Bill Pierce
Well-known
Are the just introduced Canon G11 and S90 competition to the Leica M8 in terms of a small, carry-with-me compact for street photography, e.t.c.?
We won't really know for a few months, and, even then, there will be disagreement. But, knowing I use Leicas, folks have looked at prints on 13x19 paper from earlier cameras with small sensors and said, "Boy, that Leica makes sharp shots."
The M8 doesn't do that well at high ISO's. Between the designs possible with the short focal length lenses, less noisy sensors and computer correction of digital images, the mini cams are getting better. It's going to be an interesting race.
Already, some photojournalists are turning to the little digital minicams the way they turned to the 35mm rangefinder - that is to say with hoots of derision from users of larger cameras like the Graphic and Rollei. Will the Bressons, Haas, Erwitts and Smiths of the near future be using small sensor digitals? Will YOU be using these cameras?
This is an important question, and I hope you will chime in with your thoughts.
Bill
We won't really know for a few months, and, even then, there will be disagreement. But, knowing I use Leicas, folks have looked at prints on 13x19 paper from earlier cameras with small sensors and said, "Boy, that Leica makes sharp shots."
The M8 doesn't do that well at high ISO's. Between the designs possible with the short focal length lenses, less noisy sensors and computer correction of digital images, the mini cams are getting better. It's going to be an interesting race.
Already, some photojournalists are turning to the little digital minicams the way they turned to the 35mm rangefinder - that is to say with hoots of derision from users of larger cameras like the Graphic and Rollei. Will the Bressons, Haas, Erwitts and Smiths of the near future be using small sensor digitals? Will YOU be using these cameras?
This is an important question, and I hope you will chime in with your thoughts.
Bill
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
I've found the Ricoh GR-DII with an optical view finder to do everything my IIIG would do and much smaller and faster. I'm already looking forward to a GR-DIII.
I'll still shot the film M's because of the lenses but for a drop in the pocket when going out the Ricoh replaced the IIIG with the collasible 'Cron.
I'll still shot the film M's because of the lenses but for a drop in the pocket when going out the Ricoh replaced the IIIG with the collasible 'Cron.
ryan26
Established
I was accepted into the Eddie Adams workshop this year, which is now fully digital, yet I do not own a digital camera - So I'm facing these questions of a digital future with much frustration right now. I don't want to give up the simplicity of my M6 and 35 (or the quality of tri-x), the M8's are not a financial option (and Leica's demo's are all at the LHSA meeting during the EAW weekend), I hate the size of the DSLR's... leaving point and shoots as the least of all evils. I WILL be using these cameras.
Though I will be using my M6 whenever there is the opportunity.
Though I will be using my M6 whenever there is the opportunity.
Ducky
Well-known
Bill, not being a professional, not even close, my opinion is of limited value.
A quick read shows a physical resemblance to the G10 but is said to be two stops faster and has a swivel LCD. That makes it interesting anyway. Priced close to the G10 they should be a bargain. I wonder it the G10s will go up in price the way the G9s did?
The S90 seems small and I can't see it as a primary camera for a pro or even a keen amateur. Nice specs though. At $450.00 it seems a bit out of the picture.
You asked the question, Bill, I wonder what your answer is today and again in two months?
A quick read shows a physical resemblance to the G10 but is said to be two stops faster and has a swivel LCD. That makes it interesting anyway. Priced close to the G10 they should be a bargain. I wonder it the G10s will go up in price the way the G9s did?
The S90 seems small and I can't see it as a primary camera for a pro or even a keen amateur. Nice specs though. At $450.00 it seems a bit out of the picture.
You asked the question, Bill, I wonder what your answer is today and again in two months?
photogdave
Shops local
If they had put the lens and control ring of the S90 on the G11 it might be tempting. Even with the supposedly improved sensor of the G11 the lens is still too slow.
If I was still a working PJ I'm sure I would have some sort of compact in my bag. I always carried an Olympus Stylus Epic in the film days. Sometimes all the extra DOF of the small sensors can come in handy.
If I was still a working PJ I'm sure I would have some sort of compact in my bag. I always carried an Olympus Stylus Epic in the film days. Sometimes all the extra DOF of the small sensors can come in handy.
Frankie
Speaking Frankly
My immediate thoughts were already posted here:
http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1119043#post1119043
The camera you have [bothered to carry] is the camera you use...amateur or professional notwithstanding.
It is refreshing to hear people say "Boy, that Leica makes sharp shots."...by default, assuming Bill's prints are made from a Leica.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
Sadly, I don't think there will be any. The short attention span public is used to short cuts spanning fractions of a second and has not the patience to examine a good photograph. (I hope I'm wrong.)
As to the little cameras, I'm still looking for one that's bike-able to take with me on my bicycle. Not a problem, you say? There are many to choose from?
I forgot to mention . . . I want a viewfinder. Not some tunnel vision approximation, not an optional at extra cost, expensive little number to fit in the flash shoe. To get it I would gladly give up the rear screen, zoom lens, pop-up flash, and 9 out of 10 features that exist solely because they can.
