Pro Photographer UK article on M8.2

[eleskin]

I just read the article in Professional Photographer Magazine UK reviewing the M8.2. I am impressed how much the author loved the camera, and explained why the simplicity of the M8 brought him back to 'Thinking" about the photo and not relying on all the modern gizmos on DSLR's. He said it IS the best made camera anywhere. His only fault with the M8 was the high ISO performance. Once corrected in a future model, he said many photojournalists would flock back to the M. He did not feel more megapixels were the answer, just much better high ISO performance (he said Full Frame is not as important as ISO too).

I agree with this. I am not a sucker for more MP's , just image quality. The M8 as it is outperforms many of my medium format cameras, a dream come true!! Just imagine awesome high ISO performance with a 35mm Summicron!!!! It would blow Nikon and Canon AWAY!!! the Noctilux with great high ISO would be a religious experience!!!

Any comments on this?

 

[Sam N]

I agree that it'd be great if it had a good ISO 1600 and a useable ISO3200 or 6400. RFs are great for low light, and I don't always want the size, expense, and too-thin DOF of f1.4 or faster lenses. I used my ZI in extremely dark interiors yesterday and I realized that it would be nearly impossible to get accurate focus with my SLR (even manually focusing).

Here's an SLR shot at 6400:

I wish I could do this with an RF.

 

[szekiat]

I just read the article in Professional Photographer Magazine UK reviewing the M8.2. I am impressed how much the author loved the camera, and explained why the simplicity of the M8 brought him back to 'Thinking" about the photo and not relying on all the modern gizmos on DSLR's.

I do agree that the simplicity is refreshing. Whether it gets one back to thinking, well one man's meat is another man's poison. One could argue that having a camera that does all the exposing and focusing for you frees up more brain power to concentrate on composing. Personally, the one advantage is really that its a RF and allows me to see outside the frame and hence make last min changes to composition if something is about to enter the frame.

He said it IS the best made camera anywhere. His only fault with the M8 was the high ISO performance. Once corrected in a future model, he said many photojournalists would flock back to the M.

I think many previous reviewers will contradict this point. I personally use the M8 as well as a 40D at the moment but have at various points used a 1dmk2, 1dmk3, d2x, d3, and various other cameras. Best made? I'd take my 1dmk2 over an m8 any day. Every bit of it screams out to me as fragile whereas i've been able to use my 1dmk2 even after having dropped it off a 2nd story ledge (long story). my canons have also been shot in tropical storms, and snow storms, whereas i see major battery drain issues just using the m8 out on a cold day (significantly less shots). As in other posts, high iso is not the m8's only problem, its got to sort out its IR problem, the random shutter failures, its write speed, CA, etc. I doubt many if any journalist will ever flock back to it as their main camera. As far as reliability goes, its in the stone ages.

The M8 as it is outperforms many of my medium format cameras, a dream come true!! Just imagine awesome high ISO performance with a 35mm Summicron!!!! It would blow Nikon and Canon AWAY!!!

Or not. I don't know what other med format camera u've shot. But i recently attended an open day for the P65+ digi backs on a the new phase one camera. Trust me, even shooting at reduced resolution and high iso, it'll blow the m8 at low iso DNG out of the water. I've also been shooting a canon 5d lately, and for something that came out years before the m8 and its still yonks better. Lots of tests have been carried out on this issue, both in labs and in the field, and there's no disputing that the m8 has lots of catching up to do. Compared to medium format film, i've had some scans of work done using iso800 negs and the grain and tonality is still much better than the m8. With film, a lot is dependent on the scanner u use. Something scanned with a v700 flatbed might not compare to an m8 file (never tried), but something done on a dedicated one like the hassy flexscans or a drum scan will reveal much better quality.

the Noctilux with great high ISO would be a religious experience!!!

Coming to a cinema near you!!! Check out a 5d or 1dsmk2 with a canon 50 f1.0L or f1.2L. Fraction of the price, double/triple the quality. U have to compare like with like really.

I know i'm probably gonna get shot down for saying this on a RF forum, but the truth is that you don't bring a knife to a gunfight. I love my RF to bits, but they are toys and when i need something for work, i bring the guns. Perhaps you have special abilities with a RF, but last i tried, my 40D can track focus faster and more acurately in low light than i can on a RF. Static objects, we're about par, but in low light, i hand it to my camera.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

PJ's will never "flock" to a digital rangefinder, regardless of how good it is. During a day of work, they might have to shoot everything from a political grip & grin to a football game. DSLR's are simply more versatile than an RF. Durability is the other factor (as has been mentioned). A pro Canon or Nikon DSLR is incredibly tough and hard to kill.

I love RFs, but they will forever be a niche market.

