clintdunn

<p>Honestly...this is the problem with wedding photography in the digital age. There are now too many wedding photogs like you that are willing to shoot a wedding for only $500. From the one shot you posted I don't think it looked that bad, but I wouldn't have refunded her one penny. In my opinion, if a bride chooses a $500 wedding photographer..well you get what you pay for. Don't take that as an attack on you the photographer; what I mean is that she is in no position to be that fussy when paying so little for a wedding.</p>

<p>People need to temper their expectations....</p>

<p>I'm starting to become a Leica guy after buying a used M8...but there is no way I would ever buy the X1 over the Fuji X100. That X100 is one sweet looking package, and from what i have read the image quality appears to be bang-on.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry..double post</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Anyone have 2 shot's to compare- one with a SLR and the other with "that look" of a Zeiss or Leica?<br />Please post your best shot with a Rangefinder that has "that look" and let's see. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>These aren't my shots Bob, because I don't waste my time doing comparisons...but here is someone who has:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.stevehuffphotos.com/Steve_Huff_Photos/CANON_35L_REVIEW.html">http://www.stevehuffphotos.com/Steve_Huff_Photos/CANON_35L_REVIEW.html</a></p>

<p>Steve Huff does a review of a 35mm 1.4L on a 5D2, and then compares an image shot with a Leica M8 and a 28mm Elmarit (half the resolution sensor) and the Leica shot is MUCH sharper. That said, the Leica (or Zeiss) look is not just about sharpness, the colours and the character of the shots just look...well ...different. </p>

<p>Believe me, I am not trying to start a flame war with Canon lovers...I myself shoot Canon, and probably always will. I have or have owned an Eos 3, 20D, 5D, 7D, 1DS2 and various L glass. However, now that I just bought a used Leica M8 and two Zeiss primes I am amazed at the image quality at lower iso's , and how sharp the files are from 'only' 10mp. Combine the image quality with how small the lenses are...well let's just say it can become an addictive thing.</p>

<p>If you can live with manual focus, awful user interface (from a Canon perspective), then you will be amazed at the rangefinder system and the awesome lenses available to them. My Zeiss 25mm 2.8ZM Biogon is sharp corner to corner, fairly fast at f2.8, and is only a 46mm filter size. My old 16-35mm 2.8L is nowhere near as sharp and 4x the size.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I don't believe any police officer in dangerous duty would choose the Colt over the Glock. Similarly, I don't believe any photojournalist would choose Leica or Zeiss over the Nikon, as his only camera, on an assignment.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nice analogy...but it's a little outdated. I don't ANY photojournalists who shoots film anymore...digital is where it is at for pure speed....so your point is rather moot.</p>

<p>But back to the original question...I think you would definitely see an improvement in image quality stepping up from the Nikon to either the Zeiss or the Leica. I recently bought a used M8 with a few Zeiss primes and they are sharper than almost ALL of my Canon lenses...and I own some nice ones.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>BTW, if you wanted exposure compensation, toggle the aperture ring on the lens back and forth</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry...but that is a poor work around for exposure compensation. 9 out of 10 times I am using a particular aperture because that is what I want/need for the creative outcome...ie: DOF. This is why I shoot aperture priority...it is very easy, I set the aperture I want and I can dial in exposure compensation if I know the lighting will trick the camera's metering. </p>

<p>As for the other poster who asked why I would use exposure compensation..there are a host of different lighting conditions where exposure compensation is quick and useful...I'm sure you can think of a few yourself if you wanted to...like shooting a subject in the snow as an example. </p>

<p>At any rate, I find it amusing how many people clamour to defend the Leica M8/M9 if anyone dares to question it's shortcomings. Like I have already said many times...I actually LIKE the M8, but I am not brainwashed like many others here to think that some poor 'design elements like exposure compensation buried in a Menu equates to a 'feature'.</p>

<p>At the end of the day I have the M8 for the excellent image quality and crazy, good lenses. Beacuase of this I am willing to live with manual focus, poor control layout, high noise, average battery life, and insane pricing.</p>