Meanwhile I'll struggle along with my D700, a very good camera but not at all bike friendly!
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
Smith would. Remember he embraced the half frame Pen F.
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
No. I have and use an LX-3 and an M8. There is just no comparison in terms of the image quality. I doubt the S90 is going to improve on the LX-3 IQ very much, if at all. I have been looking at the S90 with a lot of interest, thinking of possibly replacing the LX-3. Other than the more generous zoom range (which is very slow at the tele end and may not provide the optical quality of the more limited range lens on the LX-3), I think I may stick with the LX-3 because its controls allow me easier/greater control over the camera than the S90 appears to offer.
FWIW, of course...
FWIW, of course...
Pablito
coco frío
True, but it's a question each photographer must answer for himself or herself based on each indvidual's way of working, etc. These new cameras are in incremental improvement over earlier models, no new camera will be "THE ONE", these machines evolve, that is to be expected. These cameras - the LX3, the new Canons, will not have the image quality of a DSLR but it's up to each of us to decide how much of a compromise we're willing to make in order to carry as smaller device. But, to answer your question - yes, I use the LX3 because of the 24mm f2.0 lens and "good enough" image quality - based on my level of comfort. But it's no substitute for the DSLR, .
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
I think the G11 will get quite a bit of attention from PJs, at least the few that are left.
I know one of my old co-workers that is still at the Trib is very interested - he does a lot of spec filler work with an old Oly 7070 and has felt the Canon G series wasn't enough of an improvement to switch before now. Like me, he won't consider a camera without an optical VF for "serious" work and likes having a compact body for times he wants to stay low profile. (The paper only supplies Canon DSLR equipment, anything else is on his dime so an M8 is out of budget.)
If they had only included an optical VF on the S90... sigh.
I know I'm going to be in the market for a G11 so long as the low light capabilities are improved.
I know one of my old co-workers that is still at the Trib is very interested - he does a lot of spec filler work with an old Oly 7070 and has felt the Canon G series wasn't enough of an improvement to switch before now. Like me, he won't consider a camera without an optical VF for "serious" work and likes having a compact body for times he wants to stay low profile. (The paper only supplies Canon DSLR equipment, anything else is on his dime so an M8 is out of budget.)
If they had only included an optical VF on the S90... sigh.
I know I'm going to be in the market for a G11 so long as the low light capabilities are improved.
leicashot
Well-known
As a Leica M author I find it rather odd that you'd compare the Leica M to these cameras. Honestly it's kinda insulting to Leica to compare their products to a mass market, do everything camera due to it's size being similar. Other than that, they really have nothing in common.
As much as I love my Ricoh GR, I'd never compare it to my Leica M rangefinder even though I can use them for similatr purposes- they are totally different in 'THE WAY' they achieve their results. If we're going to continue such ridiculous comparisons about competition of amatuer compacts to Leica M, why not just stop producing rangefinders and get Leica to produce D-Lux's for the length of the company's remaining life?
..and as for Photojournalists being interested in this camera.....no way....not for work purposes. It's not a pro camera and the quality isn't up to standard yet. While many amatuers would think the quality is perfectly fine, many photo editors to agencies and publications would strongly dissagree.
Lastly, a rangefinder is a totally different way of working. We all know the key attributes of a rangefinder are accurate patch focusing through a large bright viewfinder thats not dependant on the lens and no blackout during exposure. Unless the cameras we compare to have those key attributes then we may as well compare the Leica M to any camera in a similar size and a digital sensor....where does this end?
If we can't distinguish the differences between a Leica M and Canon G's, then why are we on this forum?
As much as I love my Ricoh GR, I'd never compare it to my Leica M rangefinder even though I can use them for similatr purposes- they are totally different in 'THE WAY' they achieve their results. If we're going to continue such ridiculous comparisons about competition of amatuer compacts to Leica M, why not just stop producing rangefinders and get Leica to produce D-Lux's for the length of the company's remaining life?
..and as for Photojournalists being interested in this camera.....no way....not for work purposes. It's not a pro camera and the quality isn't up to standard yet. While many amatuers would think the quality is perfectly fine, many photo editors to agencies and publications would strongly dissagree.
Lastly, a rangefinder is a totally different way of working. We all know the key attributes of a rangefinder are accurate patch focusing through a large bright viewfinder thats not dependant on the lens and no blackout during exposure. Unless the cameras we compare to have those key attributes then we may as well compare the Leica M to any camera in a similar size and a digital sensor....where does this end?
If we can't distinguish the differences between a Leica M and Canon G's, then why are we on this forum?
Last edited:
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Really? I see them as having the exact same purpose - a small candid camera. You're getting hung up on the execution, not the mission.
I'll mention that to my friend - they'll have to redact all the work he's shot with his 7070 from the archives at the Chicago Tribune. Good images don't care how they're created, only camera fetishists give a damn.
Maybe because it's about the pictures? Don't get me wrong, I'm a Leica and Nikon fondler of the first degree - but in the end it all comes down to the images we make. If carrying and using a G11 allows me to create what I see, who cares?
