Leica M8 and Ricoh GR-D

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On Walt's concerns about the 28/2.8 asph, I think it is possible that this lens was designed with color use in mind. The image information in the midtones separates more clearly with color discrimination than with levels of grey. I finally retrieved my copy from Leica's transportation system, and am pleased with its overall sharpness and ease of use. See which rendering works best here, in color

or in black and white (Tri-X or HP-5 profile, can't recall which I used)

 

BTW, I got the GX-100 just as I moved to a different part of the world. Haven't really explored it yet, but it is active in the hands of my kids, to keep them away from the M8.

 

scott

[wattsy]

Perhaps Walt should try and get hold of the 28mm Ricoh lens for the film GR series that was issued (in a limited number) in an LTM version. This is a very small lens, sharp and less contrasty than the latest Leica offerings. I think this lens was popular in Japan but less so elsewhere and was available for a time quite cheaply. I dare say it is now quite difficult to obtain and consequently rather expensive.

[Advertisement]

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

[wattsy]

I find the 28/2.8 ASPH hard, hard, hard, like trying to print all the time on a grade 4--and it's not particularly sharp.

 

I find this comment surprising (and slightly disturbing) as it suggests to me that the sample variation often written about in this forum is very real indeed. I have this lens too and find it among the sharpest Leica lenses that I have owned (and I've owned more than a few). It sounds like Walt had the same motivation for buying it as I did - the smaller, more 'Leica-like', size than the 28/F2 - and in that respect it really is a sweet little lens. However, like Walt, I'm not hugely keen on the lens though for slightly different reasons. In my case, I find the lens simply too sharp and clinical. I can live with the high contrast but that may be part and parcel of the super sharp look that I get with my example of the lens.

[wattsy]

It's as if they were dragged kicking and screaming into a digital camera by technological and market forces they could no longer resist.

 

I think that is exactly what happened but I don't think Leica got anything much wrong with the M8 that they eventually produced. I guess we all have different perspectives but I'm rather glad that the M8 represents a fairly seamless transition from the M cameras that came before. My only regret is that the current technological state of play doesn't allow for a full frame digital M - it would nice to use the lenses for the fields of view for which they were designed.

[hankg]

M camera -- heavy, soft brass top and bottom plates and all. It's as if they were dragged kicking and screaming into a digital camera by technological and market forces they could no longer resist. If they had come from a creative position instead of a reactive one, they might have made a camera like the GR-D but three times the size and with a rangefinder, M mount and some other innovations that I can't even imagine, but they as camera designers should be thinking about.

 

That kind of innovation involves more risk. With one foot in the grave, a very conservative user base that punished the company severely with the innovative M5 -it's no surprise that their first effort was to make a digital M staying as close to the film camera as possible. Even to the bit absurd point of keeping the removable base and using brass (black lacquer to follow in a special edition). I think though that if the company regains profitability and stability that you are going to see more risk taking and innovation on the part of the new management.

 

I could see room for 2 types of RF lines. A smaller chip (maybe 2x) reportage camera (better IQ, high ISO and dynamic range then the GRD) that has a lowest ISO of 320 or 400 skewing performance to low light and a bigger chip medium format quality camera. They could concievably both use the M mount but with a line of made for digital lenses for the small format camera. Maybe they could combine the guts of a D camera with the M mount and RF finder with Asian manufacturing to get the price down. A wide angle camera could dispense with the RF finder altogether.

[sean_reid]

It's difficult to find lenses that are razor sharp corner to corner with moderate contrast.

 

That's very true. The CV Ultron nearly fits that bill but its larger than Walt is looking for. Again, though, I'd urge that people looking for this kind of lens to at least try the 28 Skopar. It's not a low contrast lens but its a bit lower than some others.

 

One can understand how this came to be as lens designers are, very often, after technical ideals and high lens contrast is an impressive technical achievement. Unfortunately, what is best to an optical engineer and what is best, visually, to a photographer may be two different things.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sean, it wil be interesting how you find the lens quality compared to the GR-D; also, how the RAW files compare.

 

—Mitch/Potomac, MD

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

 

Indeed, RAW delay between exposures (Sandisk II) is about six seconds. Initial RAW files look very good but I'm still early in testing.

 

I suspect that this GX 100 is going to be an important camera for small-sensor photographers.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Guest Walt]

For Scott and Ian- Perhaps there is significant variability among samples. Because the physical form of this 28 ASPH is so useful, I would have Leica look at my sample or I'd just buy another. But I think both of these would be impossible to accomplish in my lifetime. I actually like the tonal scale in Scott's BW conversion--but this was shot in flat light.

