What is the M8 for?

[Guest Walt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There have been a number of recent posts regarding exposure and other technical issues in the M8 that have made me think about the camera, what it is for, how it is designed and how it is represented on this forum. This catalyzed my thinking after, now, about six months use of two M8 bodies.

 

Many forum users appear to be interested in the kind of the technical detail, precision and control that I associate with large format cameras, and now probably DSLRs like the big Canons. I don't think the LTM or M cameras were ever much good at this. This was never really a landscape, flower, architectural, or macro kind of camera. It was a photojournalist's camera, a street-shooter's camera. In other words, it was a fast, simple, sturdy, high-grade point-and-shoot camera, a term now used derisively, but very much what these kind of photographers want and need. I'm thinking here of all the people that made Leica famous: Davidson, Frank, Cartier-Bresson, Friedlander, Winogrand, etc. As this kind of photographer I am very much against shifting the M8, its firmware, or future rangefinder cameras, towards the "large format" values I see expressed so often on the forum. I, for one, am never going to do, as one example, a close-up "back-focus" test on this camera and have never had any problems with it that matter in actual photography. I hope Leica can have the strength to focus on what a rangefinder is good for and not try to please everyone.

 

I'm finding the M8 a pretty good point-and-shoot camera and that's exactly what I want of it. There is one exception to this, and that is the metering. Historically these cameras were never used with meters. One memorized lighting "types" and just used these settings. The exposure results were O.K., but the high variability of results were expressed in the then common practice of "corrected contacts" in which over and under exposed frames were exposed differently for the contact sheet and cut and stapled to the main sheet. It was not uncommon to have 25% of one's frames over or under exposed. This was a nuisance and sometimes lost a shot (or made it very difficult to print), but it worked well enough.

 

Cameras with automatic exposure were a real boon, not only because they relieved the photographer of this uninteresting responsibility, but because they made proofing and printing much more straight forward. I have used a number of automatic exposure cameras over the years that were good enough that they almost complestely eliminated the issue of exposure from the photographic process. The M8 does not do this because of the nearly spot pattern of the metering. In my experience, in automatic mode, the exposure consistency of the M8 is hardly better than it was with the M4 and eyeballed exposure. I think an automatic mode with a spot meter is a nearly useless concept, one that creates nearly as many problems as it cures. I use the M8 in manual mode and I very often do not use metering at all. The results are just as consistent.

 

So my request to Leica is, focus on the point-and-shoot idea. And give us an averaging meter that usefully implements an automatic exposure mode.

 

Walt

[Advertisement]

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

[stunsworth]

The metering didn't bother me with the M6 and it doesn't bother me with the M8. I'd guess 95% of everything I've shot has been on AE and I've been happy with the vast majority of those exposures. It's a question of knowing how the 'fat spot' works and using the AE lock IMHO.

[wattsy]

It's a question of knowing how the 'fat spot' works and using the AE lock IMHO.

 

Indeed, I've never had a problem using the meter in any of M6, M7 or M8. I guess I do as Steve does and if I am using AE I make sure that I am locking a reading that will work for the subject I am trying to expose for. In practice I tend to use AE as the initial shutter speed position (I will usually flick the shutter dial to AE whenever I turn my camera off or put it in my bag so it is on AE by 'default'). I will quickly switch to manual once I get feel for the appropriate exposure in a given scene. In many ways I use the AE in the same way I might use a hand held meter - I assess the scene with AE and then manually choose the appropriate shutter speed. I guess I don't use the meter in the P&S manner described by Walt - that is literally point and shoot. If I did, I guess I'd find the large spot quality of the meter pattern a bit of a nuisance.

[zeitz]

The M8 is for the same thing that the M7 was for.

[jonoslack]

I think you're missing the extra 'features' that digital brings.

 

Mostly it seems that an M8 will do what an M7 would do, but digitally.

However, the M8 can be used for lots of purposes where the loose framing and focusing made it impracticable for a film camera . . . because of the instant review.

 

Sad to simply ignore this.

[afineman]

I agree that the Leica M cameras are not big clunky SLR's and that is why I love them and my spine loves me for using them. After I went digital (with Canon) in 2001 my wife swears that I lost 2 inches in height from all the extra weight on my back.

 

As far as the metering goes, yes the Aperture priority mode on the M8 is not very accurate and neither is the meter in very dark situations. However, I have shot long enough with hand held meters and guessing exposure and the M8 has a preview on the back which makes guessing even easier.

 

So, turn off the auto, use the manual mode and go back to basics ... and have fun with photography and the digital Leica.

[rob_x2004]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Aaron is any of the inacuracy the result of not being able to hold the AE lock on the shutter release?

 

On the R9 the detent is in one place, which is to make the reading, but to actually lock the exposure in you have to go between the detent and shutter release point. When I first started using the thing I couldnt find it and lock seemed intermittent and unreliable. I dont know how different the releases are?

