Would you help me choose a system please?

[Jude C.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dear Members,

I would be happy if you could help me to understand the point about the 1.3 "cropping" factor of the M8. Does that mean the M8 is not yet the best experience we could get from M lenses?

Is the Canon EOS 5d better than the M8, in the sense or picture rendition, since it has a neutral "cropping" factor?

I have experienced photography mainly with an M4 body. I was used to compact cameras when I was a kid, and got the M4 when I was at college. Since then, I have always cultivated photography as my hobby with the M rangefinder and 35 lux. I no longer have photographic material today, and I am actually saving to get a body and prime lens which I wish to keep the more it can possibly be. I am not a technology geek, I don't like changing material ( I keep the same car, I don't like changing computers every two years, etc...); however I wish to turn to digital, and I'm aware that the lifespan of anything digital is set to be short.

I do not wish to shoot film for practical and technical reasons which I won't explain here unless you're interested.

I look over the M8. It is quite an investment for me and I can't afford to make any mistakes ; I've also studied the 'market' thoroughly and came to the point (on paper), that eos5d from Canon, is something interesting to me:

large amount of megapixels (i know it's not the point), but ability to shoot in monochrome, low ISO noise, strong body, also the possibility of using, an ultralight 50mm fixed lens f:1.2, finally, a 24x36-size sensor.

Most of this factors are appealing...the specifications are large enough and I could purchase something which is perhaps a year old, but still on par with the market.

I went to a store yesterday and saw what it's like in reality. Apart from not looking very nice which is not very important, I find it bulky, moreover it would be heavy with a fixed 50mm 1.2 lens. It is difficult for me to see myself wander in the streets or rove the country with this set around my neck or my shoulder, but I can adapt...

I like reportage, portraits, streets scenes...but I am afraid that the camera set is too obtrusive for the pictures I like taking.

I have never shoot dSLRs, not even SLRs in my life: every buttons on the camera are strange to me; I'm afraid I'll lose the benefit of taking pictures over learning all the functions of the camera. But maybe I could learn from eos5d other way of seeing and taking pictures?

I can't possibly lend one and try it for myself, as I don't know anyone around with dSLRs. However, I had the opportunity to try a bridge system (Sony dsc-1) for three months and I didn't like the experience...

I know, I have to decide by myself, but I would be grateful if the members of the community who have more experience than me, perhaps in both domains of M system and Canon Eos 5d, could give me their appreciation and advice.

Should I keep saving for a digital M or should I go for a 'less expensive' but perhaps superior body camera, such as the eos5d ? I must add I don't know anything about Canon lenses; I chose the ultralight 50mm 1.2 because I felt it was close to the experience I had

once had with a 50 Summicron. I should add I'm not keen on having multiple lenses. I just would like to stay with a unique fixed lens. Finally, the factor who brought me first to the eos5d, is the 24x36 frame. On paper, I discovered that every APS have different size ratios, I simply thought that being further close to the original neutral ratio (1: 24x36) would be the best thing to do. I also thought that ultimately, every future size ratios would converge to 1.

Sorry for the long post, I cannot discuss about this at home, they just won't listen.

I humbly wait for your comments with great anticipation. Thank you for having taken the time to read me.

N.B. I can't have both worlds

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Jager]

Hi Jude, welcome to the forum.

 

There are lots of Canon shooters here (past and present). Most of us who shoot with the Leica also have DSLR systems. I think you'll find the common thread here is that most of us love the Leica M system for many of the traits you mention - its straightforwardness and simplicity. The M8 most emphatically continues those traditions in the digital world.

 

Only you can decide whether the 1.3 crop factor is an issue. In a perfect world most of us would prefer a full frame sensor. But that's not viable (on a rangefinder) with today's technology. For me, the crop factor is purely about the field of view I'm seeing - my M8 depicting a different FOV than my M6 or M7. Image quality is a non-issue. Most reviewers assess the M8's image quality as being among the highest currently available in a 35mm camera, regardless of sensor size or number of megapixels. But you'll find lots of folks get wrapped around the axle on those things and ultimately you'll have to decide if those are issues for you.

 

My advice would be to think some more about how a rangefinder vs. DSLR would fit with your expected shooting style. Decide on the type of system you'll be happiest with, first.

