Will the M8 be used by press photographers?

[pico_digoliardi]

<i>If I were a pro PJ I would definitely buy an M8. </i><p>

And if I were a professional Grand Prix racer...<p>

But we aren't.<p>

[harvey_edelstein1]

Gurley boys use M8's Manly men use Nikon D2x's and Canon IdsMII's with big teles and zooms and flex their CEPS and PECS. Rowell used an FM10 and got stunning landscapes, he didn't flinch if someone saw him shooting with a cheap camera while he was making money off photography.

[sitemistic]

I am a PJ who shoots Canon digital slrs for my work gig for all the reasons already pointed

out. But to tell you the truth, probably 90% of the routine news coverage ( I shoot for a

newspaper) could be done with a 5 megapixel p&s. Those 85 line screens newspapers use to

reproduce photos destroy any resolution advantages the slrs have over the p&s cameras. For

sports, the digital SLR is king. For most other shots, no one looking at the newspaper could

really tell the difference.

[vinay_patel]

"Rowell used an FM10 and got stunning landscapes, he didn't flinch if someone saw him shooting with a cheap camera while he was making money off photography." </p>

 

Rowell only used that camera when he was trail running so it's doubtful too many people saw him using it. He also used a Canon Rebel, to gain access to the T/S lenses. Any other time he used top of the line Nikons (F4 and later F5)for their features and dependibility. There is a large body of his writing where he describes his equipment choices in excruciating detail, including several books. Even some of his coffee-table books have annotations in the back as to what equipment was used for each shot. He was a pragmatist not a dogmatist, who demonstrated that attention to equipment choice is not <i>sufficient</i> for great photography but it most certainly can have a strong effect.

[35mmdelux]

What Vinay said.

[craig_shearman1]

I worked for UPI and other news organizations for 15 years and currently work in PR on Capitol Hill in Washington. (I started as a photographer and ended up as a writer but still rub shoulders with news photographers or less every day.) Leica is simply coming to digital too late. In the days of film, Nikon and Canon dominated the news photographer market probably 45/45 with 10 percent left over for Leica, and you certainly saw Leicas in use. But since digital took over, the market is pretty much 50/50 Nikon/Canon and with the exception of someone working on a long-term book/magazine project with no daily deadline you rarely see a Leica (or any other film camera) at a news event any more. A digital Leica makes sense for someone who has a bag full of Leica lenses they would still like to use. But if that photographer is shooting daily newspaper/wire service news, he already switched to either Nikon or Canon five years ago when digital became a job requirement. Those Leica lenses may be sitting there waiting for a body, but he's already got a huge investment in Nikon/Canon glass and bodies that's he's become accustomed to. If Leica had brought out a digital body five years ago they might have held onto news photographers who were already using Leica, but that train has left the station. Will a handful of news shooters buy Leica because they've used it in the past and love it? Sure. Will most of them abandon their Nikons and Canons? No way.

[craig_shearman1]

Make that "rub shoulders with photographers more or less every day."

[john_camp]

If I saw a guy trying to cover a serious news event with a Leica, I would think "amateur."

 

JC

[pico_digoliardi]

<b>John Camp</b><i> If I saw a guy trying to cover a serious news event with a Leica, I would think "amateur." </i><p>

With quotes and all?<p>

But that's more telling of you, John. I suppose if you saw a news photographer using a LF camera you would think the same thing?

[jonathan_elderfield]

If I saw a guy trying to cover a serious news event with a Leica, I would think "amateur."

 

I guess all those Magnum photogs are amateurs!!!

 

www.jefoto.com

[pico_digoliardi]

I PRAY that John Camp is not a close relation to Donald Eugene Camp, the photojournalist who did marvelous work with a modest M2 in the sixties.

 

So... John Camp... are ya?

[rj]

I don't know if the m8 will be the main camera for a present day press photographer, but it seems that it could be a good companion to the slr kit. Kind of the camera that you could keep around your neck for those times you really want a smaller camera.

 

Documentary photography, now this is where I can see the m8 used to its full potential. I can see a documentary photographer who wants to keep a lower profile using an m8 with a few small primes, easy to transport and you get to keep the great image quality.

[jtk]

Vinay, I knew Galen (who would not have claimed to be a PJ) from working with him and some of his film...he was a pragmatist, not a gear enthusiast...for example, he bragged about a $200 clamshell Minox, kept warm close to his chest, when his Nikon died of cold batteries at a peak (McKinley?). He got a kick out of using the cheapest K-mart running shoes for K2 approach, rather than exotic "climbing" boots. As well, he modified images whenever he thought they'd be more fun by correction in slide duplication (Pentax). Many of his important images are known only through his modified E4 slide dupes.

[bob haight]

The camera will work very well where quiet, unobtrusive, lowlight type work is done, as it always has.

[joseph_wisniewski]

Leon Chang - "Besides that it is smaller than a d-slr, the lenses are smaller so it looks less obstrusive."

 

You haven't seen those IR blocking filters yet, have you. From off axis they reflect bright (and I do mean bright) red.

 

Years ago, I had one of those filters on a Nikon D100 (had IR sensitivity problems similar to M8. D100 wasn't quite as bad, but it was similar). Security at an event came after me because they saw the gleaming red lens and the only other thing they'd ever seen that looked like that was a spotting scope. They thought I might be an assassin!

 

 

You know Elmar and Planar and Elmarit and 'Cron.

 

Tri-Elmar and Summar and 'Lux and Biogon.

 

But do you recall the most infamous camera of all

 

M8 the red-nosed camera, had a filter on it's nose.

 

And if you ever saw it, you would even say it glows.

 

All of the other cameras, used to laugh and call it names.

 

They never let poor M8, join in their street shooting games.

 

Then one foggy Christmas eve, Santa came to say.

 

M that sees with infrared, won't you guide my flying sled.

 

Then all the cameras loved him, as they shouted out with glee.

 

M8 the red-nosed camera, you'll go down in his-to-ry!

[jimiwo]

poetry

[david_seelig]

I use an M8 for my paper when I am tired and my body aches it is much nicer to carry around

then my mk 111 but when I am shooting sports I use my canons

[jimiwo]

I shot Canon F1s with prime lenses for many years. So no zoom lenses, no autofocus, I didn't even need a battery which is probably impossible for younger shooters to even imagine. When I did go digital it was with the epson RD1. So still: no autofocus or zoom lenses, just two gorgeous leicas, 24 and a 50mm (which also now spend time on a used M6 I bought more recently)

 

When the Canon 40D came out I purchased one immediately. All of a sudden I had autofocus and a 24-70 zoom! I was worried that the RD1 had been a mistake and would now languish in the bag. But no: the smaller size and weight of the rangefinder are much better for street shooting and candids when I am shooting weddings.