 

Its a tough one to use, especially if you go landscape to portrait frame. Most people I guess dont try to exposure lock in practice so it is a thing that is overlooked in R9 commentaries.

 

Is the M8 a definite exposure lock on a detent or is the detent just on the metering point?

 

Regards

[afineman]

I find the exposure lock (holding the shutter part way down) to be tricky especially when you photograph more than one frame of something. I am sure there is an easy way to fix my issues, but it is easier for me to measure my exposures the same way that worked for me for 11+ years.

[Skippy Sanchez]

.....I will quickly switch to manual once I get feel for the appropriate exposure in a given scene......I guess I don't use the meter in the P&S manner described by Walt....

 

Yep. This works for me, too. Not exactly a nuisance, just a way of learning to use this particular camera. Slightly more convenient than using a handheld meter, but not a real problem.

[Skippy Sanchez]

By the way, Walt, I think you made an exceptional point, with which I heartily agree, when you said, "... I don't think the LTM or M cameras were ever much good at this. This was never really a landscape, flower, architectural, or macro kind of camera. It was a photojournalist's camera, a street-shooter's camera. In other words, it was a fast, simple, sturdy, high-grade point-and-shoot camera, a term now used derisively, but very much what these kind of photographers want and need. I'm thinking here of all the people that made Leica famous: Davidson, Frank, Cartier-Bresson, Friedlander, Winogrand, etc. As this kind of photographer I am very much against shifting the M8, its firmware, or future rangefinder cameras, towards the "large format" values I see expressed so often on the forum.

 

amen and amen-

-skippy

[NZDavid]

I'm not sure I agree entirely. Why should Leica M be suitable for only one purpose? Indeed, Oscar Barnack wanted the Leica to perform all sorts of functions usually performed by larger camers of that period. Remember, at that time there were no SLRs.

 

And, of course, cameras, technologies and people's expectations evolve. In many ways, the little Leica digital P/Ss do just about everything (and more) the original screwmount Leica did. Very light and compact. They do lack the easy manual controls that make Leica Ms such a pleasure to use.

 

I have never had any trouble with Leicxa M metering. Easy manual override (turn the shutter speed dial or aperture ring, no need to press multiple menus and modes) is a big plus.

[Guest Walt]

I mentioned in my opriginal post, I think, that I do indeed do most of my metering in manual mode or use no metering at all. I do this because the consistency is about as good as auto exposure and these approaches work with fast, journalistic kind of work.

 

It seems to me that the various suggestions about using exposure lock or manually transferring AE readings to the shutter speed dial exactly make my point: a nearly spot pattern for automatic exposure is a poor concept. These are not auto exposure techniques, they are manual metering techniques. There is an additional problem with these approaches, which is that they are often not usable for journalistic work. The first method requires aiming the meter at something useful and then moving the camera for framing, by which time you have had it at eye level for too long (and it is also difficult to take a second shot at this same setting). The second--moving it to your eye to read the shutter speed, lowering it to set the shutter dial and then bringing it back to your eye--is even worse for fast work. When time and circumstances do permit, I do sometimes manually meter using the second technique. Otherwise I mostly just eyeball things. Automatic exposure is my third choice.

 

A useful, relatively consistent automatic exposure with an averaging meter is so easy to implement and it would, I think, be more in keeping with the traditional strengths of this camera. The current M8 automatic metering isn't terrible, but it could be a lot better for fast, automatic exposure work. And if one is doing the kind of photography the permits and requires spot metering, why not just use a spot meter.

 

And yes, the M8 does just what the M7 did and I have no idea what that camera was for either. Apparently neither did a lot of other photographers. Without the M8 and its digital appeal, the M7 would have sunk the company.

 

Walt

[wattsy]

It seems to me that the various suggestions about using exposure lock or manually transferring AE readings to the shutter speed dial exactly make my point: a nearly spot pattern for automatic exposure is a poor concept. These are not auto exposure techniques, they are manual metering techniques.

 

I think this is a fair point. The problem I suspect for the designers of the M7 (and M8) is that the AE setting uses the same meter (with its large spot reading) as the manual settings. They could of course changed the meter to one which takes a more average reading - and I agree that this would be more useful for a true AE mode - but the manual side of the camera would then work differently to what shooters were used to with the M6. I guess the designers of the M7 decided to compromise on the way the AE works in order to maintain consistency with the M6 in the way the manual metering behaves. Similarly, the M8 designers probably chose to keep things as close to the M7 as possible.

[jaapv]

Indeed, I've never had a problem using the meter in any of M6, M7 or M8. I guess I do as Steve does and if I am using AE I make sure that I am locking a reading that will work for the subject I am trying to expose for. In practice I tend to use AE as the initial shutter speed position (I will usually flick the shutter dial to AE whenever I turn my camera off or put it in my bag so it is on AE by 'default'). I will quickly switch to manual once I get feel for the appropriate exposure in a given scene. In many ways I use the AE in the same way I might use a hand held meter - I assess the scene with AE and then manually choose the appropriate shutter speed. I guess I don't use the meter in the P&S manner described by Walt - that is literally point and shoot. If I did, I guess I'd find the large spot quality of the meter pattern a bit of a nuisance.

