Bill Pierce
Well-known
In the thread preceding this, David Seelig wrote, "I use both dslrs and my m8 my lone 35 film camera left is an m6. Most of my own work is with an m8 most pro work with my canons dslr though after getting a canon 5d mk 11 leica needs to seriousily upgrade the m8 or come out with an m9 already."
I find this is pretty much the response of most of the professionals I know who use both DRF and DSLR. The film rangefinder was the dim light king offering accurate wide open focus with high speed normal and wide angles, the tools of the dim light trade - especially with films like Kodak's P3200.
Film Leicas were relatively quiet and small, often advantages in situations that called for you to work discreetly in the world of available darkeness.
The larger, noisier M8 still had the advantage of sometimes providing better wide open focusing accuracy in dim, low contrast situations. And it was still smaller than the big professional DSLR's.
But the remarkable high ISO performance of the new Canon and Nikon DSLR's makes shooting in the available darkness, and producing breathtaking results, even with relatively slow f/2.8 zooms, a piece of cake.
In the digital world of dim light, the Leica is no longer king. In the film world I think it is.
Two questions -
(1) Journalism is now essentially digital. Is the rangefinder, a major tool of photojournalists and documentarians in the past, going to survive as such in the digital world?
(2) Equally important - in what arenas does the digital M8 shine as brightly as its film predecessors?
I find this is pretty much the response of most of the professionals I know who use both DRF and DSLR. The film rangefinder was the dim light king offering accurate wide open focus with high speed normal and wide angles, the tools of the dim light trade - especially with films like Kodak's P3200.
Film Leicas were relatively quiet and small, often advantages in situations that called for you to work discreetly in the world of available darkeness.
The larger, noisier M8 still had the advantage of sometimes providing better wide open focusing accuracy in dim, low contrast situations. And it was still smaller than the big professional DSLR's.
But the remarkable high ISO performance of the new Canon and Nikon DSLR's makes shooting in the available darkness, and producing breathtaking results, even with relatively slow f/2.8 zooms, a piece of cake.
In the digital world of dim light, the Leica is no longer king. In the film world I think it is.
Two questions -
(1) Journalism is now essentially digital. Is the rangefinder, a major tool of photojournalists and documentarians in the past, going to survive as such in the digital world?
(2) Equally important - in what arenas does the digital M8 shine as brightly as its film predecessors?
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
On the first question, should Leica remain an obscure novelty, I think it will be necessary to reinvent the wheel. One can see the hunger in the excitement over the micro-4/3rds format. Even so, Panasonic and Olympus seem to have only a faint glimmer of understanding of this excitement. Many photographers working for money have or used Leicas even if their main shooter was a reflex camera of some sort. The market is way bigger than the spreadsheet types imagine. It's just that no camera yet definitively delivers the goods.
However, the optical rangefinder camera might share the fate of the 4x5 press camera if Cosina doesn't make an updated offering soon in the digital realm. Focus confirmation and EVF may be seen as "good enough" by a younger generation accustomed to such things. And sadly, those of us used to a wider view bound by frame-lines might have to pick a wider lens, shoot looser and crop more.
However, the optical rangefinder camera might share the fate of the 4x5 press camera if Cosina doesn't make an updated offering soon in the digital realm. Focus confirmation and EVF may be seen as "good enough" by a younger generation accustomed to such things. And sadly, those of us used to a wider view bound by frame-lines might have to pick a wider lens, shoot looser and crop more.
Last edited:
tmfabian
I met a man once...
i hate to bring up the cliche of the discreetness of leica but this past weekend I ran into a situation where I was hired because of the less intimidating aspect of the m8. A child with cancer had been photographed numerous times for the client and every time the photographer rolled in with a big honking lens and the kid looked well aware of the photographer...I got the job simply because I had worked with the client before and they knew of my itty bitty rangefinder and it's lack of intimidation...I got the job and the paycheck other photographers didn't nab, and this is where it still shines like it's film predecessors.
I think though the main point of this thread is accurate. While I consistently tout the fact that the M8 is not even close to as bad a performer in low light as most folks make it out to be, the simple fact is that technology changes and changes quickly. If a new DRF could come out capable of the current crop of high ISO sensors I believe it still serves a purpose.