 

<p>Well Ross...at least it was you that got wet and not the camera!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It's quite misleading to say that the ISO and exposure compensation controls are "buried" in a menu. Exposure compensation adjustment is, if I recall my time with an M8, as accessible and quick as with a Canon 5D.<br>

Also, if you know how to use depth of field to pre-focus, that's faster than focusing on an object with any manual or auto focus lens. It's instantaneous.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>First of all, thanks to everybody for their comments. To Ray, who made the statement above I would say this...<br>

Exposure compensation is NOT as quick and easy on the M8 as a Canon 5D, or a any of the other Canon prosumer and higher models. With my 5D/7D/1DS2 I can change the exposure compensation without ever having my eye leave the viewfinder. You cannot do this on the M8. As for using DOF scale to pre-focus, I am well aware of that but try it with a fast lens wide open and see how many OOF shots you have...a lot more than a good AF DSLR.</p>

<p>Anyway, I understand the differences between rangefinder and DSLR, and I can live with them. I just think that there are so many areas that the Leica rangefinders could be improved but there are a lot of people out there for whatever reason are too traditionalist to consider change. It is ridiculous to suggest to future Leica users that the camera's deficiencies don't exist, or that they somehow are just not 'good enough photographers' if they can or won't live with the camera's quirks.<br>

Saying that great photographers did just fine with manual focus is akin to saying gramps got around fine on his horse and buggy, doesn't mean that most of us want to go back to that! Much like the horse and buggy, manual focus is slow yet purposeful, and in some cases beyond pure nostalgia it is even better, but generally speaking a car is quicker and more efficient.</p>

<p>Anyways, I don't want to turn this into a flame war. I actually love the camera, quirks and all. I actually don't mind manual focus either...I would just never try and tell someone it was somehow better, because 90% of the time it is not.</p>

 

 

<p>I'm not sure how many of you will care, or want to read my post but I recently bought a used M8 and I would like to share my thoughts on the purchase. <br>

Let me start off by saying that I am a long time Canon SLR/DSLR shooter, but my loyalty to that brand is only really attributable to the fact I have a large Canon EF lens collection. Aside from that, I would probably be perfectly happy shooting Nikon, or even maybe Sony. OK, not Sony, but you get my drift. At any rate, I have become increasingly annoyed about the size of my 1 series EOS and have always been intrigued by the size to performance ratio of the Leica M series. Recently I find that for family outings and street walking I want something of superb image quality and compact size. I experimented with the G10 and S90 from Canon, both of which are great cameras but I always felt like I was compromising with the smaller sensor size.<br>

At any rate, I recently came across a used Leica M8 with box and accessories for $2200. This seemed like a good deal to me and I thought, what the heck...time to scratch that Leica itch! For a starter lens I picked up a new Zeiss 25mm 2.8 ZM and headed out shooting. Here is what I experienced:<br>

<strong>Craftsmanship</strong><br>

Call me gullible, shallow or whatever....but I am one of those people who appreciate fine craftsmanship and the Leica M8 has that in spades. You pick the camera up and the thing just reeks of quality, from the heft of the camera itself, to the feel of the metal body. I realize this has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on image quality or the handling of the camera...but the M8 really is a thing of beauty.<br>

<strong>Lenses</strong><br>

Everybody says that owning a Leica M series and putting any lens on it besides a Leica is like dropping a Kia 4 banger into a Ferrari. Unfortunately for me...I don't have the dollars at the moment for the Leica 24mm Elmarit Asph, so I have to 'slum it' for now with the Zeiss 25mm 2.8 ZM Biogon. With that said, I do fully intend on my next purchase being a genuine Leica...even if it is an older non-coded 50mm. Either way, there are tonnes of lenses available for the M series, from the affordable Voightlander, to the expensive Zeiss, to the ridiculously expensive Leica lenses. I have to say, the vast lens collection available for the M series weighed heavily in my original purchase decision.<br>