 

 

Yes and yes. Have a look at Ian's website: as good exposed photographs as any on the web. Proves the point conclusively.

[EricC]

By the way, Walt, I think you made an exceptional point, with which I heartily agree, when you said, "... I don't think the LTM or M cameras were ever much good at this. This was never really a landscape, flower, architectural,

amen and amen-

-skippy

 

I thought that Mr Barnack designed the LTM not only to test 35mm film but also because he had difficulty carrying large plate cameras for his landscape, flower and architectural photography due to poor health.

 

Regards

Eric

[jaapv]

By the way, Walt, I think you made an exceptional point, with which I heartily agree, when you said, "... I don't think the LTM or M cameras were ever much good at this. This was never really a landscape, flower, architectural, or macro kind of camera. It was a photojournalist's camera, a street-shooter's camera. In other words, it was a fast, simple, sturdy, high-grade point-and-shoot camera, a term now used derisively, but very much what these kind of photographers want and need. I'm thinking here of all the people that made Leica famous: Davidson, Frank, Cartier-Bresson, Friedlander, Winogrand, etc. As this kind of photographer I am very much against shifting the M8, its firmware, or future rangefinder cameras, towards the "large format" values I see expressed so often on the forum.

 

amen and amen-

-skippy

 

Now there I have a big problem:rolleyes: - I am by inclination a nature-landscape-wildlife-cityscape and structures photographer. For nearly forty years I found the M camera's the best tool for that in my hands -with exception of long tele (although I have no problem using the Visoflex-but that is close to SLR)-.The only people and street shots of any note I ever made can be classified as lucky flukes. I know what is written here is conventional photographic wisdom. But what does it make me? A throwback to the middle-twentieth century that is misplaced in this day and age? A funny eccentric who may be tolerated? . The M8 - it has made my position worse:eek: It is so well suited to my style of photography..

[EricC]

But what does it make me? A throwback to the middle-twentieth century that is misplaced in this day and age? A funny eccentric who may be tolerated? . The M8 - it has made my position worse:eek: It is so well suited to my style of photography..

 

 

That makes two of us then. :-)

[pemayeux]

After having used the Leica D1, D2, Canon 5D, I will say that the AE on those cameras were no more reliable or consistent than the M8's. I have no problem using the M8 in the manual exposure mode as I have done with the M6 and MP. Personally, I could care less if the M8 had AE.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sean_reid]

First off, as I've mentioned in other threads, I've found the M8 metering to be just fine and I use a combination of AE and manual exposure. I suppose that our different experiences with this metering must come down to the ways in which we work.

 

As for the larger question that Walt posed...On the one hand, the M8 is a digital version of the M7 and can certainly can be used in much the same way. A traditional M photographer can, to a large extent, simply treat the camera as an M with a new kind of "digital film". I myself do that to a large extent. This is also, largely, what the R-D1 is (more or less).

 

On the other hand, the M8 is notably different from its predecessors in that it is able to deliver a kind of file (subtle, highly detailed) that had traditionally been more the province of medium format film cameras than of small format cameras. This is why, early on, I wrote about the camera as a "digital Texas Leica". Walt, if I recall, makes a point of working at ISO 640 and 1250 only, keeping some "grit in his eggs", so to speak. At high ISO levels, the M8 starts to draw like a small format camera. At lower ISOs, it draws more like MF.

 

So, while I certainly can appreciate that many will use the M8 as M's have traditionally been used, I see no reason why one might not also find ways of using the M8 in ways the most film Ms were *not* used. The way this particular camera draws opens up some interesting possibilities. I don't use it on a tripod (except for testing) but I can easily see how someone might use it on a tripod for slow-paced landscape work. Why not? Why not use this tool for anything that it can be useful for.

 

For that matter, in fact, many people may use the film M cameras in ways that are out of (what is perceived as) standard use.

 

My only caveat in this liberal perspective is that I do believe that the M8's evolution should closely respect the traditional M strengths. In my mind that means weather seals (for better durability and reliability in rain, etc.) a quieter shutter release/shutter cocking mechanism, frame line options (set at different distances), etc. should all be coming next. I certainly would not want more beeps, more automation, etc.

 

Leica might, however, want to think about a new camera system for people who value the size and weight of the M system cameras and lens but who are ambivalent, perhaps, about some of the other traditional assets of RF cameras (the finder being key). Perhaps some will find what they want in an R10 but otherwise I see a possible divergence, within this group, between people who basically wanted a sensor in an M7 (myself included) and those who want a compact, high quality camera based on more modern design priorities (AF, beeping warnings, etc.)

 

Just off the top of my head...

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[jaapv]

Wasn't the Digilux (3) system meant to be that camera, Sean? Sure, it needs some refining, especially in size and work needs to be done on the sensor, but the basic concept is there.