 

[Keith]

Obviously there has been a generational change in the way photo journalists now work ... not that I have any experience in this field but I can't imagine the rangefinder camera, no matter how well it evolves, ever regaining any type of foothold or even coming close to threatening the dominance of the DSLR!

There will always be photographers, certain journos maybe, who work in arenas where the advantages of a rangefinder system are right for them and offer a superior way of shooting ... compressed environmets where stealth and unobtrusiveness are paramount possibly?

Not enough to create a rangefinder renaissance though I wouldn't think!

 

[larmarv916]

I agree with the " knife -gunfight" example..The rapidly expanding technical talents of DSLR's is now at least 2 generations ahead of Leica. Also the next major leap is happening now HD video and the ability to select single frame shots. A cross over all in one "35" platform. The quality of the new Zooms for the D3X and D700 are so high as to put lens design beyond Leica's cost effective reality. I have 3 M's and shot for many years and the results are always great. That said High ISO performance matched to new generation Zoom lens designs...backed up with very low purchase prices, makes these new cameras the work horses of everyday journalist-shooter.

Just the need to shift focal lengths every 5 seconds all day long is the reality. Even a full frame "m" with stellar ISO at 12800 would not wipe out the advantage of these new "Techno Wonders" for the everyday commerical world.

The reality is the 35 rangfinders are the "art platform" niche of photography. It doesn not matter if they are film or digital. What is missing is the industry push to elevate the 35 "artists" in the art world. The traditional art world is stuck with one leg in the worship & imitation of the old "f 64" club and the slash and burn "expressionism". In a world of talentless art directors whose only claim to fame is sucking up to ad clients. The rangfinder artist photographer is standing out in the rain most of the time.

Rangefinder is the Niche Art and Video the worlds new drug of choice.

All the Best.....Laurance

 

[Avotius]

I really like the M8 and really wish I could buy one but I would never in my right mind take a rangefinder to shoot a PJ job. Zoom lenses, all those high ISO magic things and fast mindless shooting is the way of the game right now. When I do a long form documentary series I will do it with a rangefinder, much more enjoyable, but in the heat of it, im DSLR all the way. My 20D is a tank and as far as im concerned, much more capable then my M6 when it comes to getting the job done.

 

[emraphoto]

i am going to contradict myself i am sure in this post...

i am a working photojournalist. i am a freelancer mainly but i am also on the roster for 2 very large press agency's.

i think there is a role for the m8. as we are all aware the press game had become a tough slog to say the least. there is a large group of "tight and bright" press shooters who are now faced with a shrinking job market. the competition is tight and there are a few points of leverage.

1/ who you know - long term/old guard folks have a distinct advantage.

2/ you're good, really good - this involves a commitment to providing images that reach beyond the formulated crowd.

i suppose there is a role for cameras like the m8 in the second tier. folks who are committed to seeing things differently. folks who provide an image with a different set of "criterium" than the "tight and brighters"

of course all cameras are capable of doing this... perhaps though, the m8 would be suited to a specific role in a way the rest aren't (i am sure all you rff crowd can use your imaginations here).

personally i wanted very much for the m8 to fill that role for me. my issue was that i had too much money tied up in a system that wasn't supported anywhere near the standard i required. if the m8.2 could prove itself to be as tough and reliable as the early m's then it might see a resurgence in the working bag.

 

[Sam N]

Not enough to create a rangefinder renaissance though I wouldn't think!

It depends on what you mean by rangefinder renaissance. I would argue that we're in the middle of a rangefinder rennaisance now. We've gone from one player in the RF world to three. The choices one has for new RF bodies and lenses are massive (M7, MP, M8.2, R-D1x, ZI, R(2/3/4)(A/M)). Ten years ago, who would have thought we'd have 11 NEW M-mount RF models to choose from?

If you think of AF DSLRs as the evolution of MF SLRs, you could consider EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) cameras as the evolution of the rangefinder. In that case, we may be in for a different kind of rennaisance with Micro 4:3, Sigma's DP line, and Samsung's hybrid system.

 

[vincentbenoit]

The M8 as it is outperforms many of my medium format cameras, a dream come true!! Just imagine awesome high ISO performance with a 35mm Summicron!!!! It would blow Nikon and Canon AWAY!!! the Noctilux with great high ISO would be a religious experience!!!

Any comments on this?

Too many exclamation marks.

 

[johannielscom]

...My "lowly" Canon 30D has ruined me because it kicks the M8's butt at ISO 3200...

Comparing apples to oranges here.

The Canon 6400 result can be had at Leica M8 ISO 1250. How? Simple!

When I need a shutter of 1/30th to keep a DSLR steady, I can shoot the M8 at 1/8th from hand. Thats two stops.