 

Everything will follow naturally, once you've made that decision. If you end up electing to go the rangefinder route, all I can add is that the M8 is just... exceptional. It's an extraordinary tool.

 

Best,

 

Jeff

[Bavaricus]

Hi Jude,

 

if you liked the M4 and the 'Leica-Experience', then take a M8.

 

Sometimes there are decisions you can only make by yourselfs ...

 

Regards

Reiner

[Artichoke]

the two cameras are very different with the M8 being far more limited in what it does, but at what it does best, it does offer significant advantages

the FF vs APS issue has been discussed ad nauseum & I think far more than is warranted for the impact it has on photography, though I am certain others will disagree ...the M8 having a 1.33 crop sensor is less an issue than the 1.5 crop most APS sensors use, but given the importance of wide angle photography with rangefinders, this may be of greater importance with the M8

for me the crop factor is not much of an issue ...I am used to a 1.5 crop sensor (which is an advantage for telephoto lenses & avoids refractory problems at the edges of lenses ...also manufacture of FF CCD sensors is quite expensive & I do not like the way CMOS sensors draw, but that may be a prejudice) but others coming from full frame may find this a bother & I am certain will disagree with me, perhaps even passionately

more important for your decision is what your use of the camera will be

RF cameras are very limited with telephoto or macro photography & if you plan to do these, the DSLR is the way to go

the M8 is no where as good at high ISO noise as the Canon, but I think it produces a more pleasing "film like" file & is superior at high ISO to film for noise ...the problems with IR and the need for filtering have been amply discussed here ...I am still waiting on my filters from Solms & have found this a minor issue

the cost of the M8 is considerable, but from how you describe your photography, it may well be the best choice for you ...when used properly it is capable of astonishingly fine image capture

[xrogers]

I have both these cameras. They are both excellent systems, and you already understand much of the difference between them. And except for individual preferences and needs, neither camera is superior---they're just different.

 

People who own the 5D make a big deal out of the 35mm size sensor and low noise at high ISO.

 

People who own the M8 make a big deal out of sensor sharpness, handling characteristics and lenses.

 

The M8 is expensive, and its lenses are very expensive---an M8 with a used 35 f2 lens, extra battery, lens coding and memory would likely cost you a bit over $6000. A 5D with a 50 f2, extra battery and memory would likely be under $3000. I sometimes feel bad about how much money I have tied up in Leica gear, given the rather small differences between Leica and Canon prints.

 

I have a 5D, but ended up shooting more frames with film Leicas than the 5D last summer. Go figure.

 

Both cameras will provide great results, but I expect you'd prefer the M8. If the Leica is too costly, get the 5D and accept its compromises. If you know yourself well enough to realize that the compromises will never be acceptable, then you'll have to save for the Leica...

 

Until later,

 

Clyde Rogers

[Jude C.]

Thank you for your welcome and insightful comments. It is very nice of you to help me in this matter.

I really liked the time I had with the M4 many years ago. I travelled around the world a lot with it, in my backpack or simply laced to my wrist,

Images were butterflies and Leica was my nest. From the camera eye, scenery was pure jubilation, it needed to be caught, as if this brief but strong sentiment of being, as if this feeling of discovering the self through communion with the world, people, subjects could be inscribed on paper, my aim being, to enlighten them and at each process, remember like a mantra, that we are one.

 

My main point is unfortunately more down to earth: I can't afford to do wrong in buying a system rather than the other. If I make up for eos5d, I'm expecting to get a camera I'll keep for long years, no matter what gizmo is out. I think it's all about getting involved with the camera and making a clever choice at the beginning. Don't hesitate to argue or tell me if the choice of a unique lens (50mm 1.2), is a dumb idea...I wish to learn the more you would possibly offer me, from your experience.

 

Do you take pictures on your dSLRs as easily as on RFs? Is it the same style of picture? Is it an obtrusive system?

Could you explain me in simple words, what the ratio factor is about please (I mean what does the M8 lose)?

 

Clyde, thank you for you comment. So, resulting pictures from eos5d and M8 are roughly of the same quality ?

