Jump to content

Small portable camera not leica M8


stephen_persky

Recommended Posts

<I>...but I've found that small digicams can actually be pretty useful for "street"

photography and they attract even less attention than a Leica M would. They're also often

quieter which can be good for candid work.</I><P>

 

Agreed. Lighter weight and more robust as well. And the economics work far better in an

environment where technology is rapidly improving. You can make great photos with

almost any camera. So shoot away with your G7 and don't back. <P>

 

Sx months from now ask yourself if an M8 really would have let you snag any better

photos.

Probably not.

www.citysnaps.net
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I see it:

 

People prepared to spend $5000 on a camera are well within reason to expect it to work in an exemplary way, but should also be smart enough to know that a totally new camera from a company without much digital experience was bound to have more than average number of initial bugs. The shock and dismay over that part doesn't get any sympathy from me.

 

The IR filter debacle is more preposterous in principle than in practice. You put on a filter, you fuggettaboutit. OK, there will be some situations where the reflections off the best filter will be shot killers and there's no option to take the filter off an M8. But for 99% of the time it's just not that big a deal in practice. In principle it has to trigger an immediate "that just ain't right" in anyone not deep in denial. Digital has removed about 99% of the need for filters, everything except cancelling reflections (polarizer)can be easily done in software. So the argument that the IR filters are acceptible because we used Y's and O's and CC's with film doesn't stand up. The M8 requires a filter on every lens 99.99% of the time as there is always some color shift due to the IR even if individual photographers find it acceptible more often than others. Put the same lenses back on an M7 and the filters are unncessary. So it's the camera that needs the filter, not the lens, and it's the camera that should of had the filter, end of story. But as I said, the filters do solve the problem for practical use and a filter is not a newfangled gadget, and almost every lens has threads for one. It's hard to believe Leica will not unveil a new model with the filtering on the chip, and soon. But if enough people accept the practical effectiveness of the filters and ignore the priciple of how arrogant and ludicrous it was of Leica to do this end-run around customers lined up to pay $5 grand a pop, then why should they bother putting any R&D money toward an in-camera upgrade?

 

All that said, the way Stephen cleverly crafted this anti-M8 troll deserves a round of applause for ingenuity <wink>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The site that Don Hill mentioned was facinating. Prof. photographer Alex Majoli using Olympus P&S cameras instead of his Leica for photo journalizm in 2003, reported in 2005. Clearly there's a role for the latest, improved P&S cameras in photojournalism today. The size, weight, and convenience means everyone should carry one as a backup. What surprised me the most,however, was the photographer's closing comments: "I miss the strongest of the old generation cameras -- Olympus OM-1, the Leica. The dream would be a digital camera the size of the C-5060 -- not bigger than a Leica, let's say -- with exchangeable lenses. Small lenses. I would like to see fixed lenses, not zooms. Maybe some bigger apertures -- f/1.8. The file is fine. I don't need 20 million megapixels." He might as well be describing his ideal Leica camera in 2005. It sounds to me like Majoli is a prime candidate for a new M8 digital camera. He already owns the lenses. He may trying one out as I write this. The current opinion about the M8 is highly premature in my opinion. Let's wait and see who really ends up using them and for what purposes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting debate here.

 

I'm not dismayed. I'm more curious about how it will end up. I saw some encouraging pictures without streaks with the updated cameras and was interested.

 

The statement about having the IR filter on the lens all of the time I would not necessarily agree with. Shooting landscapes or outdoors I normally don't see any color shifts. However, in a crowd of people and if I am not shooting for B&W aims, yes, I'd put one on. I have a 52mm IR filter from Heliopan I picked up and it seems to help, but that particular one has a color cast to the images.

 

Yes, I agree it's a VERY expensive camera. Put into perspective it is an M7 + a year or two of film and processing, and this IS the Leica forum after all... However, I have worked with the R-D1 for a while, and loved the RF shooting digitally, just wanted some of the advantages of a Digital M and wanted to own one from a company that is dedicated to supporting its' users so that I can get service several years from now.

 

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reviews/previews of the new Tri-Elmar (good, but costly and with some technical limitations) have pretty-well sealed matters for me. With the total cost of an M8 and Tri-Elmar, plus hoods & filters, etc, approaching 6000 GBP (and still not having a lens wider than 21mm @35 equiv) the cumulative cost is, for me, unwarranted, unaffordable and uneconomic. And it would mark the start of a slide into a bottomless pit of expenditure - and possibly cognitive dissonance.

 

I'm becoming aware that for such a 'king's ransome' I would probably get equal, if not better, results from upgrading my medium format gear - possibly even to digital.

 

But the clincher for me with the M8 system has been the enduring sting in the tail at each point in its evolution - like banding, IR filtering, add-ons' costs and lens compatibility issues, etc. I reasonably expected each of these to have been addressed more effectively in the initial system design, but instead many remain work-arounds and may have costly or inconvenient negative aspects.

 

This is a confidence issue. When announced, the M8 system as a whole raised my expectations, and it may indeed fulfil many, but in the final analysis it appears not to have the prospect of delivering exactly what I'm willing to pay for. For me it's a system that offers 'jam tomorrow', but actually gives 'fudge' today.

 

AC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AC,

 

The one bitter aspect about the whole situation is that I do believe that if it was done correctly. The system would have been one of the most compact, most portable, highest quality system around. I have seen testimonials that people absolutely love the whole system. Until, the system is fixed the G7 wil lhave to do.