6400-3200-1600 (which nearly equals the Leica 1250). I would underexpose half a stop, easily corrected in software on the computer.

It's no use comparing both cameras at the same shutter speed, thats just chosen ingorance on the RF design in general. A RF can be shot handheld two stops faster. Go practise! Anyone can do it!

 

[szekiat]

Comparing apples to oranges here.

The Canon 6400 result can be had at Leica M8 ISO 1250. How? Simple!

When I need a shutter of 1/30th to keep a DSLR steady, I can shoot the M8 at 1/8th from hand. Thats two stops.

6400-3200-1600 (which nearly equals the Leica 1250). I would underexpose half a stop, easily corrected in software on the computer.

It's no use comparing both cameras at the same shutter speed, thats just chosen ingorance on the RF design in general. A RF can be shot handheld two stops faster. Go practise! Anyone can do it!

yeah, but how does that help with subject movement? I've never known someone who can hold perfectly still for 1/8s

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

Comparing apples to oranges here.

The Canon 6400 result can be had at Leica M8 ISO 1250. How? Simple!

When I need a shutter of 1/30th to keep a DSLR steady, I can shoot the M8 at 1/8th from hand. Thats two stops.

6400-3200-1600 (which nearly equals the Leica 1250). I would underexpose half a stop, easily corrected in software on the computer.

It's no use comparing both cameras at the same shutter speed, thats just chosen ingorance on the RF design in general. A RF can be shot handheld two stops faster. Go practise! Anyone can do it!

Or, you can use an image stabilised lens on the Canon at high iso and dig deeper than the M8. Don't get me wrong...I love the M8. But when it comes to lowlight work.....all the new Canons and Nikon mop the floor with the M8. Be honest......we all like the M8 because it's a rangefinder....not because it can give us better image quality than most of the current competition. And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[johannielscom]

...But when it comes to lowlight work.....all the new Canons and Nikon mop the floor with the M8. Be honest......we all like the M8 because it's a rangefinder....not because it can give us better image quality than most of the current competition...

I agree there. I merely tried to make a point saying that not all opportunities are lost with the M8. Subject movement indeed is a problem. Some shots will have motion blur, some shots you will miss entirely, others (very few) you can still capture with dragging the camera along. Although acceptable results may be thin spread with dragging, it's fun to do.

When shooting mucisians, look for the song's long notes, the reversing of moves (and the tiny pause there), etc.

When you need to be sure you capture the moment spot on, a DSLR may be a safer choice. I do not earn my living with photography and prefer a certain amount of 'nice try' shots over a shoot with accurate captures only. Heck, I might even become good at this and develop a signature style, stand out from the DSLR shots

 

[Sam N]

I was taking advantage of long notes, but they are a pretty high-energy band. Even 1/30th would have been far too slow. As for "nice try" shots, I still had a somewhat low keeper rate, but it would have been close to 0% at ISO1250.

I just think it's strange that they chose to use a MF-back-style sensor (great at low ISOs) for a type of camera that is almost always used in available light.

 

[colker]

a leica is easier to carry. that means a lot for personal work. it's discreet, lenses are small.

otoh i love flashes and in camera flash, something semi pro dslrs do wonderfully.

both are good. most important: it's the photographer, not the camera.

 

[szekiat]

a leica is easier to carry. that means a lot for personal work. it's discreet, lenses are small.

otoh i love flashes and in camera flash, something semi pro dslrs do wonderfully.

both are good. most important: it's the photographer, not the camera.

i agree. As i tried explaining to the gf when i bought it, the leica is a really more a bridge camera. Bridging the transition from my m2 to my 40d. A high end compact camera minus the do it all functions. She just laughed at me and asked if i had been chasing dragons?

 

[aniMal]

There is just one area where the M8 stands out in available/low light, and that is when the subject is moving. And you do a pan on it... I have not gotten around to do anything like this since I got my M8, but I do remember lots of really good shots on film - panning movement on 1/15-8-4. Following the subject while exposing is something that takes a while to learn, but it is well worth it.

If I start working professional again (currently at sick leave), I will most likely buy a D700 or something similar. But I guess I would still use my M8 as a secondary option, for special occasions.

Working on projects though, the M8 is my first choice - and the results are much better that with dSLRs simply because I work the way I am used to and prefer.

 

[miklosphoto]

Once corrected in a future model, he said many photojournalists would flock back to the M. Any comments on this?

I am afraid by then there won't be any photojournalist who knows how to use a manual camera.

 

[POINT OF VIEW]

Does the tool create the art?

Does the tool create the art?

One artist will use a pencil and another will use a airbrush. What does it matter, regarding there choice of tools to create a image. It is always the results that count. Does anybody doubt this. Bill