Does the M8 make you lazy?

[jgrilo]

Hi,

Several years ago I fell in love with digital cameras -- for what and how easily they could do, and they do have their merits.

Over time, however, I found myself becoming lazy and less involved in the technical aspects of photography (DOF, etc) and several months ago I got into RF, in particular Leica film M cameras.

Although my pictures are not outstanding, I find that more of them are consistently better because I am forced (and enjoying it) to pay attention to every aspect of each picture. (With digital cameras, I found myself using them as P&S despite their ability to do more.)

I have been curious, though, about what an M8 feels like and what it does to you; whether it still requires/instills a great level of involvement, or whether one simply becomes more careless because it's cheap to shoot digital and you can delete the picture if it's poor. (I am not looking for a debate of digital vs. film in terms of picture quality or feel. That subject has been debated extensively, and perhaps this one too.)

The answer may require some reflection and self-analysis concerning your behavior.

Thanks for sharing your experience.

 

[jky]

It's treated like my old film M when out in the street & like a p&s when with my daughter.... either way, I'm still mindful of lighting, composition, etc...
Unlike my first foray into digital several years ago, I'm more particular with when I squeeze the trigger nowadays... saves hard drive space & the time it takes to sift through meaningless, repetitive photos...

 

[yanidel]

Not at all, photography is not about the camera. Its about your eyes and mind being connected to the environment. The M8 or any rangefinder allow you to further disconnect from technology to concentrate on what is around you.

 

[Fred Burton]

"I have been curious, though, about what an M8 feels like and what it does to you; whether it still requires/instills a great level of involvement"

Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I was a beginning photographer, all of those who contributed to my education as a photographer admonished me to learn my equipment so well that the equipment became invisible, that it was the subject that was important and I had to reach the point where I could operate the camera without thinking about it. They were right.

Now we've reached a point where because of the computers in cameras, and their sophistication in handling all of those things that i spent years learning as a young photographer, the camera truly has become invisible. You don't have to concentrate on the mechanics of getting good exposure or focus. No more calculating fill-flash. We've been freed from all that stuff by technology.

So what do we do? We throw all that out the window as too easy. We now want great involvement with the equipment. We want to be forced to slow down and think about f-stops and shutter speeds and defraction and DOF and reciprocity failure. And then we buy tons of old cameras because we want to try them all, and never learn them well enough that they become invisible.

I love my Leica film cameras (just about any camera, really), but my 5D with its sophistication is truly that invisible camera that I was admonished to cultivate when assisting on T-Rex camera safari's. I can hand it to a person with no photography experience but with an eye for composition and they can make the most amazing photos with no knowledge of how to use a camera. I've done it a number of times.

Sorry for the rant. But the whole rank of digital camera bashers on the one hand claim that digital cameras are too complex, with so many functions they get in the way of photography or they claim that the cameras are so complex that they make photography too easy, with no level of involvement in the process.

Sophisticated digital cameras have freed us to think only of the photo, but we would rather belong to an elite who turns our own dials and focuses our own lenses, and when photographing a beautiful nude by a lake is thinking about how the image of the nude in the lake proves that the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection, instead of just taking the photo before the light goes away.

O.K. I feel better now. 🙂

 

[kully]

What Fred Burton said 🙂

Although I do think that with too much automation you end up taking the photo the camera sees, not the one you see (DoF, shutter speed).

 

[Roger Hicks]

Doesn't worry me either way. The only time I really dislike automation is when I have to second-guess the exposure algorithms in 'Program' mode, or fight with the autofocus. Otherwise, even with the M8 on auto, I still know where I'm focused, what the aperture is and what the shutter speed is, and that they are suitable for the shot I have in mind.

In other words, yes, the M8 is invisible -- but a DSLR isn't, and it's a lot bigger, too.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[parsec1]

Not at all, photography is not about the camera. Its about your eyes and mind being connected to the environment. The M8 or any rangefinder allow you to further disconnect from technology to concentrate on what is around you.

DAMN RIGHT !!!!

 

[Speenth]

... I have been curious, though, about what an M8 feels like and what it does to you; whether it still requires/instills a great level of involvement, or whether one simply becomes more careless because it's cheap to shoot digital and you can delete the picture if it's poor. (I am not looking for a debate of digital vs. film in terms of picture quality or feel. That subject has been debated extensively, and perhaps this one too.)

