This is not a technical review, but a practical one based on my particular experience in using this camera for 2 years. I have owned several film cameras (Pentax Spotmatic, Leicaflex SL, Leica M4, Rolleiflex TLR), and while that experience plays a huge role in how I photograph, the use of these cameras is not relevant to digital imaging. The digital cameras I have owned are the Pentax K-7, Pentax K-5, and various iPhones.

As a consumer buying a digital camera, you typically want the best value for your money, and that usually means finding the right balance of features for price. Conveniently, manufacturers and marketers simplify your decision by quantifying it - higher megapixel counts and ISO = a better camera. Simple, right? However, even as you hold that new pinnacle of digital imaging technology in your hands, those same manufacturers are working to negate that value and make their own product obsolete through improvements in newer models. Obviously, this is done to remain competitive with other manufacturers, but manufacturers also compete with themselves. They want to tempt you into buying a new camera in a few years time - or less. The same holds true for all tech. Think of your smartphone. I always find it a little surprising to know just how short a period of time iPhones have been around. Yet in less than 10 years there have been more than 7 iterations. And if you’re like me, you’ve predictably owned at least a few of them. This is sometimes referred to as “planned obsolesence”, but in digital camera I most often hear it referred to as “digital rot”. Each and every year brings improved specifications and newer features that make the camera in your hand that used to take great pictures seem increasingly obsolete, while also depreciating in value. This inevitably gets to the point where you can’t even give the camera away. So, to come back to value for money, it really isn't as simple as it is made to seem.

This is not to suggest that all improvement is negative, I just think that awareness is important. Being aware of the market forces at play can help us properly assess how we are being influenced so we can be more conscious about our decisions. One positive way to view technological progress is as a removal of barriers, in this case to photography. Higher resolution means less consequence to cropping and enlargement. Higher ISO means less light needed to make images with natural light. Image stabilization means less image blur, and on and on. However, there is something to be said for living in the past. Just as new tech opens up new possibilities, limitations force you to adapt and can also result in interesting new images. Prime lenses are a good example of this, removing the option to zoom forces you to move, and changes the way you frame your shots.

Why do I choose Leica cameras? They are an unconventional company, and that does appeal to my 'alternative' nature. Leica Camera is a manufacturer which stands in contrast to the norm. I am, for the most part, a progressive person, but surprisingly conservative when it comes to technology. I still drive a manual transmission car and heat my house with wood. Even in 2006, when the Leica M8 first arrived, I was stubbornly resisting digital, and shooting with a Leicaflex SL (a 40+ year old camera) and and Leica M4-P from the 80's, both fully manual film cameras, neither requiring batteries. I was having my film scanned, which made the change to digital seem both sensible and inevitable. What I wanted was a quality digital camera, but I knew that the substantial investment required would quickly and certainly depreciate. What I really wanted was to slap a digital back on my Leicas and keep shooting away happily. Leica essentially answered my wish with the M8, which is essentially an M6 or M7 with an imposed digital sensor and screen. Then I saw the price tag and my dream evaporated. It is possibly just coincidence, but around this period my interest in photography waned and I stopped shooting for over 5 years. 

Then, 2 years back a very good friend of mine asked me to photograph his wedding. I give him and his lovely wife 100% of the credit for re-igniting my passion for photography. My revived photo bug had me looking at digital rangefinders, and 8 years after its release the M8 become a viable option. I re-read the original glowing review, and the subsequent issues of IR sensitivity, smaller sensor, poor back screen, and high noise at relatively low ISO. Then I saw the current price tag, which was based largely on those complaints and became excited that the cost had moved within my price range! I decided that no matter what, Leica glass is a good investment, and that the M8 would be my best bet to put behind that glass, given my personal preferences for shooting. So let’s take a look at this camera, address its flaws, and appreciate its enduring qualities. 