 

For Hank- I know that it is widely held that Leica users are conservative. But is this really about wanting the form of the camera to remain the same, or is it wanting the spirit--feel, functionality, agility, etc.--of the camera to remain the same? I used an M5 for a while when they first came out and, as an M4 user, I welcomed the innovation. But when I used the camera I felt like I was holding a largish book in front of my face--the camera just felt too bulky and sluggish. So it was the spirit, not the actual form, of the camera that put me off. I was quite serious earlier when I said that the GR-D is very much in the spirit of the Leica, expecially the pre-M cameras. So, it is my conservative nature about cameras that attracts me, as a Leica user, to the GR-D. I wish Leica would think through this very concrete interpretation of "conservative." For example, the use of magnesium castings for top and bottom plate (as in the single magnesium casting of the GRD) would keep the camera lighter and more agile and more in the Leica spirit. The use of brass, which is heavy and provides little protection for the innards, is conservative only in the most concrete sense. Above all else, functionality, simplicity and speed are the Leica tradition.

 

Sean--I am looking forward to the GX-100 review. When I read about the zoom lens and electronic finder I was put off completely, not knowing about the "snap to" zoom function that would allow optical finders. That would be very useful. It sounds as if the the RAW record time is about the same as my GR-D, which seems to me just useful. I should have said that my times are for 3:2, which may be a little faster.

 

Best,

Walt

[sean_reid]

Thanks Sean.

 

1) will try the Skopar and the Milich (?) adapter (though I find I usually need a very small amount of density vignetting to hold an image together).

 

2) I don't know why people don't understand the contrast issue with regard to digital cameras because it's fairly obvious in the seeing.

 

Walt

 

1) You'll still have a bit of that drop in density at the corners and edges, even when the lens is coded. Edge burning...I know what you mean and I do the same.

 

2) Seeing is the last thing some people are interested in. We can see evidence of this in lens reviews that provide numbers and charts but few or no pictures. There are many who prefer MTF charts to their own eyes. One prominent lens reviewer is convinced I'm all wrong about the strengths of low contrast lenses. When I write about the visual aspects of a visual medium, it makes some people uneasy. They're more comfortable relying on other kinds of information. It would help if more reviewers were actually photographers. Then, the actual would more often trump the technical-theoretical.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[hankg]

Above all else, functionality, simplicity and speed are the Leica tradition.

 

I agree 100%, yours is a conservatism based on function, unfortunately many Leica users conservatism is based on form. The idea that a camera should be an heirloom that can be passed down to your grandchildren like a Swiss watch, which has nothing to do with what made the camera a great tool for taking pictures. However with the success of the M8, the landscape is shifting, as Leica starts to look more like a viable maker of photographic tools - hopefully the Hermes lux brand mentality can now be consigned to the trash can.

 

Back in the 70's I stuck with my M4 because of the size issue. By the 90's the only 35mm camera I owned was the little Ricoh with the fixed 28. If I was going to take something along that wouldn't fit in my pocket it might as well be medium format (Plaubel 670). The Ricoh seemed to me to embody the spirit of 35mm, tiny, fast and unobtrusive. I suppose the GRD has much the same appeal.

[sean_reid]

I think that is exactly what happened but I don't think Leica got anything much wrong with the M8 that they eventually produced. I guess we all have different perspectives but I'm rather glad that the M8 represents a fairly seamless transition from the M cameras that came before.

 

Me too. The camera could improve, for sure, but I very much like its overall design and function. For my work, still the best digital camera I've yet used.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[hankg]

1) When I write about the visual aspects of a visual medium, it makes some people uneasy. They're more comfortable relying on other kinds of information. It would help if more reviewers were actually photographers. Then, the actual would more often trump the technical-theoretical.

 

Engineers want objective, repeatable and scientific yardsticks. They are very uncomfortable with subjective evaluations. Unfortunately photographers don't shoot resolution targets and don't sell MTF graphs. What makes a lens perform better in resolving a test target may make it worse for making photographs.

 

I should add the test targets that are used are skewed to favor higher contrast lenses. It would be possible to add a grey scale with fine detail that would penalize a lens with to much contrast. They are as Walt said still solving a problem from the 70's.

