M8 for weddings?

[snegron]

I currently shoot weddings with a pair of Nikon D200's (also have a pair of D1X's as backups). I have been thinking of switching over to a digital rangefinder system mostly for the lighter weight, ability to hand hold the camera in low light/slow speed, and it appears that the M8 is the only player on the new-camera market.

I know there are several photographers out there who shoot weddings with an M8, but I would like to hear from other M8 users as well.

Of course, my biggest setback at this time is price. If I sell all of my Nikon equipment (including all my other camera bodies and lenses) I might be able to get one M8, a 35mm and 50mm lens. I would probably be looking for a second M8 body (used) as a back up as well.

Am I thinking in the right direction, or should I stick with my clunky, heavy DSLR setup? It will soon be time for me to upgrade, so I would like to know if I should consider switching systems while I'm at it.

p.s. I currently own a Nikon S2 rangefinder and I find it fun to use (except for the annoying little focusing wheel), and I like the images I get from it.

 

[mikebrice]

I shoot with the D3 for my weddings, and I used my M8.2 at the last wedding for a little of the getting ready.

I plan to work it in a little bit here and there, but I don't think I would ever stop using the D3 in favor of the M8 - there are just too many advantages over the DLSR system for weddings.

 

[snegron]

I shoot with the D3 for my weddings, and I used my M8.2 at the last wedding for a little of the getting ready.

I plan to work it in a little bit here and there, but I don't think I would ever stop using the D3 in favor of the M8 - there are just too many advantages over the DLSR system for weddings.

Thanks for the feedback! I am at the point where I will be considering upgrading pretty soon. I gave the D3 some thought, but I would love to steer away from a heavy camera/lens outfit. As you know, after shooting with a DSLR for several non-stop hours at a wedding, it gets very tiresome. I have thought about a D700, but other than the full frame advantage I don't know if the body will be any lighter than what I currently own.

My assumption on the M8 is that it is comparable to its film predecessors in terms of build quality, reliability, and performance. I am also assuming that the image quality is equal or better than what I currently own. I have not used an M8 yet, but I have read reviews on it and hope to read more feedback from people like you who have used both the M8 and Nikon DSLR's. Thanks again!

 

[MCTuomey]

jeff ascough thinks it's a bad idea, and he used M6 TTL's in his film days ...

 

[.JL.]

Just to share an example: I shot most of this wedding with the M8 (>90%).
http://flickr.com/photos/35summicron/collections/72157604469338084/

 

[ali_baba]

I shoot weddings with M8's.

I shoot weddings with M8's.

M8's work great, and the shutter on the M8.2 (if working properly) is even better!

The image quality will stand out with the right glass (leica lux's and cron's) and you wont look back!

pm me for some links if you want to see some recent work...

 

[Richard Marks]

Thanks for the feedback! I am at the point where I will be considering upgrading pretty soon. I gave the D3 some thought, but I would love to steer away from a heavy camera/lens outfit. As you know, after shooting with a DSLR for several non-stop hours at a wedding, it gets very tiresome. I have thought about a D700, but other than the full frame advantage I don't know if the body will be any lighter than what I currently own.

My assumption on the M8 is that it is comparable to its film predecessors in terms of build quality, reliability, and performance. I am also assuming that the image quality is equal or better than what I currently own. I have not used an M8 yet, but I have read reviews on it and hope to read more feedback from people like you who have used both the M8 and Nikon DSLR's. Thanks again!

Some things to be cautious about if used to s DSLR. You loose spot metering and secondly the flash is relatively primative. Id be a bit concerned trying to do fill flash in bright sunlight. Also the IR filters which you really need for accurate blacks on Mens suits) make lens flare a nuisance. I think its a superb camera and I am sure its fine for weddings, but the images you get would be different due to diffrent strenghts and limitations.

Richard

 

[rogue_designer]

Depending on your style and the locations, loosing the telephotos might be a problem too.

Personally I'd use both a dSLR and an RF. Rather than replace one with the other - too different.

But then - there is also a reason why I don't shoot weddings anymore. 😀

 

[snegron]

Just to share an example: I shot most of this wedding with the M8 (>90%).
http://flickr.com/photos/35summicron/collections/72157604469338084/

Thanks for sharing! I am curious to know if you used fill flash in the indoor shots where the couples are near the window?

