Bill Pierce
Well-known
First off, apologies for not being around for awhile. On the road and one unexpected additional job really trashed the schedule.
I've been trying to think why I use a Leica M8 for so much of my personal work, when the Canon 5D's that I use for "professional" pictures do so well. I know that many on this forum are in a similar situation.
RF's used to have the advantage of better focusing accuracy, especially with high-speed wide-angles and normals used wide open. Current DSLR auto focus accuracy is dependant on a lot of factors, but it certainly is adequate for most work - especially if it is occasionally supplemented with a little manual focus.
The RF viewfinder gives you important information on what's outside the frame - and, at least in the finder, everything is sharp and observable. Sometimes that's an advantage; sometimes, a distraction. But, when needed, I tend to use bright line finders in the accessory shoes of DSLR's (with fixed lenses) and zooms can be quickly racked to a wide position if you don't want to take the camera from your eye.
As much as I would like to come up with some significant, important reason for using the M8, it really comes down to the fact that it is small (and DSLR's with zooms or high speed, fixed lenses are big, very big).
Now there are other small camera, but the sensor size and the lack of anti-aliasing filters give the M8 outstanding image quality.
That's it. I use the M8 because it's the small camera with the high quality. No other reason... But, to me, at least for personal work, those qualities override all the other things about the M8 that annoy the hell out of me.
So, there have got to be more intelligent and overriding reasons for using an extremely expensive camera than my "It's small." Would those who are the wisest among us tell us why we should use the M8?
Bill
I've been trying to think why I use a Leica M8 for so much of my personal work, when the Canon 5D's that I use for "professional" pictures do so well. I know that many on this forum are in a similar situation.
RF's used to have the advantage of better focusing accuracy, especially with high-speed wide-angles and normals used wide open. Current DSLR auto focus accuracy is dependant on a lot of factors, but it certainly is adequate for most work - especially if it is occasionally supplemented with a little manual focus.
The RF viewfinder gives you important information on what's outside the frame - and, at least in the finder, everything is sharp and observable. Sometimes that's an advantage; sometimes, a distraction. But, when needed, I tend to use bright line finders in the accessory shoes of DSLR's (with fixed lenses) and zooms can be quickly racked to a wide position if you don't want to take the camera from your eye.
As much as I would like to come up with some significant, important reason for using the M8, it really comes down to the fact that it is small (and DSLR's with zooms or high speed, fixed lenses are big, very big).
Now there are other small camera, but the sensor size and the lack of anti-aliasing filters give the M8 outstanding image quality.
That's it. I use the M8 because it's the small camera with the high quality. No other reason... But, to me, at least for personal work, those qualities override all the other things about the M8 that annoy the hell out of me.
So, there have got to be more intelligent and overriding reasons for using an extremely expensive camera than my "It's small." Would those who are the wisest among us tell us why we should use the M8?
Bill
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
No. You are right, I, too, like the rangefinder because of its small size. When you are not working the camera is not intrinsic to your life as it is on a job. For example if you are invited to a function not to photograph but as a guest why carry a heavy camera with a large telephoto lens?
Shadowplay
Established
While I don't count myself among the wise here I can say that in addition to your comments about the small size I prefer the feel of the body in my hand, the rugged exacting engineering that has created such a marvelous photographic tool. I am also so sick of autofocus and the uncertaintly I have felt about my camera's ability to obtain an accurate focus lately after having been an early adopter of the 1D/1Ds III. Because I don't like to manual focus using an SLR viewfinder, I choose a rangefinder and now my 1Ds and 5D sit, quickly depreciating, in a great big heavy domke F1x 
.
.MacDaddy
Certified Machead
Hey, Shadowplay! Just noticed you're from my old stomping grounds of Davenport Iowa! Alright! *o)
I went back to RF film photography for the same reasons as Bill Pierce uses his M8 for personal work-small size, astonishing lenses and amazing image quality. I shoot a D300, but am frustrated with the huge size and complicated menus that get in the way of simply shooting! I just found out I can get an M8 through work at a VERY significant discount, so...8o)
P.S. Anyone near Atlanta, GA willing to let a homeless photographer set up a pup tent in their backyard for awhile? Because that's what I'll be if I buy that Leica!