Considering it is the first real digital rangefinder, the M8 is unacknowledged, overlooked and underrated among its peers. Its successor, the M9, is often held up as the classic rangefinder due to the lessons it learned from the M8 and its full-frame sensor. Put into a historical context, the M8 is a groundbreaking product that marks an important transitional moment for Leica. It is the camera that incorporated classic Leica M design principles into a digital format - and not the other way around. It could not have been possible to ignore the 70 years of research and development that Leica put into lens, shutter, and rangefinder design into account when conceiving the M8. With modern digital imaging, the real image-making is done with firmware, software, and hardware. So a camera is basically a computer with a lens and a sensor. Although a Leica digital rangefinder is the same hybrid, it seems to rely less on processing engines and more the classic aforementioned principles of design (more on this later). Whether this makes the camera more or less appealing is a very personal thing, and also happens to be that which Leica relies on to appeal to its customers. It seems to me that Leica doesn't compete in the general marketplace. Rather, it is a luxury brand selling a unique user experience based on its legendary history and and a cult-like appeal to a relatively small following. This is what makes the Leica M possible. It is remarkable that anyone is using any digital camera after 10 years, or even 5 years, but the M8 stands in direct contradiction of that. In fact, there is still a robust secondary market for these little gems. This market owes itself somewhat to the price of subsequent Leica digital M rangefinders. These days, the price point of the M8 has it positioned as the foot-in-the-door model. An M9 costs 100% more than the M8. The M240 is 3-4x as much. And the M10? At this point it’s in the range of “If you have to ask, you can’t afford it”. So, is the M8 the poor-man’s Leica? How much do you compromise with this camera, and is it even worth the diminished price it fetches on the secondary market now?

Is 10 megapixels enough?

Not surprisingly, the M8 has been left behind in the megapixel race. However, these 10 megapixels will not disappoint. You’re probably not hearing this for the first time here, but the megapixel battle is not one you are likely to win. And ultimately it makes little difference in practical photography. Do not let the fact that your smartphone has a higher pixel count deter you for one second. First, your smartphone doesn’t have the kind of glass in front of it that you will be mounting on your M8. Second, all megapixels are not created equal. I shoot with an iPhone 6 as well, and I can always tell the difference in the images. A raw file from the M8 with some quality glass is contrasty with smooth tonality and a dream to work with in Lightroom. I can salvage an underexposed file from the brink of darkness, pushing it by 2+ EV, saving what would have been a lost moment. iPhone images are impressive, for a phone, but they are processed, leaving little latitude for development and don’t compare to the M8’s in most regards. The most obvious flaw of the iPhone 6 is in the way it renders mottled, unnatural skin tones. Sometimes it upsets me that this is how we are documenting ourselves. Don’t get me wrong, the iPhone is an indispensable photographic tool that is more than enough in most situations (especially outdoors in full light), but the ubiquity of smartphone cameras and smartphone images positions the M8 as a unique tool. There are the possibilities of different lenses, perspectives, and an unparalleled, unique, and more considered shooting experience that will yield varying and distinct images - all without changing anything but the camera in your hand!

Now, hear me out on this one - the other benefit of “only’ 10 MP is file size. With the sheer volume of digital files involved in practical digital photography, there is a lot to be said for efficiency, meaning it is good to not use more megapixels than necessary. A raw file from the M8 is 10.6MB, or approximately 0.5% of a gigabyte, giving you just over 1000 images per gigabyte of storage! As far as resolution is concerned, 10 megapixels is actually overkill for online images (google it!), and I have printed 8x12 images of cropped files with resolution to spare. That is my experience, yours may vary. And I have to add, if they can print billboards from images shot on iPhones (how??!?), then anything is possible.