For me, the M8 has put an end to the laziness instilled by dSLRs. A digital device it may be, but the M8 is a welcome return to the fundamental business of composing , manually focussing and selecting exposure parameters on the basis of knowledge and experience rather than a computer algorithm.

The M8 makes you work at your photography. It makes you apply what you learned over years and then promptly forgot in the era of automated everything. Interestingly for me, though it may take longer to reach the moment of pressing the button, the results are generally more satisfying. I like the business of imaging all over again - precisely because I am having to work at it.

 

[martin-f5]

no not lazy,
working with the M8 brings sensitv photographing back

with the M8 I realy go back to slow and manuall controlled taking pictures,
even the postprocessing in digital lightromm is a must

 

[dave lackey]

I was not going to reply to this thread but...

What is it with the polarization of digital and film? Automation v. manual?

I personally am sick and tired of digital lovers bashing me because I enjoy shooting a manual camera with the film of my choice. My professional work over the last umpteen years has been ALL digital with the top line of Nikon pro bodies. So, yes, I use both for different things.

But, having not owned an M8 yet, I can only offer the OP the following:

I can drive my wife's SUV to work, the store, the grandchildren's house, the restaurant, and on holiday. It gets me there.😛

OR, I can drive the MG TD...it does exactly the same. Not as comfortable on hot days or in downpouring rain...it gets me there.😎

Now,which one do I choose to drive? Not the SUV.😀

I would imagine the M8 is a nice compromise between the two extremes just mentioned....

 

[kipkeston]

I'm a lazy person in general. I'm so lazy I don't bother making a photo unless it really seems worth it, M 8 or 6 =)

 

[Rayt]

Automation give me more keepers. With my M7 I can raise the camera to my eye and snap something without being noticed all in a second or so. No need to meter and all that. It is probably true with the M8 I would snap one or two more for "insurance" since I am not wasting film but digital hardly makes me a machine gunner. I still have to sit in front of the computer after the shoot and who wants to process a few hundred files unnecessarily? Computer time is the real time waster.

 

[furcafe]

True enough. As I often say to fellow gearheads: it's important to remember that as far as (most) viewers/consumers of photography are concerned, there are no difficulty or style points.

However, different photographers obviously have different approaches & interests. I'm not old enough to have taken up photography during the Jurassic period, but my caveman mentors & instructors made it clear that while knowledge of the technical side of photography, including an understanding of exposure, equipment, & materials, wasn't essential to taking great photos, it was certainly useful if one wanted to maximize creative control. So it's not that automation is bad per se, it's just that it can be a crutch for some photographers, but that's not the fault of the equipment. My only complaint regarding modern gear is that it tends to be so designed around the automated features that some basic manual overrides become a mere afterthought (e.g., manual focus on most consumer-grade dSLRs).

"I have been curious, though, about what an M8 feels like and what it does to you; whether it still requires/instills a great level of involvement"

Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I was a beginning photographer, all of those who contributed to my education as a photographer admonished me to learn my equipment so well that the equipment became invisible, that it was the subject that was important and I had to reach the point where I could operate the camera without thinking about it. They were right.

Now we've reached a point where because of the computers in cameras, and their sophistication in handling all of those things that i spent years learning as a young photographer, the camera truly has become invisible. You don't have to concentrate on the mechanics of getting good exposure or focus. No more calculating fill-flash. We've been freed from all that stuff by technology.

So what do we do? We throw all that out the window as too easy. We now want great involvement with the equipment. We want to be forced to slow down and think about f-stops and shutter speeds and defraction and DOF and reciprocity failure. And then we buy tons of old cameras because we want to try them all, and never learn them well enough that they become invisible.

I love my Leica film cameras (just about any camera, really), but my 5D with its sophistication is truly that invisible camera that I was admonished to cultivate when assisting on T-Rex camera safari's. I can hand it to a person with no photography experience but with an eye for composition and they can make the most amazing photos with no knowledge of how to use a camera. I've done it a number of times.

Sorry for the rant. But the whole rank of digital camera bashers on the one hand claim that digital cameras are too complex, with so many functions they get in the way of photography or they claim that the cameras are so complex that they make photography too easy, with no level of involvement in the process.

Sophisticated digital cameras have freed us to think only of the photo, but we would rather belong to an elite who turns our own dials and focuses our own lenses, and when photographing a beautiful nude by a lake is thinking about how the image of the nude in the lake proves that the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection, instead of just taking the photo before the light goes away.

O.K. I feel better now. 🙂