Leica M 8 - Classic Manual Camera ?

[dee_d]

<p>Just a thought - does ' Classic ' signify ' old ' ?<br>

I have many older film cameras , but an inheritance permitted a Leica M 8 with my Elmar / Summitar and Fed 50 f 3.5 collapsible ' Tessar ' lens . Just one modern CV 35 f 2.5 Color Scopar - known for it's vintage style .<br>

To me , it's a true classic camera which just happens to be a digi-box ! <br>

dee</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>Well, certainly some classic lenses. But no, I wouldn't think that would qualify the body as a 'classic'. There are many examples of modern digital cameras that can mount old lenses. A micro 4:3 body could mount a LTM lens from the early 1930's with the right adapter. I can and do use all my 70,s vintage OM Zuikos on my E-410 and that lump of plastic and circuitry is sure not on the same planet as a real classic like my OM-1. All that said, the analog style exposure controls of the M8 and M9 are configured to resemble classic Leica M operation. So that, if you hung an M2 from 1958 on one shoulder and a M8 (or a better comparison would be an M9 with the a full frame sensor) from the other shoulder then the mechanics of picture taking would be similar. In that example, a modern digital camera harks back to simple, classic manual camera operation and I can see why you presented your question here.</p>

 

[patrick_mont]

<p>I think any kind of "classic manual camera" should run on film.....</p>

[dee_d]

<p>I have a Leica Digilux 3 which will accept my Rokkors , and has similar analogue style controls , but it could never be considered a ' Classic ' , but I was curious about the pixellated persuasion of what is a long line of M series Leicas .<br>

Does Classic camera , currently , mean Film Camera ? ... <br>

I am not going to show pics from my digiboxes , no worries there , but using the M 8 seems just like using a Contax II , but a lot easier and with instant gratification LOL .</p>

[timwitt]

<p>How could it be a classic camera so soon?<br>

Maybe some classic lenses and the camera may look classic but........</p>

<p>I served with classic cameras, I knew classic cameras, classic cameras were friends of mine...... M8, you're no classic camera. (yet)</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Tim-Too funny</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does Classic camera , currently , mean Film Camera ? ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yep.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>It's interesting to consider what would have happened if e-film had been successful in bringing that idea to market. A thin digital sensor that could be placed on the film gate of a classic film SLR with electronics and power housed in the area normally taken up by the cassette. A classic camera with the ability to use both film and digital media somewhat like the few medium format cameras for which a digital back is available.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>M8, not at all. My Canon EOS cameras, film and digital, take a huge number of classic non-AF lenses with stop-down TTL and manual focus--but not even I would claim them as classic cameras.</p>

<p>I will only allude to my common screed on the need to have some place here, not for the Leica nor the digital EOS Canons (we have that), but for the "classic" cameras that pioneered the move to modern AF cameras. Things like the Minoltas are out in the cold. So, to a lesser extent, are the early EOS and AF Nikons, still film, but with the technology leading to digital automatic cameras. Frankly relatively few of the current Nikon nor EOS forum participants really care much about the history and prehistory of their cameras. I tried to push once for a "history" forum, but it was added to "philosophy" where it was pilloried every time someone posted an historical topic (as in "What's something real and concrete doing our fuzzy forum?")</p>

<p>Yes, I wish e-film had made it possible to use my vast collection of wonderful old (odd?) shooters with such a thing. I loved slide films like Kodachrome, but negative and modern slide films are just not the same, and I end up scanning anyhow, so....</p>

[mfophotos]

<p>If you can fix your camera with a hammer and a screwdriver, it's a classic.</p>

[mfophotos]

<p>By the way, if there is any question, this is the information about this forum:<br>

The name of this forum is "Classic Manual Cameras" with the goal that it encompass all cameras up to the electronic/autofocus era. If it's manual (or mostly manual), it probably has a home in this forum. Although, obviously, some camera systems are probably better served in their respective forums (Canon FD, Leica, or Medium Format being good examples). But you get the point.<br>

<strong>Keep in mind</strong> , there are going to be exceptions and judgement calls on this sort of thing. The Canonete QL17 GIII requires batteries to run. And yet we all would agree that this 30+ year old camera would qualify as a classic and be fine for discussion here. The Nikon FE2 is considered by many to be a classic (25+ years old), but there is a decent chance that a thread about it will get moved to the Nikon forum as that is a better place for it.<br>

The moderators of this forum are <a href="http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=14630">Bob Atkins</a> & <a href="http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=20462">Josh Root</a> .</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>we all would agree that</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In your dreams! I've seen mighty few things (other than perhaps Lady Gaga) that "we all agree" on here at CMC. I'd bet that the Canonet would get at least one negative post pointing out its automatic non "manual" features. And try taking a picture with a "classic manual <strong>lens</strong> " on a digital <strong>camera</strong> and posting it here!</p>

[SCL]

<p>While not a manual camera, the M8 might become a classic....in about 25-50 years, when one restricts oneself to the Leica line.</p>

[dee_d]

<p>Thanks everyone - just wanted to stir it a bit LOL </p>

[amir_aziz]

<p>More defunkt then classic.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>In operation a camera such as the currently available Nikon FM-10 is what I would call a 'classic style' camera. In that, it has a machanically timed shutter and can be operated with full manual control with or without a battery installed. The cheaper Vivitar V3800n also will operate without batteries. I really have some doubts that the FM-10 is in production, Nikon may be running out existing stocks. These two examples do not meet the age requirements of this forum but I would say keep up the spirit of things we all appreciate about our older, simpler cameras. If someone came here seeking help and advice with such cameras I hope they would not be turned away. The Ricoh KR-5, and the Pentax K1000, sold new into the 90's are similar style cameras.</p>

[dee_d]

<p>I shall just have to turn to my Contax II / III , Leica II and IIc ... and far too many Minolta SRTs !</p>

 

[paul_wheatland]

<p>My definition of classic 35mm is quite narrow: rangefinders with high end build quality be they fixed lens like Rollei 35 or interchangable like Leica/ Canon/ Nikon. Also film SLR's again like Nikon/ Canon/ Leica, bench made high quality professional style. All of the above being mechanically timed shutters not dependent on battery power other than for metering only. To wit, Leicaflex SL, Canon F-1 and Nikon F and F2. Just my 2 cents and again very narrow definition of truly classic equipment. We can all add to this list, I'm sure.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>Executive decision here:</p>

<p>For the purposes of this forum on photo.net, there is no digital camera that (at this time) would qualify as "classic". A few years down the road and we may need to address the question again. For now though, we do not.</p>

<p>The M8 and all other digital cameras should be discussed in other forums on photo.net.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>But the hard executive decision is about where one would discuss something like the Minolta XD-7 (XD-11 in USA). I think most people feel that this was the first camera to offer both aperture and shutter priority automation. There is no Minolta forum, so where? It's a very significant camera and set the tone for much that followed.<br /> I'm not joking nor am I trying to make trouble. I just wish we had someplace to discuss cameras like that or the Maxxum, or even the Canon EOS 650, and other issues relating to the <em>history</em> of photography and its technology. None of these are <em>digital</em> cameras.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>We have a minolta forum:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/sony-minolta-slr-system-forum/</p>

<p>The Canon would be discussed in the EOS forum as it is an EOS camera. Other than that, Casual Photo Conv is a fine place for general photography discussions.</p>

<p>The Classic Manual Cameras forum will stay, for the most part, exactly that. We have a fine definition that meets the needs of virtually everyone. I want to make photo.net be suitable for the maximum number of people, but changing the forum definition any further would just alienate people on the other end of the spectrum. At some point trying to be perfect in a situation like this becomes a zero sum game.</p>