Bring The (ISO) Noise

Another feature which makes the M8 (and M9) unique among cameras in use today is its CCD sensor. Contemporary digital imaging has fully adopted CMOS technology, which uses less battery, has superior high ISO performance, and allows for live view and video. Sounds like a knockout for CMOS, but the CCD is not without merit and is particularly well-suited to rangefinder shooting. Because CCD is no longer in use, there is now some nostalgia for CCD that I feel is akin to what some people feel for film. In fact, if you have like the look of analogue, or are still shooting with film, you are likely to appreciate the “digital grain” in an M8 image. The highest ISO setting on the M8 is 2500, which produces a very noisy file. This may make you instantly write off this camera, as even the cheapest modern camera outperforms the M8 in this regard, with significantly lower noise at significantly higher ISO. However, even the noisiest file can be favourably compared to 3200 ISO black and white film stock. You also have to consider (again) the glass that you will put in front of this sensor; if low-light performance is a priority for you, a summilux, noctilux(!) (or the voigtlander equivalent), will get you that extra stop or two. That’s my thinking, and I assume it is also that of the people who design these cameras. You have to understand that back in the day the tech used to go into lens design - now it’s all about the sensor, firmware, and processing engine. Sure, you could get a Sony A7 with a backlit sensor and shoot at ISO 124,000 and get a noiseless, smooth high resolution file. I just feel that it is easy to get carried away with impressive tech and specifications. You may want or need the reassurance of a high ISO, but if you shoot properly you can also make the M8 work for you. Practically speaking, I don’t go higher than ISO 640 and shoot with a steady hand and get good results with a 50mm down to 1/24 and as low as 1/8 with my 35mm, which gets me as much light as I need in the darkest conditions, as long as the subject is still. Additionally, I can squeeze out another stop or two in Lightroom if necessary. It works for me, and it can for you too, that’s all I’m saying. I think that as a professional who just needs to get the shot, challenging conditions would call for flash anyway - aesthetic reasons aside, of course, which takes a lot of the relevance and necessity out of these technical gains. I am not trying to say that we should stop pushing the technical boundaries of lowlight photography, in fact I am excited by the thought of being able to capture what my eyes see in extreme low light without resorting to the unnatural look of a flash. I am saying that if you use a tool to achieve a particular aesthetic, then it is a worthy artistic tool. The look of a flash may not be natural, but it has a distinct look that you can use creatively. The same can be said for the M8 and its CCD sensor.

For myself, I wanted to put more of my money into the glass than the camera body. I am not a cheerleader for CCD over CMOS, but if you can live without live view and video, which most people who pick up a rangefinder can, then you’ll be fine. Battery life is better with CMOS, but if that’s your chief concern, a spare battery is cheaper than an M10. Enough said. Additionally, I never felt that the full-frame M9 was worth the upgrade because I know the resolution (ppi?) is essentially the same on both cameras, the M9 has more megapixels by virtue of having a larger surface area. Being full frame, there is a slight improvement in noise, and a slight difference in DoF, as well as the advantage(?) of not having a digital crop factor to your lenses (the M8 is approximately 2/3, or a x.6 digital crop, making my 35mm more like a 42mm, my 50mm more like a 63mm, and my 90mm a 120mm). The smaller sensor has some advantages, one being that it uses the centre of the lens, and so it has less of the optical imperfection associated with the outside edges of the lens. It is individual preference that will lead you to decide if the differences are sufficiently enticing for you to spend twice as much (or more) on the M9. 

The models that follow the M8 have easier access to adjust ISO. The M9 and M typ240 have a designated ISO button on the camera back, and the M10 (being the ideal) has an exterior ISO dial. I have to take a moment to acknowledge how it just makes so much sense that each of the three shooting parameters (aperture, shutter, ISO) have a designated exterior control. It now seems a glaring oversight that Leica didn’t design the camera this way from the beginning. That alone is enough to make me want to upgrade. But then the price tag beats me back down to earth. 

However, the M8 is actually quite easy in this regard; I treat the ‘set’ button as an ISO button on the M8; the top of the ‘set’ menu is ISO, so 2 depressions of the set button, a turn of a dial, and another ‘set’ and you’re done. The whole process takes only 2 seconds, which cannot be that far off from the time it takes to adjust an exterior dial. My preference is still for the M10 dial, as your ISO is always on display instead of hidden in a menu, but again, that is a small advantage (that should have been on the very first digital M!!!!).