I think though the main point of this thread is accurate. While I consistently tout the fact that the M8 is not even close to as bad a performer in low light as most folks make it out to be, the simple fact is that technology changes and changes quickly. If a new DRF could come out capable of the current crop of high ISO sensors I believe it still serves a purpose.
Attachments
Last edited:
Dogman
Veteran
My journalism days are long past. Yet my memory of most day-to-day news shooters of the 70's onward was that Nikon was king, Canon was a distant second and only a handful of shooters were using Leicas. This was based on working with Joe Sixpack daily newspaper shooters and wireservice photographers of the time. The only rangefinder shooters I knew were mostly older photographers who occasionally used their older Leicas or Contaxes for a feature story but did the daily work with the standard Nikon SLR of the day.
The reason was simple--newspapers didn't pay photographers very well and AP and UPI provided their photographers with pool equipment (almost always Nikon except for UPI's foray into the Olympus OM system for a time).
So the rangefinder hasn't really been a major tool of the average photojournalist for several decades. Leica still survived but the survival was based on a rich history rather than practicality. Only the better-paid photojournalists or poor but eccentric shooters like myself were using Leicas. I don't really see that as changing in the digital world. If Leica--the company--can survive, Leica--the camera--is likely to continue with a small niche within an already small market.
The M8 may be a fine tool for some shooters but I don't see it as being the Leica camera that will hold that tiny niche market.
The reason was simple--newspapers didn't pay photographers very well and AP and UPI provided their photographers with pool equipment (almost always Nikon except for UPI's foray into the Olympus OM system for a time).
So the rangefinder hasn't really been a major tool of the average photojournalist for several decades. Leica still survived but the survival was based on a rich history rather than practicality. Only the better-paid photojournalists or poor but eccentric shooters like myself were using Leicas. I don't really see that as changing in the digital world. If Leica--the company--can survive, Leica--the camera--is likely to continue with a small niche within an already small market.
The M8 may be a fine tool for some shooters but I don't see it as being the Leica camera that will hold that tiny niche market.
photogdave
Shops local
My experience is similar to Dogman, except I worked for weekly papers in the 90s. We had to purchase our own gear and all I could afford was a used Nikon and Tamron lenses so a Leica was well beyond my range!
I remember one or two of my contemporaries would show up to events with a Leica around the neck and I would think "what is the point of that little bitty thing?". Don't remember seeing any of them actually use it though.
Now into my fourth year of shooting Leica, I get it, but I don't see it hold any ground as a major tool of PJs. Documentarians perhaps, but they will be just as likely to use a film M.
As to the second question, I don't think the M8 shines as brightly as a film M in any aspect but it can certainly be more convenient for giving you adjustable ISO on the fly and the ability to make fantastic color or B&W images from the same file.
I remember one or two of my contemporaries would show up to events with a Leica around the neck and I would think "what is the point of that little bitty thing?". Don't remember seeing any of them actually use it though.
Now into my fourth year of shooting Leica, I get it, but I don't see it hold any ground as a major tool of PJs. Documentarians perhaps, but they will be just as likely to use a film M.
As to the second question, I don't think the M8 shines as brightly as a film M in any aspect but it can certainly be more convenient for giving you adjustable ISO on the fly and the ability to make fantastic color or B&W images from the same file.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I think that the biggest advantage of shooting Leica M's at things like political or corporate events is that I often hear people remark that they never saw me taking any photos other than perhaps a few set-up shots, yet I have a pocket full of exposed film. It's pretty difficult to shoot discretely when you're working with a pair of DSLR's, each equipped with a huge zoom lens. With M Leicas it's easy, and a lot easier on your shoulders.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
To answer the two questions:
1) No
2) No
Both questions are closed ended so they get the "closed ended" answer
That said, I know that this is meant to spur on discussion so I would point out this particular statement:
You can blame that on any number of things: 9/11, police cameras, technology (miniaturization), the advent of neo conservatives, general fear, etc. etc. etc.
The only way to be discrete now is to use either a cell phone or a small P&S digicam - no one pays that much attention to those types of cameras however, the moment you stop, hold the camera (be it a Leica M or a honking DSLR) to your eye, everyone makes note of you - like it or not - so much for the concept of being discrete.
In the past it was just different - cameras, in general, weren't so ubiquitous. Now, when there's a camera in seemingly every electronic device, you would think that it would be even easier to be discrete but the mere fact that you are using either something too big (a DSLR) or a camera that most of the general public have a tough time comprehending (Leica M's or, perish the thought, a LTM camera) draws attention to you the photographer.