 

Regards

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have both an M8 and a G7. Very different cameras; and I have no problem using the M8

at 1250 (which is really 1600; independent tests show that Leica rated the camera too

conservatively.) The M8 simply delivers astonishing results, period. I also shoot with a

D2x, and the combination of Leica glass and the new sensor delivers images that are

sharper (IMHO) than the Nikon's. Though I still use the Nikon a lot; love the fast zooms.

 

The G7 delivers astonishing results for a camera that's not a lot bigger than a pack of

cigarettes. If somebody told me that it delivers the results that you'd expect from, say, 70s

Leicas and 70s film, I wouldn't be surprised (in other words, results as good or better

technically than HCB had for most of his working life.) I've been constantly amazed by it,

and I wouldn't doubt that it would be all that a photojournalist would need for 95% of his

shots, not that a PJ would be caught dead using it. It even has a decent flash, for the kinds

of pictures you'd take with an on-camera flash, like snapshots. The thing I worried most

about was the lack of RAW; as it turns out, the auto WB is good enough that I haven't had a

problem, and frankly, I'm not planning to put the shots in an art gallery anyway, and for

what I use it for, the WB is good enough, even if not perfect. In a lot of ways, this is my

dream travel camera, and a pretty decent street camera.

 

Some things that you can do with the M8 though, like shoot at F1 with depth of field of

one inch, you just can't do with the G7. The fast end of the lens (which is pretty fast at

f2.8) is too wide for portraits, where you often want shallow depth of field, and the longer

end, which is nice for portraits, goes pretty quickly to f4.8, and with the small chip, the

DOF gets pretty deep just as quickly. So what you don't get is that Leica across-the-bar

shot of the isolated pretty-woman's face with the sharp eyes and the nice bokeh all

around; you get everything including the Schlitz can in her hand.

 

My M8 is now in Solms, getting fixed; not like my cat was fixed, I hope. To the guy who

said he'd accept the three-week turn-around, dream on; after they logged mine in (and it

took four days to get there because I sent it registered mail) they notified me that it would

take four-five weeks to get back, and also, that Leica closed from Dec. 23-Jan. 2...I sent it

off on Dec. 8. I expect, realistically, to get it back around Jan. 20. By the way, if you send it

to NJ by registered mail, it'll cost you around $20, and registered mail does NOT get lost

or stolen, and you can insure up to $25,000. But it's a bit slow, because the package has

to be signed for by every person who handles it. Also, if you talk to the people in NJ by

phone, they'll set up compensation for your shipping costs (I'm told; they weren't ready to

do that when I wanted to send it, so I sent it anyway and told them to forget about the

$20.)

 

JC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt the M8 could be better, and no doubt the G7 could be better. I don't have enough money to buy a Leica plus lenses; heck, I don't have enough money to buy a full-frame DSLR like the 5D.

 

So my 1V and Velvia 100F will have to do for a couple more years, and that is fine.

 

In the meantime, I have settled on the G7 as well, as a small travel companion. It is very well built and robust, and it epitomizes what Canon can do in the digicam segment (both bad and good). It is responsive, has a sharp lens, manual modes, and even a ISO dial! It is fun and a great little camera.

 

If you are interested, here is a link to a gallery with a few shots of mine taken with the G7. It doesn't get more "street" than this:

 

http://paulobizarro.com/tema.asp?id=32

 

Merry Christmas!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's probably worth remembering that most genuine PJs have long relied on DSLRs, and for the same reasons the sports photographers do it (and they're PJs too). The few that use Leicas aren't doing it for a living.

 

Unless of course "PJ" means the aged-man-of-leisure with the tan photo vest who hopes to get published occasionally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh I see, the tool dictates whether or not you are a professional.

 

I wouldn't consider NG's stories photojournalism, I'd rather call them documentary and it would seem to me that NG shooters use whatever equipment strikes their fancy to get the story documented fully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It's probably worth remembering that most genuine PJs have long relied on DSLRs, and for

the same reasons the sports photographers do it (and they're PJs too). The few that use

Leicas aren't doing it for a living. Unless of course "PJ" means the aged-man-of-leisure

with the tan photo vest who hopes to get published occasionally."

 

If this was a comment on my post, above, you should notice that I wasn't talking about PJs

using Leicas, but using G7s (point-and-shoots.) I was a reporter for a long time and I

agree; I don't know any photographers who'd give up a DSLR to go to a Leica. Leicas aren't

flexible enough. However, if you look at most newspaper photos, you'd see that most

could be taken as easily with a G7 as with a 1DsII. You don't need 1DsII resolution if you're

running high-speed presses on newsprint. And if you think PJs have long relied on DSLRs,

you must be fairly young -- unless by "long-relied," you mean five years. The D1x came

out in 2001.

 

JC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, I wasn't responding to your entirely-reasonable post. I was reflecting on an earlier post that fantasized PJ demand for M8, due to purported (and untested) ruggedness.

 

IMO PJs, burdened by huge optics and DSLR bodies, will welcome lighter (plastic) M-types. Hard to imagine them preferring M8 weight, and hard to imagine them wanting interchangible lenses when they can get a 28mm+eqiv tri-elmar type of fixed lens (assuming rangefinder can compete for their affections against Pentax prism SLR type).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The director of photography at the newspaper where I work loves the look of the M8 --

once the bugs are fixed (unsurprising from a manufacturer with limited digital

experience.) Main reason: compact size compared with a massive Canon or Nikon DSLR. As

soon as a PJ pulls out a DSLR, everyone notices. And have you tried to tote them around?

By contrast, even the latest M8 just looks like an old camera. Great for street photography.

He is not a fan of a Tri-Elmar. Too slow. He says Leicas are best for available light

photograph without flash. Hence he favours 1.4 or 2 lenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...