I went back to RF film photography for the same reasons as Bill Pierce uses his M8 for personal work-small size, astonishing lenses and amazing image quality. I shoot a D300, but am frustrated with the huge size and complicated menus that get in the way of simply shooting! I just found out I can get an M8 through work at a VERY significant discount, so...8o)
P.S. Anyone near Atlanta, GA willing to let a homeless photographer set up a pup tent in their backyard for awhile? Because that's what I'll be if I buy that Leica!
Avotius
Some guy
I am with you on this one, I got into rangefinders because of size and also because I highly value seeing what I won't have in my picture as much as what I will. Also I used dslr's a lot and two bodies with two zooms, well... I am 23 and now I have terrible neck pains when I have a camera strap on my neck and I have tried different straps and what not, in the end I needed some professional massage work on the neck and upper back and a half blind Chinese fellow ringed me out. Now it's not so bad but I am very weary of the weight of my gear.
marke
Well-known
Yup! I loathe the days when I need to hang that DSLR around my neck with my 100-400. Sure, it has it's purpose, and there are things I can do with the DSLR that I can't do with the RF. But when I hang that "lightweight" MP over the shoulder, I feel like I'm on vacation!
MacDaddy
Certified Machead
Bill:
One thing I firmly believe is that a DSLR, no matter how sophisticated or powerful, somehow creates a disconnect between the photographer and their subject. Even using manual mode, the whole thing just doesn't have "soul" compared to the use of a RF camera, whether it's a film RF or an M8.
I may be all wet and certainly don't have even the tiniest levels of your incredible experience, but honestly ask yourself why, when shooting for your own enjoyment and not for a paycheck, that you pick up the M8 and not the 5D. My gut reaction is that it's because there is some deep soul-satisfying connection created when your hands wrap around that RF camera that simply isn't there with the DSLR.
One thing I firmly believe is that a DSLR, no matter how sophisticated or powerful, somehow creates a disconnect between the photographer and their subject. Even using manual mode, the whole thing just doesn't have "soul" compared to the use of a RF camera, whether it's a film RF or an M8.
I may be all wet and certainly don't have even the tiniest levels of your incredible experience, but honestly ask yourself why, when shooting for your own enjoyment and not for a paycheck, that you pick up the M8 and not the 5D. My gut reaction is that it's because there is some deep soul-satisfying connection created when your hands wrap around that RF camera that simply isn't there with the DSLR.
Freakscene
Obscure member
My main reason for using film Ms is because the control set is so simple. This carries through to the M8 in a relative sense. A Leica M6 or any other manual film Leica has four major controls you use before you press the button to take a photo: shutter speed, aperture, film speed and focus; a Nikon F4 has maybe 10 times as many controls. I haven't counted how many controls the M8 has, but the Nikon D3 has bewilderingly more. I like simple things. I think part of the reason that i like my M8 less than my M7 and Mp is that the M8 is necessarily more complicated and fussy. But it is still about the simplest capable digital camera around.
Marty
Marty
eli griggs
Well-known
tmfabian
I met a man once...
I think an interesting point to be made about the camera is that even with all it's annoyances and quirks, it is a perfectly capable machine. If it's a capable tool that allows you to create your images plus it's small, then in all honesty, it has one up on DSLRS.
I think this is also a very valid and honest thought to have. If you have the option of using a tool that gets the job done, but does not provide you pleasure vs a tool that gets the job done while providing you the pleasure of using it you will choose the one that gives you pleasure.
it's the same concept behind choosing to eat something that gives you nutrients and tastes really good vs something that provides the same nutrients but is completely tasteless.
there is a lot to be said for getting pleasure out of using something and it certainly should not be looked upon as an afterthought or a point thats less valid than technical aspects...people like to feel good.
in the end, i use the m8 because it's a joy for me to use, it's small (i carry 2 with me every day in a small, every day bag that one DSLR would be really quite difficult to fit in), and it is a perfectly capable machine that, when handled properly can produce images as good or better, from a technical standpoint, as any other camera.