Cheers,
Dave
1) No
2) No
Both questions are closed ended so they get the "closed ended" answer
That said, I know that this is meant to spur on discussion so I would point out this particular statement:
Yes, this was true (and if you still use film, then it still holds true with respect to being able to work in relatively available darkness) but the concept of the camera being the thing that allowed you to "work discretely" is long gone the way of the dodo.
You can blame that on any number of things: 9/11, police cameras, technology (miniaturization), the advent of neo conservatives, general fear, etc. etc. etc.
The only way to be discrete now is to use either a cell phone or a small P&S digicam - no one pays that much attention to those types of cameras however, the moment you stop, hold the camera (be it a Leica M or a honking DSLR) to your eye, everyone makes note of you - like it or not - so much for the concept of being discrete.
In the past it was just different - cameras, in general, weren't so ubiquitous. Now, when there's a camera in seemingly every electronic device, you would think that it would be even easier to be discrete but the mere fact that you are using either something too big (a DSLR) or a camera that most of the general public have a tough time comprehending (Leica M's or, perish the thought, a LTM camera) draws attention to you the photographer.
Cheers,
Dave
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Jason -
I started using Leica bright line finders on top of SLR's in the '70's covering N. Ireland. By moving my eye just a few millimeters I could choose between the groundglass for focusing and contemplative composition or the bright line for a little "action" shooting. I'm now using Cosina and Leica birght line finders in some situations with cameras like the Canon G10. As cameras like that get better, I'm seriously thinking about a major investment in bright line finders.
Bill
Bill Pierce
Well-known
I would occasionally get dragged down to Washington when a crisis or a big event would strain Time, Inc's D.C. photographers. I wasn't that keen on shooting there at normal times because you photographed set ups of people talking about the issues rather than the issues themselves. But, when Washington and it's people were the story, it was fun.
But, you're right. Most of the White House guys used SLR's. One of the killer shooters was Frank Cancellari, the senior UPI photographer. The first time I walked into the press room, he looked up and said, "What do you know that these guys don't?" I had no idea what he was talking about until he waved the Leica around his neck at me. We were the only rangefinders in the room.
At times, when a lot of magazines were at the White House, you saw more rangefinders. For the set ups, which were what you were supposed to photograph, there was no need for a rangefinder. But when you looked outside of those for the little unexpected moments, that rangefinder paid off.
Bill
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Dave -
I couldn't agree more. Although the hidden advantage of a Leica is that a goodly percentage of the people who spot you want to come over and talk about Leicas - that's much nicer than unbridled hostility.
I'm using point and pushes on the street and in a lot of situations. They're getting better. I sort of think of them as a Leica IIIc with an f/3.5 collapsible 50.
Bill
pachuco
El ****
This reminds me of the last paragraph from the M8 review Bruno Stevens did for Digital Journalist:
When I was in Iran, one of President Ahmedinejad's bodyguards thought I was a writer, even though I had the M8 around my neck. Net result? I got permission (repeatedly) to shoot the prez from two feet while the rest of the press corps was tucked 10 meters away behind a fence. Sometimes I just LOVE looking like an amateur…
When I was in Iran, one of President Ahmedinejad's bodyguards thought I was a writer, even though I had the M8 around my neck. Net result? I got permission (repeatedly) to shoot the prez from two feet while the rest of the press corps was tucked 10 meters away behind a fence. Sometimes I just LOVE looking like an amateur…
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Fascinating thread, Bill, thank you for starting it. Lots of quotable stuff here, including most of what Dave said, but I especially like this:
Makes we want to have a gazillion dollars so I could buy a major share in a camera company, fire the marketing and "analyst" folks. Do you think a single one of those types has shot for a living, or shot anything other than holiday sunsets and aunt Millie's birth party?
Makes we want to have a gazillion dollars so I could buy a major share in a camera company, fire the marketing and "analyst" folks. Do you think a single one of those types has shot for a living, or shot anything other than holiday sunsets and aunt Millie's birth party?
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
I might give that bright-line finder idea a try. With decent auto-focus and the difference in DOF compared to 35mm film, it could be a way to go.
Ronald M
Veteran
Time to press necessitates digital in many instances.
Leica was way late with digital and most newspapers were already set up with Nikon or Canon.