 

[Riccis]

Yes, it can be done... I used M8s for all my wedding work for over a year before going back to shooting film with M7s. Please visit my site and blog if you are interested in viewing some images.

Cheers,

 

[wolverine]

There is a great and long thread about this a few months back on the leica user forum. A lot of support and advice for doing so.

 

[Richard Marks]

Thanks for sharing! I am curious to know if you used fill flash in the indoor shots where the couples are near the window?

It can be done just using the automatic mode settings, its just more difficult than with a DSLR setup. Also if you do put a more sophisticated flash gun the camera starts to be unballanced and you loose its advantage of compactness. The SF24 is really neat but not enough power to do fill in bright conditions, also if the distance from camera to subject is more than 10ft there is good old red eye. Lets be honest the M niche is avalilable light photography with discretion. If you can persuade your couples to choose the right time of day and contemporary available light images then youll be fine. Its just that white dress strong harsh sunlight job that would scare me. However if the light is really horendous my secret weapon would be some film!

Richard

 

[Holmz]

...However if the light is really horendous my secret weapon would be some film!

OK - So what would be the reason for shooting a wedding in digital versus film?

I can only think of:
1) The cost of the film making the photographer want to save some $, or to provide a cheaper option for the customer
2) Photographers needing to chimp to be sure
3) Surely the clients don't need the photos that quickly to require digital turn around speed (do they?)

What have I missed?
Why wouldn't (or why couldn't) on shoot with an Ikon, or Bessa in film?
The shutter is quieter, and the film picture is no worse than on an M8...
From what I can ascertain so far - and I am new to it all - the white dress in harsh light could easily clip, and for me I would want to chimp to make sure that the exposure was correct.
(Which makes me think I need to start using my spot meter to figure things out for latitude with respect to the digital)

The main reason I got a digital is for ease of traveling and to avoid getting the film x-rayed to death.

 

[user237428934]

OK - So what would be the reason for shooting a wedding in digital versus film?

I can only think of:
1) The cost of the film making the photographer want to save some $, or to provide a cheaper option for the customer
2) Photographers needing to chimp to be sure
3) Surely the clients don't need the photos that quickly to require digital turn around speed (do they?)

What have I missed?
Why wouldn't (or why couldn't) on shoot with an Ikon, or Bessa in film?
The shutter is quieter, and the film picture is no worse than on an M8...
From what I can ascertain so far - and I am new to it all - the white dress in harsh light could easily clip, and for me I would want to chimp to make sure that the exposure was correct.
(Which makes me think I need to start using my spot meter to figure things out for latitude with respect to the digital)

The main reason I got a digital is for ease of traveling and to avoid getting the film x-rayed to death.

Many couples nowadays order the digital negatives in addition to the photos. When you shoot film you have the problem to deliver high quality scans. In digital you have them ready. With film you have to spend extra time for the scanning. I only know wedding photographers working on fixed price basis. So when you are using digital and need less time after the wedding your income per hour is just better.

 

[kevin m]

I used M8s for all my wedding work for over a year before going back to shooting film with M7s.

(italics mine)

Now there's a ringing endorsement for the M8! 🙄

I knew half a dozen wedding photographers who used Leica M's with film; I know zero who use M8's.

 

[whatsilenceknows]

What have I missed?

Performance of full frame sensors and better APS-C sensors smokes any film on high ISO's, particularly in colour. Tom.w.bn got the rest. I know quite a few wedding photographers and maybe one or two of them offers shooting film as an 'extra' option to the whole reportage, and it's mostly MF/LF, frequently crossprocessed to achieve certain effects, on location or in studio.
Oh, and please don't flame me, I know that film is transcendental absolute and all that stuff. 😉 It's just that 'shoot film' isn't 'be-all, end-all' remedy for every photographic task and digital photography isn't the same technology from the days of first sensors anymore. Some tend to forget about it. 🙂

Greetings.

P.S.

clients don't need the photos that quickly to require digital turn around speed (do they?)

Of course they don't need. They want. 🙂

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

You have to decide what is more important.....using a camera you want, or using a camera that can deliver. Looking at DSLR models available, you could purchase two Canon 5D2 bodies and a wide angle and slight telephoto lens for them, as well as two flashes, and spend about the same.