[enboe]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've read through the thread and summarize and add the following thoughts:

 

1) The differences in technical capabilities between rangefinders and SLR's are well-documented. The latter are better for telephoto and macro work, the former being lighter and more mobile. Also, if autofocus is desired, then you are left with an SLR solution.

 

2) On the subjective side, my personal experiences are that rangefinders are more conducive to what I refer to as "conversational photography." The ranges and subjects for rangefinder photos are often at speaking distances where an SLR is more intrusive. I have had multiple times people have objected, either through body language or spoken language, to when I raise an SLR to take a photo. Nobody has objected, to date, when I raise a rangefinder to my eye in the same situation. It depends on your style of photography and the subjects you wish to capture.

 

3) One facet nobody has mentioned yet is to ask why you left M photography in the past? The M8 will handle much like your M4, with all the same pluses and minuses.

 

4) The crop factor is caused by the imaging chip being smaller than a 35mm frame. Rangefinder designs are very tightly packed inside their bodies, and currently, a full-frame sensor won't fit. This is likely to change someday, but in the mean time, the 1.33x crop factor is not an issue for a vast majority of photographic situations.

 

5) Longevity with the M8 should not be an issue. The camera will continue to deliver the same excellent photos in the future as it does today, and the design is extremely robust. I would expect the limiting factor in the M8 service life will be the availability of batteries, which are proprietary, SD media, which is widely available now but who knows about 20 years from now, and eventually shutter repair parts, after several hundred thousand pictures, that is.

 

6) Have you considered rental or loan of the proposed gear? This would give you more hands-on experience than at a store. If you choose to share your locale, it might be possible that a forum member could meet up for an afternoon of shooting. I would be happy to accomodate that for someone if they are in proximity of Disneyland in California, U.S.A.

 

I went through a long ordeal on my M8, having the misfortune of receiving a defective model. Now that I have the camera and have used it for a month or so, it's definitely a keeper.

 

Enjoy.

[Jude C.]

Members, enboe,

Thank you for your post.

1)Your first objective comment mainly solves my problem: I also realized that with my type of shooting, a prime fixed lens, which never goes over 50mm, a sophisticated camera as eos5d won't be used at full spec. I can focus quickly on a M given the short distance of my subjects. I also learnt the techniques of fast shooting (for example a bicycle race...I can do that with an M).

2)I completely agree with your subjective comment and feel more accepted with a small unobtrusive camera, toy-like and I get all the benefit of the M in these circumstances.

3)pure mistake...

4)Thank you for your explanation about the crop factor; I feel a bit less dubious now...If I make a composition with a 50mm M7, and if I make the same composition with the same 50mm on M8, I will lose a defined frame; Is that correct? Now if with the same lens and same body, I back off, to get the composition of the 50-M7, I would perhaps need to correct the focus, but is the new composition equivalent to the 50-M7 composition please? I don't think it'll be the same...

5)Your point about longevity is also correct; in the Leica tradition, I am confident that it will be well serviced, in the Leica tradition.

6)I thank you for your kind offer about trying on the gear. Unfortunately I am from abroad...but we can arrange a meeting in Disneyland, Paris one day!

 

enboes, have you by any chance tried the new Elmarit 28? If so, how does it react in low light condition? Does the high ISO of the M8, and converting the image to monochrome would give acceptable results, in your opinion?

 

Your posts are very helpful. Thank you so very much!

[xrogers]

I really liked the time I had with the M4 many years ago...

 

I think you can expect an M8 to be much the same sort of experience, the main question being long-term reliability. The M8 doesn't have the long history of reliability that the film M's have, and won't have it for quite a few years.

 

My main point is unfortunately more down to earth: I can't afford to do wrong in buying a system rather than the other. If I make up for eos5d, I'm expecting to get a camera I'll keep for long years, no matter what gizmo is out. I think it's all about getting involved with the camera and making a clever choice at the beginning. Don't hesitate to argue or tell me if the choice of a unique lens (50mm 1.2), is a dumb idea...I wish to learn the more you would possibly offer me, from your experience.

 

I think you're considering two fine cameras, and you won't be far wrong no matter what you choose. I think selecting a single lens with either camera is a fine choice, as long as it fits your shooting style. I often carry the M8 with just a 35, and am perfectly happy, and most days go with two lenses (on the M8, 35 and 90, using the 35 for nine out of ten shots).