Now there is a cost issue. $3000 lenses can`t be daily grind PJ lenses. Bodies cost about the same as high end Nikon or Canon sort of, but Canon has D5 and Nikon has D700 and cheaper bodies are around.
Does the Leica make better avail light pics, why surely it does. Even compared to ISO 1600 and 2.8 Zooms. Does it show in print? Probably not. Leica`s education campaign is long gone as the last I saw in Chicago was Fred Maroon in the 1980`s. The loaner program available through major retailers like Calumet is almost secret. Two generations of photogs have gone by the way not knowing of Leica. It is going to be next to impossible to recover the market. Leica did manage to furnish RIT with a few Leicas to keep. That is a start. Leica has no digital reflex. I tired of waiting but still have a closet full of R glass.
Leica can shine in non rushed PJ work or documentary where you can get close to the subject. Security issues today have everyone back 40 feet requiring 300 2.8 lenses. I think this effectively kills RF for most news work.
Leica was way late with digital and most newspapers were already set up with Nikon or Canon.
Now there is a cost issue. $3000 lenses can`t be daily grind PJ lenses. Bodies cost about the same as high end Nikon or Canon sort of, but Canon has D5 and Nikon has D700 and cheaper bodies are around.
Does the Leica make better avail light pics, why surely it does. Even compared to ISO 1600 and 2.8 Zooms. Does it show in print? Probably not. Leica`s education campaign is long gone as the last I saw in Chicago was Fred Maroon in the 1980`s. The loaner program available through major retailers like Calumet is almost secret. Two generations of photogs have gone by the way not knowing of Leica. It is going to be next to impossible to recover the market. Leica did manage to furnish RIT with a few Leicas to keep. That is a start. Leica has no digital reflex. I tired of waiting but still have a closet full of R glass.
Leica can shine in non rushed PJ work or documentary where you can get close to the subject. Security issues today have everyone back 40 feet requiring 300 2.8 lenses. I think this effectively kills RF for most news work.
A big answer to the big question, but well worth the read....thanks...
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Yes, a good read indeed. He covered it all. Thanks, sonofdanang.
emraphoto
Veteran
well said sonofdanag.
if i might offer my experience... i shot daily press, wire service and documentary work on an m8 for a year and a half. when called upon the m8 produced very nice files and as a whole i was pleased with it. what i couldn't justify was having so much dough sunk into a system that was largely unsupported in my opinion. i had experienced a leicausa nightmare and i couldn't shake it. i am not entirely convinced the rangefinder is hindered solely by it's form... the company philosophy and approach to support seems to have a large roll to play in the feasibility of the rf as a tool for working photographers and somehow leica has lost sight of this.
if i might offer my experience... i shot daily press, wire service and documentary work on an m8 for a year and a half. when called upon the m8 produced very nice files and as a whole i was pleased with it. what i couldn't justify was having so much dough sunk into a system that was largely unsupported in my opinion. i had experienced a leicausa nightmare and i couldn't shake it. i am not entirely convinced the rangefinder is hindered solely by it's form... the company philosophy and approach to support seems to have a large roll to play in the feasibility of the rf as a tool for working photographers and somehow leica has lost sight of this.
photogdave
Shops local
Good point.
aizan
Veteran
1) yes, if the m9 is full frame and has a low noise sensor.
2) pretty much the same, except only when the light is bright.
in the most recent issue of "fashion magazine", lise sarfati has a photo of her m8 sporting the 35/2.5 summarit. a few pages later, there's a photo of her canon 1ds with the 50/1.2L. interesting, huh?
2) pretty much the same, except only when the light is bright.
in the most recent issue of "fashion magazine", lise sarfati has a photo of her m8 sporting the 35/2.5 summarit. a few pages later, there's a photo of her canon 1ds with the 50/1.2L. interesting, huh?
furcafe
Veteran
On this side-topic, David Burnett was recently reminiscing about the attached photo from 1977 (which came up on the occasion of the Obama daughters's 1st day of school in DC). In response to the questions "Where are the Leicas? Were they out-of-date already?," Dave responded:
the Leicas werent really out of date, but they were slightly more INconvenient.. AP's Chick Harrity carried 4 M4s... and many of us had one M4 /35mm with tri x always handy.. we always had that one B/w camera no matter what happened with the color reflex cameras.