The M8 is not a fast shooter. Well, it shoots up to 1/8000th of second, so it’s fast in that regard, but not as a continuous shooter - it has a slow rate and a small buffer. This is an example of one of the “limitations” that can be used to change your way of shooting. Incidentally, Leica reduced the shutter speed to 1/4000th on the M9 and on. I have read on some online forums that the high speed has something to do with the lack of durability of this mechanical shutter. But, to the point, the buffer is slow and gets overwhelmed easily. I have recurring problem in which the camera locks up and shuts down when I fire too many shots consecutively. I have to pull the battery to get the camera functioning again. This is frustrating, to say the least. There is nothing more embarrassing than being in a professional setting, missing a shot, having to pull the battery whilst apologizing and explaining to the client. None of this makes me want to run out and get a pro DSLR though. It may run counterintuitive to double down on a failing strategy, but I would instead like a second rangefinder body. I just feel that a pro DSLR is a computer that does all the work for you, which can free you up creatively, if that’s what works for you, but for me it just doesn’t. Someone wiser than me said that computers may be smarter than people, but they have yet to make one that can read my mind. That is why I like manual control of my shooting parameters - I get frustrated when AUTO doesn’t do what I want it to. At least with a manual camera I can own my mistakes, and I am proud to because I also get to own my successes. The Leica rangefinder is a camera for slower, more considered shooting, and that is a major part of its appeal. 

The viewfinder is exquisite. It is an aesthetic and technical achievement honed over decades. The viewfinder is uncluttered, contrasty, and easy to use and focus with little available light (should you ever put a Noctilux on it!). The information displayed is shutter speed in Aperture priority mode, with a small red dot for exposure lock, and another one below that indicates use exposure compensation. I will admit that I had to look this up in the manual, as it is just a red dot, but there is so little going on in the viewfinder that once you know what everything is, you know! In manual exposure, there is a larger centre dot indicating accurate exposure, a left arrow indicating underexposure and a right arrow for overexposure. This is simple and purposeful. I personally do not need aperture info, as it is front of mind when shooting with this camera as it operates via an exterior dial. What would be useful is if ISO was indicated in the viewfinder. This, I feel, was an unfortunate oversight, as it would have been simple to include(?) and is relevant information while shooting that is otherwise confined to a menu.

The shot countdown window is unique to the M8, and I don’t know why it was removed on subsequent models. My guess is that because Leicas are meant to last, they abandoned the idea due to the unpredictability of storage media. The M8 was built at a time when SD cards had smaller storage, so it only goes to 999, but modern SD cards can store far more images than that. I use a 32GB card, which was unheard of at the time the camera was designed. As a result, the counter is almost always at 999, but oddly enough I find that reassuring. And when it really counts (pun!), I know how many shots are available to me. If you use smaller SD cards, this counter may work well with your existing workflow. I honestly don’t know why I use a 32 GB card myself -  with raw files that are only 10MB a piece, a massive SD card isn’t required and it would be easier to manage and possibly faster in operation. Hmmm…

I know I’m in the minority here, but this screen works for me. I can tell if an image is blurry or improperly exposed, and I can tell without zooming in. I have to admit that I still have the impulse to magnify, but every time I do, it just confirms what I already knew from looking at the full image. This may be a pet peeve for some, I am used to it. Sure, there are bigger, sharper screens, but practically speaking, this screen does what I need it to do; it allows me to assess my images. Hey, it was considered great in 2006, maybe it still is(?)   

Even though the M8 is considered ancient by digital standards, it has a classic look and feel, and it is well constructed and intended to last a lifetime. This alone makes it less disposable than even professional cameras that may become passé. If you want to forego “digital rot”, this may the camera to do it, and at a very attractive price point. Currently, the M8 seems to have bottomed out in its secondary market value. I have been watching the prices since I purchased mine, and not only has it  maintained its value, its value seems to have increased slightly. 

When I purchased my M8 I also bought what would be a great general purpose lens with a more modern design. I opted for the summicron-m 35mm asph. I purchased the lens and camera through eBay, which worked out well, but was a BIG investment on my part. But the reassuring thing about Leica gear is that it holds value well over time. In my case, I have been buying and selling Leica gear for over decade now, and it has allowed me to slowly upgrade my equipment without breaking the bank. In fact I sold a couple of R lenses I was holding onto in order to finance the M8 purchase. My thinking here was to put more money into the lens than the camera because lenses continue to be mounted on whatever camera has come or gone, and so maintain their value. 