The real question is...why wouldn't you use one (aside from some of the technical aspects like not being great for macro or super tele and what nots...)
I think this is also a very valid and honest thought to have. If you have the option of using a tool that gets the job done, but does not provide you pleasure vs a tool that gets the job done while providing you the pleasure of using it you will choose the one that gives you pleasure.
it's the same concept behind choosing to eat something that gives you nutrients and tastes really good vs something that provides the same nutrients but is completely tasteless.
there is a lot to be said for getting pleasure out of using something and it certainly should not be looked upon as an afterthought or a point thats less valid than technical aspects...people like to feel good.
in the end, i use the m8 because it's a joy for me to use, it's small (i carry 2 with me every day in a small, every day bag that one DSLR would be really quite difficult to fit in), and it is a perfectly capable machine that, when handled properly can produce images as good or better, from a technical standpoint, as any other camera.
The real question is...why wouldn't you use one (aside from some of the technical aspects like not being great for macro or super tele and what nots...)
Last edited:
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
Many years ago I decided to shoot an opera that was going on outdoors in a public space. Everyone else were snapping away with their point and shoot and I brought my EOS 1v with 135L. Security stopped me pretty quickly saying no photography allowed. They didn't seem to care about the little point and shoots. Before I got a real jobs I shot events for spare change (literally) and people don't mind you shoving huge zooms in their faces but for street shooting people react badly when you are armed with large white zooms. I shoot candid street photos but often when I see an interesting person I ask for permission. They seem to be OK when photographed with something that looks like a point and shoot. The M8 is a pro camera, yes a pro camera that looks like a toy and this is what I need.
amateriat
We're all light!
I switched to RFs because I simply got tired of the AF SLR gestalt, with with the menus, custom modes and stovepipe zooms. And I'm talking film SLRs here, leaving digital largely out of the equation. The first shot across the bow for me was when I got hold of a Hexar autofocus around 1996. That camera got progressively more use over the following five years, while I started hauling out one or both of my Minolta 9xi SLRs either for working gigs or when I just felt I needed the range of a big zoom. In early '02 I just chucked all the SLRs (and, reluctantly, the Hexar AF) for a pair of Hexar RFs and three lenses. That's what I've used as my main system ever since, and I've had no regrets.
It's not just one "thing." Yes, there's the size/weight thing (not so much the camera bodies as the lenses, which are far smaller and lighter), there's the VF experience, which is a big deal to me (Minolta once had a wild and crazy function on their 7xi and 9xi bodies where, when used with certain xi-series Minolta zooms, pulling back on the zoom ring would give you a "preview" in the viewfinder, the lens essentially zooming out to offer a 140% view of the scene, with an LCD overlay frame of the live area; an idea that got more laughs than accolades). Then there's the relative simplicity of operation: load film of choice, set ISO (or set to DX and let the camera do it), and get on with the taking-pictures thing. There's the ease of carrying the whole kit without back strain, and without fretting over what to take and what to leave home: the bag stays packed and ready to go all the time now. Just drop some film in one of the pouches ad go. It's all these things wrapped up together.
Frankly, I feel the pro-dSLR world is due for something of a technological sea-change to address what I feel are the major drags on the format: size, weight, noise and an overly-complex layer of controls. (No, I don't think the RED prototype is it: it merely consolidates still- and moving-image capabilities, something Nikon already offers now with the D90). Meanwhile, for digital shooters, there's the M8, and, hopefully, others to follow. Of course, for now, I'm sticking with film (breaking out the Olympus C-8080 for digital duty whenever needed).
