What would make the M9 a war correspondent's ideal camera?

L

leicaAngst

Member
Local time
9:00 PM
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
20
Hi All,

I've just read a thread over on DPReview where a splash of seawater shorted an M8, and got to musing what new aspects would make the M9 an ideal 'war correspondent' camera. By this, I mean a camera that is really hardy, and quick and intuitive to use in high stress situations.

Here's some thoughts I had (some gleaned from M8 criticisms here:
http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_Field_Test,_Iraq/Page_1.html)


1. Weathersealing, so heavy rain or the occassional splash are no problem.
  • I had an Oly E-1 which survived torrential rain and a drop in the surf.
2. Shockproofing, so a bump or drop doesn't break anything.
  • I appreciate the rangefinder mechanism is delicate, and most current pro cameras wouldn't survive a drop on concrete, so if Leica could achieve this, then wow!
  • Perhaps an optional rubber covering with shock-absorbers top and bottom would further help avoid dents (should be easy given the M's regular shape).
3. Completely silent operation.

4. Recessed / locked buttons, to avoid accidental changes to ISO and self-timer activation.

5. Exposure compensation via the back wheel, for quick tuning.

6. A choice of metering, including matrix style and standard M center-spot-type metering.
  • Controversial I know, but in some high stress warzone situations with difficult lighting I'm guessing this option may be appreciated (?)
7. Good high ISO performance, for low light shooting.

I think that with the above features, many professional photographers working in challenging environments would consider the M.

What do you all think?

Cheers, LA.

(I was going to add 'tilt-and-swivel screen with live focus assist' for above-head or around-corner shooting, but I think that would be a step too far for even the most liberal minded Leica fan, and would result in replies that I go tilt and swivel
emoticon-smile.gif
)
 
A war?

Seriously, you go to war with the camera you've got.
Initially, in Korea (1951) it was a big-ass Graphic,
then a Rollei and finally a pair of Leica 1f's. All worked.
 
sojournerphoto said:
A mirror, pentaprism and disposable item price
Click to expand...


This.


Also, war has changed since the days when Leicas saw war. I couldn't see bringing a $10000 camera and some really expensive lenses into an environment where they could possibly be destroyed/severely devalued. A point and shoot would be a better idea as it's going to die in a year anyways, and it's not a big deal when it's ruined/dropped. I think a very expensive camera would work against you, if only for circumstances such as 'NO I CANT LEAVE WITHOUT MY M9 AND NOCTILUX! I'M GOING BACK FOR IT' whereas with a Canon A1 (for example), while being a great, reliable camera, you'd likely be like 'let's gtfo there's people dropping mortars on us, I'll get another rig for $200'

In circumstances like war it's usually not the technical quality of the shot, or the 'creamy bokeh' it's about getting the picture, which is why we're seeing more and more camera phone pictures and videos used in media outlets.
 
You'd have to locate the self timer elsewhere, the warphotog you referred to has noticed the shifting of the shutter collar so the self timer was triggered more than once, and always in situations where a shot missed was a shot lost forever
 
Last edited:
Very good points - I've heard of war photogs using Canon G series digicams for these reasons (plus unobtrusiveness).

Perhaps I should have used a different usage context like "what would make the M9 ideal for National Geographic photographers?" where hardiness and speed of use could be equally important without the elements of impending death!

Mephiloco said:
This.


Also, war has changed since the days when Leicas saw war. I couldn't see bringing a $10000 camera and some really expensive lenses into an environment where they could possibly be destroyed/severely devalued. A point and shoot would be a better idea as it's going to die in a year anyways, and it's not a big deal when it's ruined/dropped. I think a very expensive camera would work against you, if only for circumstances such as 'NO I CANT LEAVE WITHOUT MY M9 AND NOCTILUX! I'M GOING BACK FOR IT' whereas with a Canon A1 (for example), while being a great, reliable camera, you'd likely be like 'let's gtfo there's people dropping mortars on us, I'll get another rig for $200'

In circumstances like war it's usually not the technical quality of the shot, or the 'creamy bokeh' it's about getting the picture, which is why we're seeing more and more camera phone pictures and videos used in media outlets.
Click to expand...
 
I think they do war pictures in a studio now. They used to be able to fake them outside but with photoshop it can be done easily in studio.
 
Not too expensive
Weather sealing
buttons that dont get knocked out

Modern body armour is somewhat more effective than a Nikon when it comes to stopping bullets. It has the added advantage of making you look butch.
 
Mephiloco has probably the most realistic answer. But I think a high degree of water and dust-resistance, and some shockproofing would be in order. And I agree with LeicaAngst that good high ISO performance would be a requirement. I would be willing to sacrifice resolution for this. Think R-D1, with its 6MP and excellent high-ISO performance.

That $299 closeout camera the bartender has up for closeout might come pretty close to meeting the requirements.
 
A one and a half in long auto focus zoom lens that went from 10mm-2400mm with a f1.0 aperture and internal zoom/focusing.

But really if I were going into a war zone I would take a 5d mk2 and some zoom, and a HK .45 UMP, made in Germany don't ya know.
 
Four wheel drive, enough fuel for a day or two, a fast satellite uplink and a honest and sober local assistant/driver. Never mind if it can't take pictures - I can pick up a cheap p'n's at the local bazaar...

At any rate that were the things I was much more concerned about on assignments abroad in crisis zones than gear. At one time I've left an entire broadcast camera crate by a roadside (later re-sold to us for a modest ransom by some local fixer) because at least me, our talking head and a compact DV had to get to a big political hubbub, and our convoy for three news crews proved to be one clunker Fiat Croma with driver, and no other vehicle other than donkey carts to be found for love or money. And that was Bosnia, years after the actual fighting was over. Going by all reports, transportation and communication are even worse in a real war zone.

Sevo
 
You've got to remember that war photographers only used rangefinders until SLR's came along. Then they abandoned them in mass. SLR focusing systems are far less fragile than RF focusing systems. And they are more versatile. That was a 16-35 L zoom you saw on Nachtwey's EOS 1 most of the time.
 
Zzzzzzz is right, specifically when speaking of Nachtwey!

My M8 in Iraq did exactly what I asked of it... and it hung on for all 26 times I was blown up with an IED.

So, full frame and and better high ISO would be great. Otherwise, everything else presented with the M8 became second nature.

And... there is no BEST camera for war. It's called bringing a backup or two. You have to have already accepted the fact that most of your gear will have been written off for taking into a war zone in the first place. After that, I think you'll use the equipment for what it was intended for.

Half the battle (from a Photojournalists point of view) is not looking like a photographer in the first place. God knows soldiers all avoided them all like the plague. And the ones who didn't were the soldiers who weren't worth talking to.

Cheers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom