M8 forces a review of fundamentals

[larry_kincaid1]

I bought into the Leica M6 + lens system because of printed photos that I had

seen (National Geographic, web, this forum, etc.) that were made with Leica

film equipment. My kids and wife--unprompted--could immediately see the

differences between my Leica M printed photos and those made with my Nikon N80

film camera and best primes. One of the crucial tests of the new M8 digital

camera will have to be in its printed or LCD photo images. If they are not

noticably different from Nikon/Canon/Panasonic digital images, then other

features of the camera will have to prevail. Examine the top set of the top

rated photos on Photo.net (which I just did) and you can see from the

thumbnails alone which ones are digital images (better than by chance,

probably 8 or 9 out of 10 images). The content of the photographs are as

great as ever, a tribute to the photographers, but the images all have some

kind of obvious digital image characteristic (which I won't go into here).

But the ease and long-term cost advantage of digitally stored images and

computer/ink jet printing produce considerable pressure on me to buy a Nikon

D80 or D200 to make use of the great Nikon lenses I still have. So, I examined

the new D80 at Ritz and soon saw the immediate similarities and dislikes that

my N80 film camera has: a viewfinder (supposedly improved) that I can no

longer tolerate after using my M6, auto focus (which may or may not be

improved...doesn't matter), greater weight, etc. So, I dismissed the idea

again. I appreciate digital cameras--I've been using a Lumix TZ1 with 35-

350mm zoom capabilities, only autofocus, no viewfinder, still slow shutter

speed, but 400 good images with color that PS cannot correct

with "autocorrect," meaning that the camera is already programmed and designed

to match PS correct color, whatever that is. But hey, I like zooming to 350mm

with a tiny camera from my pocket, all for only $300. But I still cannot

stand it not having the M6 features too.

 

If we took all of the changes/improvements in the M8 apart from the digital

capture, I wouldn't mind having most of them on my M6, especially the more

accurate shutter speed up to 8000 and AE (I don't have an M7). So, in a sense

we should be happy that the M8 is an improved camera above and beyond the

digial capture. Congratulations, Leica. It's exactly what I would want a

digital Leica M to be like, and what everyone here has been clamoring for for

2-3 years. If it had a removable/upgradable chip, then it might have started a

revolution...the camera seems built to last. People who can afford it and use

it will undoubtedly be quite happy with it. I would buy one myself for all of

these reasons. But, if we are now in the business of producing images equal

to Canon and Nikon digital cameras and with the same characteristics, then

when Leica M8 images appear on the photo.net "top photos" list, I will not be

able to distinguish them from the others. And that would keep me from buying

an M8 as opposed to a less expensive Panasonic/Leica camera. A long way to

say, "Start showing us the photos from your M8's, so we can see if it's worth

the buying it."<div></div>

[vinay_patel]

"My kids and wife--unprompted--could immediately see the differences between my Leica M printed photos and those made with my Nikon N80 film camera and best primes."

 

Sadly, mine can't, which I'm not blaming on the equipment in the least. I think that's the case with a lot of people if they are honest with themselves. To say "M8 forces a review of fundamentals" your perspective has to be much different from mine. Laying someone open on an operating table forces a review of fundamentals. Defending someone from the death penalty forces a review of fundamentals. Deciding whether to revamp your stock portfolio forces a review of fundamentals. Buying an M8 forces a review of your bank account. If you have $4700 in disposible income and can afford to lose a good chunk of it if you don't like or grow tired of the camera, buy it. If not, don't. Don't blow an aneurism over it.

[EricM]

Larry, you start your post saying the difference was in the glass, even those close to you see the difference. I agree, Leica glass is great. But you finish your thesis with wanting to see a difference in the sensor? Did I understand this right? I'm just wondering why you don't think glass would make a difference on digital like your results/conclusion have with film?

 

And you want to see it on a monitor. Uhm, did the DMR images pop out from here or did they look like something that any $300 p&s could take?

[elmarfudd]

I also used to own a Nikon N80. The photographs I've taken since I gave up my Nikon digital and film gear for MF film equipment (mostly Leica) are better than those from the aforementioned SLRs. This doesn't mean that Leicas take better pictures, I just take better pictures using them.

[eliot_rosen1]

"I'm just wondering why you don't think glass would make a difference on digital like your results/conclusion have with film?"

 

It's an interesting issue you bring up. Is it the sensor or the lens that's the limiting factor. Erwin's review of the M8 seems to suggest that the sensor is the limiting factor. However, I don't know enough about digital imaging to know if he did the test properly or if the software in the production model of the M8 is better than in the pre-production model that he tested. (see the thread on Erwin's test of the M8).

[peterblaise]

.

 

Earlier: "... My kids and wife--unprompted--could immediately see the differences between my Leica M printed photos and those made with my Nikon N80 film camera and best primes ..."

 

Interesting, as the Nikon F/N80 was Galen Rowell's favorite camera due to it's light weight yet still having many controls.

 

Do you suppose Galen Rowell's shots would actually be thought of as sucking today if ONLY he had a chance to revisit all those scenes with a Leica M so we could compare? =8^o

 

Me thinks the gear is NOT the place to look for a difference in photo results EXCEPT as for the PHOTOGRAPHER'S MASTERY of the specific features and benefits of one camera system versus the other -- rangefinder benefits versus SLR benefits, discussed ad infinitum ad naseum EVERYWHERE ... but I guess it's a perennial need to revisit them, so carry on.

 

I LOVE my rangefinders and use them when I want small, quiet and discreet (and MY rangefinders have in-lens shutters, uniquely implemented with progressing operation for LOVELY bokeh -- nya-nya!).

 

I LOVE my SLRs and use them when I want flexibility and control and precision.

 

At some point in time, even I cannot tell which images camera from which camera, especially when inspecting at 100%.

 

I can get satisfactory images AND unsatisfactory images from both.

 

That's why I keep both, and try NOT to use either where their features and benefits are a mismatch for my photographic needs.

 

I hope you find my 2 cents here useful -- the PHOTOGRAPHER is responsible for getting the most appropriate use of the benefits of the features of the GEAR, and so the copyright goes to the PHOTOGRPAHER, not to the GEAR, and for good reason!

 

... but how easy is it to forget that, and think that the GEAR is responsible for the photograph!

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Minolta Rokkor Alpha DiMage Photographer -- hey, I have a Leica tripod! ;-) http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

[eliot_rosen1]

Peter, I don't understand. Are you saying that because you don't see a difference between Leica vs (Canon/or Nikon) lenses that it doesn't exist. I also don't understand why such a difference is negated by the fact that Galen Rowell used a Nikon N70. What exactly does one have to do with the other?

[oceanphysics]

When I bought an M6 TTL a few years ago I showed the result to my dog on the light table, and she, unprompted, walked over to the file cabinet containing my EOS slides and urinated on it.

[squareframe]

so ... mark (op), I can't quite figure out if urination implies a good thing or bad? some cultures would find this a favourable selection process.

[tito sobrinho]

I would agree with P.Blaise. It is not the camera or the lenses that take "wonderful" pictures. He meant to imply that Galen Rowell with a "mundane" Nikon N70 was able to expose wonderful pictures (I have his book).

 

I may add James Nachtwey, the most rewarded photographer in the '80s and '90s, who used a Nikon camera and with the Nikkor 105/2.5 took the famous picture of the Afghan Girl with those beautiful green eyes. These days, he uses digital capture.

 

Eight years ago, my brazilian photographer friend...Valdir Cruz (Guggenheim fellow) exposed several negatives using a Nikon F + 3 Nikkor primes..."Faces of the Amazon"... creating a fantastic portfolio. He spent 8 months in the jungle. His prints can be seen and bought at the Throckmorton Fine Art gallery in New York City.

 

Does he know the difference between a pre or post aspherical Leica

lens? Not a yota!

[michael s.]

Actually, Steve McCurry took the photo of the <a href=http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/100best/storyA_story.html>Afghan girl</a> you most likely have in mind.

[larry_kincaid1]

Sorry some of you didn't get the key point, but I see it did give you a chance to make your own points. When I said "The content of the [digital] photographs are as great as ever, a tribute to the photographers," I was agreeing in advance with those of you that said the photographer matters more than the equipment. I don't see how anyone can argue with that. What I should have said to make myself clearer perhaps was that Puts should not have been comparing blow-ups Leica M8 digital photos with similar Canon digital photos, but rather full size Leica M8 photos with equivalent M3/6/7 film photos. That's another way of asking if the M8 digital capture thru Leica lenses is as good as or better than the film camera it might replace. Puts just looked at resolution and concluded it's not yet up to the lens quality. But let's see the two photographs side by side.