Buying an M8 means that you will almost certainly buying a used camera - unless you happen to purchase from a collector, in which case expect to pay a premium. However, a decent used model will keep some money in your pocket…which I recommend banking for future repair and maintenance. It is a gamble, because an unused or near-mint camera will lessen the likelihood of the necessity for repair or maintenance. I bought a lightly used model with around 5000 shutter actuations. (In case you’re not aware, actuations are the amount of shots taken on the camera, and are an indication of use and wear on a camera much the same way kilometres are to a used car) I put just over 10,000 on it myself within two years, and then the shutter failed. A quick online search brought me to a website that showed the average shutter life of any given camera (as reported by users) and I was surprised to find that the Leica M8 averages 15,000 actuations before failing. This statistic proved to be remarkably accurate in my experience. Given that the average shutter life of a Leica film rangefinder would be in the hundreds of thousands, this was quite a shock. Part of the value in purchasing a Leica rangefinder is that the large initial investment pays off in the long run due to its extreme durability. This cannot be safely assumed with a digital M. However, you can rest assured that, as long as there are parts, your M is repairable…for a large cost. But this is the freak economics of Leica - the cameras are so expensive that they’re worth fixing. Leicas are not competitively priced, nor are they competitively marketed. They are conceived, designed, and priced for a relatively small but extremely dedicated group of professionals and enthusiasts. This group of photographers and collectors sustains the brand and the product and insulates them to an extent from the larger market dominated by Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. With the M8 you are the low end of cost, but the repair cost is the same as it would be for any other M body. This puts the M8 owner in a precarious position. As an example, my shutter mechanism repair cost over a third of the value of the body itself. On a $10,000 M10, the same amount would be only 5% of the value of the body. This bothers me a little, and I believe it is something that Leica should address and rectify. I do take some comfort in knowing that a recently serviced Leica fetches a higher premium, so there is some value added.

My repair was with Leica Camera in New Jersey, who are the only certified repair facility in North America. It ended well, but was not a smooth experience. I was frustrated with their customer service, mostly due to poor communication and accountability on their part. To their credit they took my concerns seriously and they were all addressed, albeit over a very long time span. All told, the full transaction took in excess of 4 months. For what it cost, it should have been more of a 5-star experience. For your reference, my shutter repair was over $500USD. It is now warrantied for a year and working just fine. At the rate I shoot it should last me at least another 3-4 years before the possibility of failure recurs. However, I plan to keep this camera with me and hand it down to my children, if possible, so I will keep it going until I can no longer.

1. I enjoy the sound of a mechanical shutter, but this shutter is loud…even in “discreet” mode. As someone who likes to shoot stealthy, it’s an issue.

2. Occasionally, in low-light conditions, the M8 will produce "banding" on the image. This is slightly visible in the image of the drummer above, but can be substantially worse, to the point of ruining the image altogether. It is unpredictable, and thus always a possibility under low light conditions. When you compound this with the high ISO noise, this could be a deal-breaker for some who shoot under ambient light.

3. Sometimes I have to press a menu button twice to get a response & Sometimes the wheel takes more than one click to respond. This type of feedback response is not what one expects from a luxury item - especially those who appreciate the tactile experience that a manual Leica camera offers.

4. This is more a recommendation than a complaint, but I would consider an external grip of some sort essential to the operation of this camera. My preference is the “thumbs up”. It is the perfect accessory that makes the camera feel “right” in hand.

A helpful note here: upon delivery of this camera 2 years ago, I shot with it for 2 weeks thinking that I had made a huge mistake. It had been years since I used a camera, especially a rangefinder, and I found the shooting experience awkward and frustrating. This is what I call “the adjustment period”. Everyone who sees this camera is interested in it. Sometimes other photographers will pick it up and shoot a few frames before moving back to their familiar tool of choice. But it is different and it takes a while to get it, so to speak. A rangefinder forces you to slow your process and shoot differently. Unlike with an SLR or live view camera, what you see is not always what you get. Remember when you had to wait to finish your roll and have it processed before you could see your images? I used to find that so exciting, and would look forward to opening the package to see what treasures I had captured. It was like Christmas morning. Well with a rangefinder you get a small taste of that experience, as you won’t know the depth of field and the unique character of the lens until you see it on a screen. The rangefinder experience is unique, and it will have you producing images unlike on any other camera you use. I have not been able to put it down since. 

Nick Clayton is a husband to 1, father to 3, teacher to many, and a photographer to some. 

https://www.instagram.com/nicknaclayton/