[sean_reid]

Sean--I am looking forward to the GX-100 review. When I read about the zoom lens and electronic finder I was put off completely, not knowing about the "snap to" zoom function that would allow optical finders. That would be very useful. It sounds as if the the RAW record time is about the same as my GR-D, which seems to me just useful. I should have said that my times are for 3:2, which may be a little faster.

 

Best,

Walt

 

They've made the GX-100 three kinds of cameras. One can use it with the LCD finder, with an articulated EVF and (my strong favorite) as a very small camera with five prime lenses and a shoe for optical finders. It's the last incarnation that interests me so much.

 

RAW delays seem much like your, newer, GR. I bet they tweaked that in the GR but said nothing publicly (lest they be asked to retrofit older cameras). That's just a hunch, though.

 

The other small sensor camera that just arrived for testing today is the Fuji "Big Job" which is notable for its protection from dust, water, etc. There's been a lot of water in my work this year (see the new illustrations coming into the 35s review) and I'm curious about what it might be like to be able to shoot with a small sensor camera in pouring rain, swimming, etc. It's apparently good for 3 feet submersion so I'm going to take it into pools, lakes, etc.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

I agree 100%, yours is a conservatism based on function, unfortunately many Leica users conservatism is based on form.

 

Functionally, I still find the basic M concept to be eminently useful.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[hankg]

Functionally, I still find the basic M concept to be eminently useful.

 

I agree and unlike Walt I was using medium format so we have different goals and the current M8 fits my requirements better then his. However my point was that Leica is somewhat constrained in how much it can innovate and or mess with the M by it's perception of it's user base.

 

That's why I think any innovation will have to be in an additional or separate model to the M even if it's still based on the M mount.

[charlesphoto99]

I'm glad that Leica retained the class M design. The M8 would have been a flop I think if they didn't.

 

I think what the original poster is really getting at is that Leica should have abandoned re-badging Panasonics a long time ago for their p&s digital line, and struck out on their own with a truly unique design ala Ricoh. Who knows, maybe with the succes of the M8 they will. But a p&s will never replace the functionality of an M. Yes, we'd all like our cameras to be smaller,lighter (even non-existent!) but it's just not the way it is. A Leica CM-D would be a nice sidekick to the M (without the horrid viewfinders of their film p&s line).

 

Yes, Leica screwed up with some of the design features of the M8 but that's Leica for you. In the last few years they seem to have been confused as to who the camera is marketed to - serious pros or serious amateurs and have tried to please both vs just concentrating on the pro (see DX coding with blinking light syndrome for M7 as best example). I think more initial consultations with a wide range of hardcore M photographers would have been good (people such as David Alan Harvey, etc) before the hardware design phase, after which it is often too late to turn back.

 

That said, the M8 is a great camera. Hopefully they'll get it even more right with the 9.

[gareth_c]

I think what the original poster is really getting at is that Leica should have abandoned re-badging Panasonics a long time ago for their p&s digital line, and struck out on their own with a truly unique design ala Ricoh. Who knows, maybe with the succes of the M8 they will.

 

The problem is how many niche products can they have and still survive? At least with the Panasonic partnership the sales numbers seem to be high, and to my mind at least have generally been successful, if not faultless!

[sean_reid]

That's why I think any innovation will have to be in an additional or separate model to the M even if it's still based on the M mount.

 

I agree.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[hankg]

One of the things that muddies the water a bit is that with the image quality of the M8 the potential user base reaches beyond the traditional M user.

 

I got the M because it excels at this sort of shooting:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

But I am also able to do shots I would never have used 35mm for:

 

While the M8 is not going to be anyone's first choice for product shots (I just happen to be sans DSLR at the moment), it makes an excellent studio camera for portraits and fashion if you prefer it's ergonomics.

 

The B+W was shot with an M4, the color photo of the Vodou shaman with a Plaubel 670 and the product shot with an M8.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest Walt]

Well, just to put things in perspective after this long discussion, I'm pretty happy with the M8 and use it all the time. But it does not represent true *excellence* in its own terms or any terms in the way it might have. I think we're all so relieved that Leica didn't tank and that they actually, finally came out with a real digital camera that we just use it, like it and forgive them the shortcomings. That's understandable. It reminds me of a very experienced pilot friend who came back to the cockpit after a long illness and several surgeries. On returning from his first post-illness flight in his Bonanza, he landed so hard that the right main gear collapsed. A mutual friend told me the story and said, "I'm just glad Bruno is back. The plane is emminently repairable and it looks like they can do it for 60 grand or so"