[brambor]

Nachtwey shoots film for black and white work and digital for color unless he is on assignment for press where he HAS to use digital because they request the images immediately. He will then shoot digital and upload pics via sat phone.

[silvergull]

Now, THAT'S what I want ... a new M with the R9 shutter! Brilliant!

 

Cheers, Jim

[jtk]

It's absurd to talk about Galen's work as some kind of benchmark for digital Vs film.

 

I knew the guy, handled a lot of his film and prints, and I recall how happy he was to have had a Minox clamshell 35 for shots of one crucial peak occasion, when the Nikon failed. Galen Rowell was a mountain climber, not a platform for equipment testimonials...although I do recall him praising $19 K-Mart running shoes as the ultimate approach footwear :-)

 

But if Galen really promoted anything, it was passion and physical conditioning.

[vinay_patel]

"I was agreeing in advance with those of you that said the photographer matters more than the equipment. I don't see how anyone can argue with that."

 

Then you must be reading this forum with your eyes shut :-) I'm an avowed Leica collector and even I wouldn't make such a foolish statement that the equipment trumps the user.

[tito sobrinho]

Thanks Michael for the correction.

[peterblaise]

.

 

-- Earlier: "... Are you saying that because you don't see a difference between Leica vs (Canon/or Nikon) lenses that it doesn't exist ..."

 

No, I'm saying that differences in the final pictures seldom are EXCLUSIVELY and CONSISTENTLY the result of the lens ONLY, but are probably more a result of differences in the photographer's camera handling, and other much more influential components. As I said, I use my rangefinders when I want rangefinder features and benefits, and I use my SLRs when I want SLR features and benefits, and I do NOT expect the resulting pictures to compare to each other and reveal EXCLUSIVELY and CONSISTENTLY the differences in their lenses ONLY.

 

-- Earlier: "... I also don't understand why such a difference is negated by the fact that Galen Rowell used a Nikon N70 ..."

 

Although Galen Rowell used the Sony Playstation, er, Nikon F/N70 at some point in his career (as I have also), the comments above are for the MUCH simpler Nikon F/N80, which was pretty much his final camera.

 

My point was in response to the original poster suggesting that viewers of his pictures responded somehow more favorably to pictures from a Leica M8 than they did to pictures from a Nikon F/N80 ... and then I remembered Galen Rowell liking the small, light weight, rugged, yet full featured and controllable Nikon F/N80 and wondered, sarcastically, how much better Galen Rowell's pictures would have been if ONLY he had a Leica M8.

 

I guess my point was that the pictures compared in the original post opener here probably do not reveal camera or lens qualities as much as they revel photographer qualities, as the pictures were not scientifically captured side-by-side in double blind tests anyway (do double blind tests work for photography?), so if the cameras and lenses were not given equal challenges, what are the viewer's really comparing? Their PRINT preferences, NOT lenses!

 

Also note that viewers often say what they like, but are in no position to report on accuracy. Most people like punchy, high contrast, high acutance, highly saturated pictures, and even if there were an "accurate" alternative available, such attempts at "flat" reporting of a scene do not compare well. Again, what is being reported on -- viewer preference? Again, NOT lenses!

 

I too have often enjoyed my rangefinder shots MORE than my SLR shots, percentage wise, but that says more about how I use the cameras differently in different situations than it does about each camera's potential qualities themselves. You see, the shots I take with my rangefinder are more interesting TO OTHERS because I bring my rangefinder into social situations more frequently where a rangefinder is less obtrusive than an SLR, and I get some great shots of busy and FAMILAR things -- things familiar to subsequent viewers of my images. However, I tend to use my SLR more privately to shoot things that are of interest to ME, and in the privacy of my own space, I tend to explore and shoot w-a-y more frames, especially frames that are experimental and eventually might be "throw-aways", and so, others do not respond to my SLR shooting as positively since they have no connection to the subject matter and my exploration style.

 

So, I have NO PROBLEM imagining reasons why Larry's family preferred his M8 shots to his N80 shots -- reasons that have nothing to do with the potential qualities of the cameras or lenses themselves.

 

That's all.

 

Simple, no?

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Minolta Rokkor Alpha DiMage Photographer http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/