Now the 5D2 will spank the M8 for resolution, dynamic range, color accuracy, speed, low noise at high iso, autofocus, and flash capability.

Yes, it's not a rangefinder. But your clients don't care. I would never use my Bessa R2a or a digital version to replace a good DSLR. I used the Bessa in addition to the DSLR with B&W film.

After nearly 20 years of doing weddings (just decided to stop this summer) I can tell you that the M8, for quality and speed, is a poor cousin to the latest high end DSLRs. As much as I love the feel of the M8 in hand, it can't match the quality of a good DSLR.

Your clients want the finished product. A camera that is limited in quality and speed will slow you down, force you to change, and in the end, make you miss shots that others would be able to get.

As a rangefinder lover, I'd still give it a big thumbs down for weddings. It's not up to the task.

 

[snegron]

Performance of full frame sensors and better APS-C sensors smokes any film on high ISO's, particularly in colour. Tom.w.bn got the rest. I know quite a few wedding photographers and maybe one or two of them offers shooting film as an 'extra' option to the whole reportage, and it's mostly MF/LF, frequently crossprocessed to achieve certain effects, on location or in studio.
Oh, and please don't flame me, I know that film is transcendental absolute and all that stuff. 😉 It's just that 'shoot film' isn't 'be-all, end-all' remedy for every photographic task and digital photography isn't the same technology from the days of first sensors anymore. Some tend to forget about it. 🙂

Greetings.

P.S.



Of course they don't need. They want. 🙂

You are probably correct in many aspects regarding FF sensor quality over film. Of course, that would open up a whole new can of worms.

My main reason for not using film anymore is because of the decline in quality of film processing labs. Over the past few years I have had many rolls of both 35mm and 120mm film ruined by pro labs. I don't have the facility to process my own negatives (other than maybe a few BW rolls in the bathroom at night). Also, scanning (IMO) is more of a hassle than what it it worth. Getting a pro lab to scan negatives is pricey when it comes to getting high resolution color scans that are able to preserve the advantages of film.

Yes, I have thought about hanging a film-loaded rangefinder around my neck while shooting the bulk of the wedding with a DSLR, but then I revert to the reasons I gave above: too many things can go wrong with a roll of film after you give it to a lab. Besides, if I can get the shot correctly in digital to begin with , why bother with a scan?

So, inevitably, this brings me back to my original query; is an M8 the ultimate wedding camera for someone looking for a high quality, reliable, responsive, digital rangefinder?

In another online community I posted this question and was given an interesting response. Someone stated that larger DSLR/lens combos are great for impressing clients because people equate larger cameras with better pictures. Many clients and wedding guests think that Uncle Bob's Nikon D300 with all its gizoms and attachments can get better shots than some small point and shoot-looking little camera with that little red circle.

While I agree that many people (mostly wedding guests) will be more critical of my work because I wouldn't fit their concept of a big-camera-toting wedding photographer, I wouldn't have an issue with my clients because they would have hired me based on the images they were shown by me during our initial consultation.

Maybe the M8 might not be the wedding digital rangefinder camera of all times, but it is the only player in the market today for anyone looking to shoot in this particular style. It would be nice to finish shooting a wedding without the usual back ache caused by hauling around the heavy DSLR compbo with attachments.

 

[ali_baba]

not to forget...

not to forget...

for all the M8's shortcomings it still allows one to use their leica glass in the digital format. this is something that any DSLR can't compare to. I shoot weddings with my business partner who uses 5D's. He shoots all of the important portraits etc while I attempt to achieve the status of the fly on the wall with my M8's. The combination is absolutely perfect, and honestly he always gawks at my image files. The blacks are blacker, there is more depth, the list goes on Leica glass Rules!

 

[peter_n]

Now there's a ringing endorsement for the M8! 🙄

It may be the M8, but Riccis has a tremendous eye and might well be still interested in digital imaging, the forthcoming S2 for example. I bet a lot of wedding photogs will be interested in that camera. Even Jeff Ascough has gone from Leica M to digital and his pictures don't look any different. But then Jeff has just won a commendation in a landscape competition run by the UK Sunday Times - with a picture from a cell phone.