<strong>Image Quality</strong><br>

In a word, wow. Wow. Did I say wow yet?? Man, for a 5 year old camera the M8 produces amazing looking files at lower ISO's. The clarity and detail...the crisp sharpness from the Zeiss/Leica combo is just really amazing. You hear all the time about how sharp Rangefinder images can be due to the lens design that is not compromised by a mirror in the camera body...but until you experience it you really don't appreciate it. Canon wide angle lenses have been the bane of my existence...until the recently released 17mm TSE there really was nothing from Canon that was sharp across the entire field of view. One of the great advantages to the M series, and rangefinders in general is that there are quite a few terrific quality wide angle lenses to choose from.<br>

I imagine part of the perceived sharpness from the Leica also has much to do with the lack of an AA filter, and I am very impressed. I have taken a few hundred photos already of various different subjects and so far have not come across any 'ruined' photos due to lack of AA filter. I really wish Canon would offer a 1 series non-AA version as an option at the top tier of their camera range.<br>

<strong>So to summarize, thus far the Leica M8 rocks!! But.....</strong><br>

...and you know there <em>is</em> a but....there <em>always</em> is, nothing is perfect despite what the Leica faithful will tell you. There are a LOT of shortcomings to both the Leica M8 specifically, and to rangefinder cameras generally. For starters, let's talk about the style of shooting with a rangefinder. <br>

Ask a Leica faithful about what they love about shooting rangfinders and after they stop talking about the amazing lenses they'll start to wax on about being 'discrete'...the ability to capture the 'decisive moment' due to the lack of a mirror blocking your view as you snap away at your shutter. What a bunch of hogwash! First of all, in this day and age there is nothing at all discrete about walking around with a Leica M8/M9. Anyone who knows even a little bit about cameras knows that Leicas are ridiculously expensive and stare at you and your camera. The other 25% of the people on the street who don't know/care about Leica <em>still</em> stare at you and your gear because it looks like you are shooting some antique camera from the 50's. Which brings me to the all manual focus 'feature' of rangefinders...<br>

I challenge any Leica guru who fancies himself/herself as a pro with using the manual focus to a shoot-off with my 1 series Canon. I guarantee you, the mirror flipping up and blocking my viewfinder view will not, and has NEVER cost me a single lost photo opportunity. I tell you what WILL cost you a photo opp, and that is trying to quickly manual focus, especially if you are dealing with razor thin DOF on a fast lens. This opinion that some have that lack of features such as AF somehow make you a faster photographer is really beyond my reasoning. With that said, the manual focus on the M8 DOES work, it just isn't as fast, and there is something really satisfying about getting a crazy, sharp photo that you focussed yourself on the fly. I went into my new Leica relationship knowing that speed would be a trade-off, but I think some don't realize just how much they rely on AF for a quick photo. It doesn't matter how good you get with the MF, in most cases it will never be as quick as a pro AF system.<br>

<strong>...another but...</strong><br>

I'm all for style over function (to the chagrin of my father), but even I am appalled by the poor user interface on the M8. I understand the purists want to keep the camera as simple as possible but here are a couple suggestions.<br>

1) Why can't we add just one more dial to the top of the camera for exposure compensation?? I like to shoot in aperture priority mode (, a travesty I know!) but in order to get to the exposure compensation I have to actually go through the menu on the back of the camera, select it, and then change it. Are you kidding me? Even my $400 G10 has an exposure compensation dial. I can hear those of you already that disagree with me, 'just shoot in full manual'...well guess what, it's not as fast (at least for me). There is nothing simpler than shooting in aperture priority where the shooter has full creative control by turning the aperture ring, and than dialing in exposure compensation as needed.<br>

2) But what about the ISO?? Ok, give me one other quick button for the ISO, this time on the back of the camera...maybe I just depress the button and than rotate the new exposure compensation dial Leica just added for me and that changes the ISO...Hey, that's a great idea! It's stupid to have to dig through a menu to get to the ISO and then change it...once again, not very quick at all if you want to capture that 'decisive moment'.<br>

<strong>...and last but not least..another but...</strong><br>

In this day and age of stratospheric ISO settings that seem magically clean at almost all settings on the newest DSLR's, the Leica M8 really does lag behind. So far, it appears that from ISO640 and lower I get pretty darn good results. Above ISO800 you better expose perfectly in-camera because if you underexposed in the field good luck making up for it in post, at least if you care about noise. And therein lies my next point, I don't really care about the noise. If I want perfectly clean images at high ISO I'll just shoot my Canon. For some reason I actually <em>like</em> the noise at high ISO on the M8...makes me feel nostalgic like I am shooting film or something. If you care about noise and are considering an M8, well think hard if you can live with it.</p>

<p><strong>...well that's a lot of buts...</strong><br>

BUT...I <em>really</em> love my M8! I don't know what it is, there's just a certain <em>je ne sais quoi </em>about the M8 and the Leica mystique in general that compells me. I can live with it's idiosyncracies: manual focus, slightly innacurate framelines (oh yeah, that was a BIGGEE for me, and I forgot to mention!), key features buried in Menu tabs etc, because I just love the look of the images I get, even if they are magentas where you should be seeing black...<br>

Yes, I purposely left the lack of UV/IR filter off my list because others online have already hashed that to death. I thought maybe some of my points would be uselful to someone looking at making a jump to the M8 or rangefinders in general, so hopefully someone out there will read this, and if you did, thanks for taking the time!<br>

Oops, almost forgot, if you look at my profile I haven't posted any Leica M8 photos yet, they are on another computer so I'll post some later if anyone actually bothers to read this thread:)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Based on my experience, I strongly discourage people to print larger than 11x14 from a 5D or lower MP camera (and I have turn down several print requests).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>...biggest joke of the year. If you can't get world class prints bigger than 11x17 with a 5D classic than you are either A) incompetent, or B)working with lousy files produced from poor technique. I have a 20x30 print from my old 5D that looks unbelievable but I used remote shutter release, tripod, mirror lock-up, low ISO, stopped the lens down and used a professional printing service.</p>

<p><img src="../photo/11762237&size=lg" alt="" /></p><div></div>

<p>Nadine, I don't see any red line...I just see a poor quality photo with horrible noise.</p>

<p>Kelly,<br>

Absolutely things happen, things go wrong...which is why a 'professional' wedding photog should carry a second body. Really I don't feel too bad for the bride/groom, you get what you pay for. How is their photographer going to afford carrying a second body when they're only getting $600 for a 12 hr day of shooting AND post processing? Now, if they had spent even $1200 I would feel badly...but right now I don't.<br>

As for the photographer, you're probably lucky you only charged $600 or you would be headed to court. My advice to you is to practice with Engagement sittings first, if you're good at it buy a second body, decent lenses and flash and try again...but NOT for $600! </p>

<p>So tell me...is this pretty or gritty..</p>

<p><img src="../photo/8663475" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I only looked at your first review...the 14mm and that was as far as I got. The picture you posted is underexposed....so I decided not to read further. I figure, if the pic isn't even exposed properly how can I trust the rest of the review? Also, you provide a center and an edge crop at 100%, but no link to the overall photo as a reference? By the way, if that is what your 14mm is doing for you get a refund.<br>

<br />There are already tonnes of good sites posting reviews on lenses, so unless you find it particularily enjoyable I wouldn't bother.</p>

<p>I would start by visiting Galleries you are interested in and bringing your portfolio with you. If someone thinks you're good you will have no problem finding a gallery to display your work. The first challenge you will have is getting high quality prints and framing done for display (if you haven't already done so).</p>

<p>Sorry I only read the first page of posts...but from what I read you charged $600 for the wedding and now the bride wants a refund because the pictures sucked due to faulty equipment....and you're too broke to give it back.<br>

I guess my view on this is...what do people expect for $600...and it was your first wedding...so really they (Bride/Groom) didn't do their research. I wouldn't refund anything if you don't have the money to give them. If people want to pay $600 for 900 photos...this is what they get. Sorry to sound harsh but everybody and their Uncle thinks they're a photographer now, and the price for legitimate wedding photogs is going into the tank.<br>

I've only shot 4 weddings, mostly because I despise doing so...but I wouldn't do another for less than $2000.</p>

<p>Vail, from looking at your one sample photo in front of the church I would be more concerned with other aspects of the photo than just the so called 'cardboard cutout' look. The subjects are all slightly tilted to the left as your horizon was off, and the composition could be greatly improved by shooting elsewhere other than that church parking lot. The tree to the right of the frame is also distracting...In my opinion these factors do far more harm to the asthetics of your photo than the fill flash. <br>

Personally I like shooting in bright sun as I like the dynamic lighting you can get using strobes and keeping the sun in the frame...but if you want even, natural lighting hunt for shade...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i own a nikon D90 and i have to say the first few times i put it on i didn't step more that a meter away from the tripod :) it's not that stable and the legs move individually, and if you're not careful you just might smash your camera with this</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So let me get this straight....it's not STABLE...and while set-up the legs move INDIVIDUALLY...and if I'm not careful I might smash my CAMERA. Hmm sounds like a great idea for a tripod. Just don't breathe when you take the picture or the camera might start moving...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think that tent pole / tripod contraption would be just perfect for smacking my old lady's bottom while I balance my 1DS2 on her head.....cus that's about how well it would work.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>I have a good 5 years of solid experience under my belt using 2 DSLRs, plus another 3 years using traditional 35mm SLR's, Twin Lens Reflex 6x6 medium format cameras, doing everything from developing my own 120 Tri-X to scanning hundreds if not thousands of my own negatives on my Nikon Coolscan V.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Experience using gear...or even having good gear....does not make the photographer. Unfortunately you cannot buy artistic talent and an eye for photography. I too looked at your website and I am going to be harsh and say what your friends/family won't....your pictures are not very good.<br>

You obviously love photography so I suggest you stick to it as a hobby and look at other areas you enjoy for your day-job. I realize this is harsh of me to say, but it seems to me that others in your life do not give you honest feedback. You can always count on the good old internet for an honest opinion:)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It's easy to get the colour right, both straight out of the scanner, and in postprocessing.<br />If that's all the 1Ds2 has going for it (and it doesn't have much going for it, compared to the RB. It's not even considerably smaller), beter throw your 1Ds2 in the bin, Clint! ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's ok to bug me about my old and out-dated toy 1Ds2, I don't mind:) If it's so easy to get the colour right straight out of the scanner why are the examples in this post so poor? I'm actually a fan of medium format too by the way, with that said I recently sold my Mamiya 645afd. <br>

I think the 1DS2 is one of the bargain buys out there. I bought mine a year ago for $2100. The image quality is better than my brand new 7D, and for prints 20x30 or less I prefer it to my old Mamiya. The biggest reason I shoot digital is that 75% of my work is all long expsosures at night, and the clean files from the digitals these days are awesome. Film has a certain nastalgia that I miss, but for me the quality and convenience of RAW files from my 1DS2 trump nastalgia any day.</p>

 

<p>ahem....<br>

Sorry to interupt the love fest but I just had to interject. There is no doubt medium format will give greater resolution than 35mm digital, but there is a heck of a lot more to image quality than pure resolution. I look at your example of the fellow sitting on the bench (in colour). The image looks absolutely terrible because of the horrible colour rendition from your scan. I appreciate that other scanners and/or scanner operators can do a better job but therin lies the problem...how much work do you need to do to get the colours right?? I could have shot that exact same photo with my 1DS2 in Jpg and it would have looked a million times better straight out of the camera.<br>

With that said, I do appreciate and see the benefit of film's added exposure latitude, and even the resolution if you really need it.</p>

<p>90% of my photos are shot wide-angle....so I guess if it were me I would take the 17-55 as it is at least semi-wide. A 28mm on a crop camera just wouldn't cut it for me if that was as wide as I could go.<br>

How about this, forget about the canon 17-55 and buy the great Tamron or Tokina equivalent, and use the extra money to buy the 85mm 1.8<br>

To this day I have never bought an IS lens and I still manage to get decent photos:)</p>