 

Do you take pictures on your dSLRs as easily as on RFs? Is it the same style of picture? Is it an obtrusive system?

 

I do shoot the Canon like an RF---I use a single center focus point, prefocus, frame and shoot. I typically have a 50mm lens mounted, and only own three lenses (24,50 and 135). For landscape, the cameras shoot much the same.

 

When shooting people, the Canon is bigger and clunkier, and most everyone recognizes it as a fancy, expensive professional's camera. I don't find that obtrusive, but do prefer the Leica's old-fashioned anonimity---it is rare for anyone but a Leica enthusiast to look twice at a Leica.

 

Clyde, thank you for you comment. So, resulting pictures from eos5d and M8 are roughly of the same quality ?

 

I think so. The Leica seems capable of more detailed results, but the Canon is so good that I don't know how much it matters---these small differences in sharpness or detail certainly don't matter nearly as much as having a strong image to start with.

 

Does the high ISO of the M8, and converting the image to monochrome would give acceptable results, in your opinion?

 

Yes. Here is one place where I do have a strong preference---I prefer the M8's monochrome results to the 5D's, even using the same conversion workflow from RAW captures. I couldn't tell you exactly why---maybe some combination of Leica lenses and the subtle, super-sharp sensor? In any case, I think the M8 is a visibly superior monochrome camera. And I don't hesitate to use ISO 1250 or 2500 when I need it.

 

Until later,

 

Clyde Rogers

[james_h]

Hi Jude,

 

Just a couple of pointers for.

 

The crop factor that results from the size of the sensor means a 50mm lens would give the same view as a 66.5mm lens ( if ever there was one)

a 21mm lens becomes approx 28mm

28mm becomes 37.24

35mm becomes 46.5

Basically you multiply the lens length by 1.33 ( approximately ).

 

The other point to remember is that the m8 is not the only digital rangefinder on the market. You could look at the epson RD1. Never used it so can't help you there.

You could try Sean Reid's review website for further advice. www.reidreviews.com

 

Best of luck

 

Regards

Jim

[Riley]

on the crop factor

the 1.3 crop seems to have been an optimal choice

to have had FF would have made the image quality less, this because digital sensors do not behave like film

they are less tolerant of light that strikes the sensor at an angle.

The property of light that comes right to the sensor at right angles is called telecentric,

the aspect ratio of sensor size to register governs the degree of telecentric light.

this is less of an issue with other cameras because they have longer registers (sensor to lens clearance),

which is NOT to say it isnt an issue for them, FF cameras do not do wide very well (necessary for a rangefinder), with less edge sharpness and light abberations.

Add to the design woes, that digital lenses are usually better coated than film lenses, this of course isnt an issue for Leica glass, which is total quality from the start, that other manufacturers could only dream of obtaining. Single coated film lenses, even primes often appear soft

 

the M series lenses have the shortest register of all

and for some years a digital M was impossible if quality was to be maintained

the appearance of the Kodak microlens sensor resolved this by increasing the divergent angle of light the sensor could accept.

But this solution could only be pushed so far, and it seems that 1.3x was the limit.

 

anyways, what you can see for yourself is the quality of the image

and that should be the only concern because it is the bottom line

[enboe]

A few more thoughts:

 

4.1) On the crop factor example you gave, the 50mm/M7 will give a certain angle of view as denoted by the framelines, and an associated depth of field. Taking that 50mm lens to the M8 will give you 3/4 of the image area at the same distance. The M8 frame lines fully account for this, so there is no added work required on your part. Backing up, as you propose, to take in the same image as the 50/M7 combo will change your focus distance and depth of field effects. I would recommend using the 35mm on the M8 for an effect that would most closely match the 50mm on an M7.

 

6.1) I look forward to the day I get to visit that lovely city. I'll post out here if I ever do make plans. In the mean time, perhaps there is a Paris native with an M8 that would like to meet for an afternoon of play.

 

7) I have the blessing of owning the new 28/2.8/ASPH, and find it to be in keeping with the Leica tradition. For low light, I find the combination usable up to ISO 1250 for prints up to 8"x10". If low light is your passion, I would recommend the 28/2.0/ASPH, but it's even more money.

 

Eric