- Barrett
It's not just one "thing." Yes, there's the size/weight thing (not so much the camera bodies as the lenses, which are far smaller and lighter), there's the VF experience, which is a big deal to me (Minolta once had a wild and crazy function on their 7xi and 9xi bodies where, when used with certain xi-series Minolta zooms, pulling back on the zoom ring would give you a "preview" in the viewfinder, the lens essentially zooming out to offer a 140% view of the scene, with an LCD overlay frame of the live area; an idea that got more laughs than accolades). Then there's the relative simplicity of operation: load film of choice, set ISO (or set to DX and let the camera do it), and get on with the taking-pictures thing. There's the ease of carrying the whole kit without back strain, and without fretting over what to take and what to leave home: the bag stays packed and ready to go all the time now. Just drop some film in one of the pouches ad go. It's all these things wrapped up together.
Frankly, I feel the pro-dSLR world is due for something of a technological sea-change to address what I feel are the major drags on the format: size, weight, noise and an overly-complex layer of controls. (No, I don't think the RED prototype is it: it merely consolidates still- and moving-image capabilities, something Nikon already offers now with the D90). Meanwhile, for digital shooters, there's the M8, and, hopefully, others to follow. Of course, for now, I'm sticking with film (breaking out the Olympus C-8080 for digital duty whenever needed).
- Barrett
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I do like my M8 for the reasons stated previously ... it ties in with my film bodies and it attracts little attention and doesn't scream 'professional photographer' to all around you!
I believe there will be a major renaissance in camera design in the future and a mirror flapping around in the camera body and the associated space it requires will become a thing of the past ... and we'll look back on it and laugh. Smaller cameras with very high quality sensors (not necessarily full frame) and effective electronic viewfinders will be the norm. Actually I find the term full frame kind of amusing in that we still hold that 24 x 36mm light recording patch as the 'holy grail' for some reason ... based around lens availability and we need to let go of that!
Samsung are due to release a totally new camera in 2010 with EVF and a range of high quality lenses made to suit whatever the sensor size is and I believe that whether it turns out to be a good camera or not is rather irrelevant because it's more an indication to me as to where camera design is heading and I think it's down this path. I think the DSLR is as doomed to becoming a bit player as much as the rangefinder now is. The camera of the future will not be a rangefinder and it won't be a DSLR ... it's roots will be in both but it's design will come from current technology!
I believe there will be a major renaissance in camera design in the future and a mirror flapping around in the camera body and the associated space it requires will become a thing of the past ... and we'll look back on it and laugh. Smaller cameras with very high quality sensors (not necessarily full frame) and effective electronic viewfinders will be the norm. Actually I find the term full frame kind of amusing in that we still hold that 24 x 36mm light recording patch as the 'holy grail' for some reason ... based around lens availability and we need to let go of that!
Samsung are due to release a totally new camera in 2010 with EVF and a range of high quality lenses made to suit whatever the sensor size is and I believe that whether it turns out to be a good camera or not is rather irrelevant because it's more an indication to me as to where camera design is heading and I think it's down this path. I think the DSLR is as doomed to becoming a bit player as much as the rangefinder now is. The camera of the future will not be a rangefinder and it won't be a DSLR ... it's roots will be in both but it's design will come from current technology!
Last edited:
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I started really liking SLR photography when I dumped my Canon stuff and bought a Pentax ME Super, a Pentax K20D, and some old primes. The K20D with Pentax-M 50/1.4 is actually as small and light as my R-D1, and the ME is practically as small as a Canonet.
That said, I usually reach for a rangefinder. I think it's the lenses--I just love the lenses. They're like little jewels.
That said, I usually reach for a rangefinder. I think it's the lenses--I just love the lenses. They're like little jewels.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Yesterday I was in the pub. A friend had her birthday there. Brought my M2, loaded with HP5+, rated at 1600. I took a few readings with my Gossen Digiflash and figured out the exposure. 1/30th-ish at f2 would have to do. I prefocused and managed a few social snapshots before people even noticed I was taking a shot. No struggling AF, no focus assist lights, no suddenly bright screen, and most definitely no blinding flash. Just look, frame, adjust focus slightly, snap.
The beauty and craftmanship of the M2 aside, this is something no other camera in my arsenal can do. SLRs would be too big and AF ones would struggle or switch on AF assist. Mirror slap would be an issue. Few lenses are as good at f2 as a Summicron. My Mju-II would have gotten the shot, but only with flash. With my Canonet I would have had too much trouble focusing in the horrible light.
I guess the M8 would have worked just the same. But to me it's too expensive for what it is...
The beauty and craftmanship of the M2 aside, this is something no other camera in my arsenal can do. SLRs would be too big and AF ones would struggle or switch on AF assist. Mirror slap would be an issue. Few lenses are as good at f2 as a Summicron. My Mju-II would have gotten the shot, but only with flash. With my Canonet I would have had too much trouble focusing in the horrible light.
I guess the M8 would have worked just the same. But to me it's too expensive for what it is...
ferider
Veteran
I'm certainly not among the wisest ....
That said, pre-visualizing a scene, then using a rangefinder to put a frameline around it, feels like the ultimate photographic experience to me.
Best,
Roland.
That said, pre-visualizing a scene, then using a rangefinder to put a frameline around it, feels like the ultimate photographic experience to me.
Best,
Roland.
pesphoto
Veteran
I hear a nice M8 really impresses the girls.......
craygc
Well-known
Not that I have an M8 - or anything digital for that matter - but apart from smallness of the M system + quality, one thing I really like is the ability to scale focus - or more specifically for me at times, guessing the distance even with an open aperture. Even with the best manual focus SLR lenses, the focus throw is short and offers no where near the level of accuracy for dialing in a distance. Might not be an issue for many but I tend to use it quite frequently.
dcsang
Canadian & Not A Dentist
Wow.. I never thought I would say "I feel the same way as a pro photographer feels" - I can't add anything else that would make my thoughts more complete - Bill's done so for me already
Cheers
Dave
Cheers
Dave
dee
Well-known
Hmmm.
My M 8 was / is a once-in-a-lifetme inheritance [ lifeline ? ] decision .
I am in no way , a photographer , more a considered snapshooter .
i have an ASD glitch , and my M 8 creates the perfect , unchanging , constant window onto an out of phase world .
Somehow , i seem to be able to work out the framing of a 35mm and 50 mm lense - despite the magnification factor . I also love using old Lenses on it , combing history with modern convenience .
Unlke most modern cameras , it looks and feels as I expect a camera to , it also has what could once be considered a traditional interface , though many would argue that today's cameras are becoming universal , and therefore '' traditional ''
initially, I was a bit in awe of it - what have I done ?
Now , it's as if the digital debate is closed and my M 8 is simply an intuitive camera which happens to be capable of downloading onto my Mac ... it's just '' MY CAMERA ''.
I have a Leica Digilux 3 and L 1 body , for similar reasons , but that enormous zoom does few favours in street photography - a compact Rokkor 45mm pancake makes it more useable , but '' emma '' my M 8 is simply a dream come true .
dee
My M 8 was / is a once-in-a-lifetme inheritance [ lifeline ? ] decision .
I am in no way , a photographer , more a considered snapshooter .
i have an ASD glitch , and my M 8 creates the perfect , unchanging , constant window onto an out of phase world .
Somehow , i seem to be able to work out the framing of a 35mm and 50 mm lense - despite the magnification factor . I also love using old Lenses on it , combing history with modern convenience .
Unlke most modern cameras , it looks and feels as I expect a camera to , it also has what could once be considered a traditional interface , though many would argue that today's cameras are becoming universal , and therefore '' traditional ''
initially, I was a bit in awe of it - what have I done ?
Now , it's as if the digital debate is closed and my M 8 is simply an intuitive camera which happens to be capable of downloading onto my Mac ... it's just '' MY CAMERA ''.
I have a Leica Digilux 3 and L 1 body , for similar reasons , but that enormous zoom does few favours in street photography - a compact Rokkor 45mm pancake makes it more useable , but '' emma '' my M 8 is simply a dream come true .
dee