameras drastically increased resolution - they are sharper than what was used in film times - I think your math behind both "33.5MP" and "209MP" is wrong.
More film resolution != more image information.
More film resolution + more optical resolution == more image information.
I hope you understand that "lens" is not the same as "piece of glass". Even prime lenses have very complicated light path and have to utilize all possible kinds of innovations (low dispersion glass, super low dispersion glass, aspherical elements, etc) to maintain high resolution. Most of this stuff wasn't even available until very recently.
I was factoring in the scanner mentioned- Nikon Coolscan 9000, which has a resolution of 4000 dpi. Over the area of a 6x9 negative I got 106 megapixels. The film could have an infinite resolution- the scan is still the limiting factor.
I have found my Mamiya's lenses to be as good as any. My Mamiya 6 is just like a big Leica.
Should I even rebut somebody who starts his post with "From what I heard..."? It is ironic you simultaneously advertise your ignorance and attempt to lecture others. However, for the sake of other readers, I will respond to your claim that "modern optics for digital cameras drastically increased resolution". This is wrong. The best optics for digital cameras are identical to the best optics for film cameras. Literally identical, you can detach the lens from a digital SLR, attach it to a film camera with the same mount, and resume taking pictures.
"From what I heard, medium format lenses were never that good." No, there exist high quality lenses for medium format cameras, just as there exist high quality lenses for large format cameras, 35mm cameras, and even APS cameras. Even if you get a bit of distortion or chromatic aberration in one of the larger format lenses, increasing your image size by a factor of 6.25 (for medium format) or 15 (for large format) is such a massive improvement that everything else gets lost in the decimal places.
The computation of 110megapixels for a 6x9 negative is correct, even conservative. With higher speed films and some slide emulsions, you will see grain at this resolution, but the people using this sort of equipment will often value the grain and anyway can remove it after scanning if they want to.
The availability of high quality 100+ megapixel images from 30 year old cameras with modern scanners is part of the reason why medium format digital cameras exist, in order to compete. Such cameras have resolutions running from about 50 megapixels to about 150 megapixels.
One might reasonably raise the question of whether any normal user needs resolution above 8 megapixels or so. Certainly one can get excellent images at 4x6 without going higher. But to extrapolate that film is not capable of higher resolution would not be correct.
None of this refers to Leicas, of course. They make nice cameras, but for $9000 what you are mostly buying is a status symbol.
And as for this comment --
"I hope you understand that "lens" is not the same as "piece of glass"."
What a twat.