Quinn Porter
Established
It seems that everytime a new compact camera is introduced there is great excitement that this will be the "one". But again and again, we see that the improvements are incremental rather than revolutionary. I've no doubt that the new Canon offerings will be some of the best compact digitals ever made, but that's not saying much.
MaxElmar
Well-known
Bill, as far as I can tell, the new Sony and Canon are nice improvements in the sensor area but they only bring performance up a bit - say about equal to a good 4/3 size sensor. But they're stuck with pretty slow lenses. It's a nice improvement, but for low-light performance they won't touch a large 24 x 36 sensor, especially with a fast lens. Of course - the sensor design improvements (if they really are improvements) will filter upwards to the larger sensors and the disparity will widen again!
That being said, I work with a lot of local journalists and they're using all sorts of cameras--still mostly SLRs, but some digital compacts as well. One factor is that since all journalism nowadays winds up on the web, video capability has suddenly become important for some of these folks. And most compacts will deliver adequate video for the web.
Let's not forget the sports guys will be using big-ol SLRs with giant, fast lenses, as they have pretty much since the beginning of time. (Big Bertha Graflex 4x5 SLR, anyone?)
Leicashot - you should chill out a bit. When my great-grandfather bought my Leica IIIa in 1937 it WAS a "mass market, do everything camera." Maybe the high end of the mass market, but mass market, none the less.
That being said, I work with a lot of local journalists and they're using all sorts of cameras--still mostly SLRs, but some digital compacts as well. One factor is that since all journalism nowadays winds up on the web, video capability has suddenly become important for some of these folks. And most compacts will deliver adequate video for the web.
Let's not forget the sports guys will be using big-ol SLRs with giant, fast lenses, as they have pretty much since the beginning of time. (Big Bertha Graflex 4x5 SLR, anyone?)
Leicashot - you should chill out a bit. When my great-grandfather bought my Leica IIIa in 1937 it WAS a "mass market, do everything camera." Maybe the high end of the mass market, but mass market, none the less.
JNewell
Leica M Recidivist
Sometimes the improvements aren't even incrementally positive. I've owned at least half a dozen of the SD/Elph Powershots over the years and they've been very inconsistent in terms of performance. This isn't unique to Canon, but I don't think we can take for granted that optical and other performance will be better than, or even as good as,other current/recent Canon models. The proof of this pudding will be in the tasting, as always...
leicashot
Well-known
Quality aside there are many factors that determine 'how' a great image is aquired, but at the end of the day, it's our camera of choice that influences the results, as well as our behaviour.
How else can I say it? When I shot a Leica M, I can focus and compose through a viewfinder in any lighting condition and know I have the compostition I want, focus accurate and timing perfect on each frame.
With a Canon G camera, I need to hold the camera at arms length, unsteadily (relying on IS to compensate), focus and shoot. This can make a big difference to the way subjects react. Alternatively, I can mount an external viewfinder, look through it, and pray the focus is accurate, and if lighting changes, I need to take it way from my face and off my subject, look down , make the necessary changes and recompose again.....as this can be done with the Leica without taking the camera away from my face. This is how a PJ needs to operate in difficult situations, where a toy camera will only complicate the situation.
Again, it all comes down to how one wants to work, and what quality they expect from their files....the point is that the Leica M is NOT a camera to be compared to a toy camera just because they share a similar size.
Last edited:
leicashot
Well-known
My point has nothing to do with 'mass market' but more to do with style of camera and execution methods. The Leica M is just as different to a G11 as it is to an SLR. Size is the only thing they have in common, and not justification for legitimate comparison, IMHO of course :bang: ....though I guess when I type I don't come across so humble
love this guys.....no offence ok easyrider
Photo addict
A friend of mine, Colin Perkel, who is a journalist just spent two months in Kandahar for the Canadian Press news agency. (Canadian version of AP). He took along two Canon G9s and came back with spectacular stuff -- about 500 pix and some video. His stuff was widely used in Canadian newspapers.
CanPress reporters have to write, shoot and do radio these days. They also cover the "ramp ceremonies" -- when bodies of soldiers are brought back -- for one of the TV networks. He used a small video cam mounted on a tripod for that but all his other stuff when he went out in the field with the troops was shot with the G9s. One of them developed dust problems -- the climate is very harsh -- so he was glad to have a backup. The DSLRs are just to big to carry when going out with the troops.
So, we are already "there." Journalists are using these small cameras.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
leicashot said:
You may want to re-read Bill's original post - this is *all about* usage.
leicashot said:
I wasn't aware the question was about stock. Pick the right tool for the job.
leicashot said:
Who are you to assume what I do or don't do? I still shoot my D1 and my Oly 4040, so I must be one of those tech jumpers you so obviously despise. Yeah, right.
leicashot said:
How do you justify owning a GRDIII, oh great Leica purist? It would seem to be beneath you. Besides - you are aware the G11 has an optical VF, correct? Not a good one, but suitable for most use. That's the only reason I'd even consider one.
There is absolutely no reason a camera like a G11 can't replace a traditional RF for journalistic use.
Last edited: