Leica M8 and Ricoh GR-D

[hankg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Walt and Mitch's last comments highlight the split personality of the modern Leica brand. The work that made the camera iconic was done with a camera that was not the high image quality option. Most press photographers used Rolleis and large format Speed Grahpics and Linhofs with flash. The Leica provided a revolutionary new way of working and seeing and the grain and quality of the tiny negatives brought with it a new aesthetic very differnet then the high image quality of 4x5 press cameras.

 

The M8's only connection to that tradition is that it's got a rangefinder (not a trivial feature) and its smaller then the average DSLR. The description of the M8 as an RF alternative to the Canon DSLR is very accurate. As that is most everyone's target platform user and manufacturer alike. It's been photographers, not manufacturers that have been creating this small sensor category that connects more directly to the reportage past of Leica. There really does not exist a camera that rises to the core needs of this segment as of yet. I see the M8 as more a replacement for RF film cameras like the Plaubel 670 and Mamiya 7. I'm using the M8 for work that I would never have considered a 35mm film camera for and for work that I was doing with Canon 1 digitals. The smaller package and M like ergonomics are a big plus but it's a very different animal then the sort of instrument Walt, Mitch, stnami and others require.

 

I'd say it is a natural for Leica to develop options for this developing segment. It could start with a Ricoh like compact. It would take more imagination then engineering to develop such a product.

[preston]

With digital... maybe at the moment technology can't do what the CLs, XAs, Rollei's, GRs,small point and shoots up to SLR standard, with reasonably fast top rate lenses,

Actually to me the point is that digital CAN do this, if it is being compared to the higher-speed color and b/w neg films like I used for reportage/street style work. The problem is, there are presently almost no digital cameras made for this purpose. (The GRD and D-Lux 3 may be the closest.)

 

On the high end, most advanced amateur users are not using their cameras reportage style, so they would rather have lowest noise/max resolution instead of compactness... more like medium format. The M8 is really a smallish camera optimized for these users. This also applies to most pro event photographers, who want highest technical quality.

 

On the compact p/s end, most snapshooters are not interested in speedy RAW, or in quicker/more ergonomic off-menu controls, or in paying for a really good viewfinder which would probably cost almost as much as the rest of the camera. (Low-quality peephole finders are much less usable than LCDs displays IMHO.) Too bad, because some of these cameras are not far in form factor from what I'm looking for.

 

So this leaves a few of us stranded... would pay for a well designed if low-volume tool... any manufacturers interested?

[Advertisement]

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

[tom0511]

I woudllike to throw in one more factor:

durability and reliability.

I owns both, Leica M8 and Ricoh (Grd and GX100) and both Ricohs had deffects. The GRD only needs a slight pressure from one side on the lens and its stuck.

 

The funny thing: I like outdoor sports, paragliding and MTB-therfore I got myself a Oly 770SW, no raw option, just some potrait/landscape etc.programs and I love this camera.

IQ is not up to the Ricoh,, but very acceptable, good color, and it goes everywhere.

 

One thing I do not like about most of the smaller digicams, including the Ricoh: they are not reliable/durable. Isnt this important? For me yes.

[Guest Walt]

Mitch, Hank and Charles-

 

You're all describing what I should have caught onto quite a while ago. It is not only the image character, but the handling of the camera that makes the GR-D more like "a Leica" than the M8 is. The GR-D is most reminiscent of the IIIF or IIIG and with the VC finders in the hotshoe it has an excellent and accurate image, much better than any of the Leicas. What I would like from the GR-D (which I am limiting to ISO 400 for noise) is an F 2.0 lens, which is, of course, what I am used to from the old Leicas (Tri-X/Summicrons), though this is not a big deal. Mostly I would like a buffer that allows shooting RAW once a second or so. Beyond that, a 35mm-equivalent lens version of the camera would also be nice. Carrying one camera per focal length would be a lot easier than carrying an extra M-8 lens. I wouldn't need anything else. For the moment, I'm banking on Ricoh coming up with a camera that meets these kinds of needs. I'm awaiting Sean's review of the GX-100 but I already know that it has no RAW buffer. JPEGS give me the creeps, though the Ricoh BW JPEGS are surprisingly good, better than I can accomplish converting color JPEGS. Ricoh should use even less compression on them.

 

From my experience, I don't see the advantages of the M8 for medium format work over a DSLR, excepting the weight. And even there, a camera like the Canon Rebel seems a better choice to me--about the same size, much lighter, very refined, much more accurate finder, much more reliable I'd guess. I love the image character of the M8, but are the Canons really incapable of that? Perhaps, but the Nikons? I find them very "filmic," very M8 like. But I don't do this kind of work and really just don't understand the values and why someone would want an M8 for this. I also wonder if Leica really knows what this kind of work is about--the color/IR stuff in the M8 would suggest that they didn't.

 

On the reliability issues that Thomas raises, I don't do paragliding, I walk to restaurants. And I can't say that the M8 has been a paragon of reliability. I've had five M8's and one GR-D and the one GR-D works more reliably than the five M8s put together. And look at it this way: For what I've spent on two M8 bodies and a few lenses, I could buy 30 GR-Ds, which would be a very reliable approach. I also understand that Ricoh service is really responsive and good. (Perhaps the biggest weakness of the M8 at this point is the service organization behind it.)

 

Oh well, enough talk about cameras--they are really irritating. I've never had the camera I used make or break a photograph, though cameras like the M8 can certainly get in the way. Everytime I turn an M8 on, I look at the frame counter to see if it's actually still working. I think the recent forum post about not pushing the shutter release too fast because it abuses the camera really knocked me over the edge.

 

Walt

[hankg]

From my experience, I don't see the advantages of the M8 for medium format work over a DSLR, excepting the weight. And even there, a camera like the Canon Rebel seems a better choice to me--about the same size, much lighter, very refined, much more accurate finder, much more reliable I'd guess. I love the image character of the M8, but are the Canons really incapable of that?

Walt

 

It's the same reason I used a Plaubel 670 for any medium format work that required a normal lens. The Rangefinder and size made for a very different experience. The camera could also be used in situations where a big SLR would have been cumbersome (such as in more 'Leica' style photography). The M8 is infinitely preferable to me to a DSLR for most types of shooting involving normal lenses (35-75). There is just a big difference viewing the world through a tunnel with the very selective focus of a wide open lens and through a rangefinder which is just a direct view with some crop marks. The exception would be those situations where you are shooting a long lens wide open where what you see is what you will get. A small medium format RF is essentially my dream machine, though I will admit it is not the 21st century Barnack camera many where hoping for.

 

The M8 has done what it needed to do. Leica's sales figures are now almost double what they were this time last year. So, hopefully you will see a Leica from Leica that plays the same role as that original small format camera did soon.

[dpattinson]

I think the recent forum post about not pushing the shutter release too fast because it abuses the camera really knocked me over the edge.

Walt

 

Heh - my name is David and I've been a M8 shutter abuser for four months...

 

I have a GR-D and I confess that I haven't used it since I bought the M8. Not that I really dislike it - but I find the M8 small enough and paradoxically I seem to get less attention using the M8 in the street than I did the GR-D.

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Charles the problem is the size of the lens, sure a f4 can be built nice and compact,,,,,, heading towards a f2 it is no longer compact in size. A larger sensor requires a thicker camera thus all this will make it Oly 410 or Nikon D40 with a small prime lens in size. Sure it can be retracted but it will not be a compact XA size

[norm_snyder]

Ah, the Plaubel Makiina--

 

The lens was wonderful, the negs. magnificent, the camera complete junk, that had to be fixed about twice per year. Once, when checking on the progress [and cost] of a repair to one of my 670's at Nippon Photo in NYC, the repairman indicated "this one is in great shape, I would sell it if I were you." He went on to explain that since it was clean and working, that I could probably get some good money before I had to repair it again.

 

This sounds a bit like the experience with my M8. Great looking files, broken camera: If they replace it, should I keep the unused replacement, or sell it [and use my one remaining Plaubel?] while I can still get a good price for it?

 

Imants--I have been following your GR-D postings, and monitoring your site. Great work! Maybe these are the Barnack cameras of the present and future.

 

--Norm

[tom0511]

I agree overall, that also for me the main difference between the M8 and SLR are:

 

1) the view through the viewfinder is more like normally looking at something and not so much like looking through a viewfinder. RF for me is more composing in the head than composing by whatyou see in a viewfinder.

 

2) nice big selection of available primes

 

3) form and feel factor

 

4) simplicity

 

Frienkly, I dont even feel like I need to put the M8 into a catagory. Is it the same as the first Leicas? Is it a mediumformat replacement? a point and shoot, a light weight slr replacement/addition?

IMO its great IQ it delievers, its fast (IMO with auto-exp faster than Leicas ever where until the M7 came up), so why would it be less spontanious than it ever was? Does the better IQ hurt? Not me.

Do I see room for smaller cameras as well-yes. When I was shooting Leica M6 I also had a Minox35, so why not do the same today?

If you ve got enough room available I would allways prefer a camera in the size of an M8 compared to a Ricoh GRD, just because to me it feels right regarding user interface.

Smakk cameras are nice if you need to travel light, but bigger cameras feel better in my hand.

cheers, Tom

[Guest stnami]

Hi Norman

I don't really ever mention this guy but he may have something of interest to you Plaubel Makina 67

.

.

.

 

The GRD has been a pretty interesting camera to play with much the same as the Digilux 2 both having its own footprint. The next GRD will probably be a bit more refined and loose its raw edge. It would have been nice to own an original M8 with all its warts(not the breaking down part). post processing could have created a unique look, I am not talking about getting colours right etc, but using the camera a s a paint brush.

I am sorta trying a few other things, headed back to film,waiting for the Sigma Dp1 and see what I can extract out of the foevan sensor, integrating the scanned image into digital shots,etc, Some of the stuff I do cannot be done with a robust file and PS just isn't set up for those mistakes. I have a pentax 100 and I am shooting it at 800 and 1600, yet to take a shot at 400 or 200 iso, the 21DA lens though good has no character, the old 28 has lots of character, but Zeiss is producing in the K mount so a 25mm looks the way to go shooting at 3200.. So in a way things are not that different,.......,the right lens/sensor........the right lens/film caper is alive and kicking. So we need something quirky from leica at a reasonable cost

I am going to pull my site apart this weekend and post an all new gallery look, some images may stay the same.............. have a slide show coming up in Toronto on the 25th of August................ INDEXG - The Art+Commerce complex at Toronto QueenWest - 50 Gladstone Ave

[norm_snyder]

Imants--

 

The new site should be even more interesting, and I look forward to viewing it. I think the site for the "slide show" in Toronto quite interesting [lived there, eons ago--anything north of Davenport Ave. just isn't part of the citiy]. As for my warty M8, Leica NJ has indicated that a replacement has been shipped, and it looks like I'll be back in business in a couple of days, from a digital standpoint. As for "backup"--your notion of the roughness of the GR-D files makes sense. There are times when, shooting film, I'll choose to push HP5 because of the grain structure, and others in which the subject is better suited to the rendition of a chromogenic film...or digital.

 

Norm

[tom0511]

...On the reliability issues that Thomas raises, I don't do paragliding, I walk to restaurants. And I can't say that the M8 has been a paragon of reliability. I've had five M8's and one GR-D and the one GR-D works more reliably than the five M8s put together. And look at it this way: For what I've spent on two M8 bodies and a few lenses, I could buy 30 GR-Ds, which would be a very reliable approach. I also understand that Ricoh service is really responsive and good. (Perhaps the biggest weakness of the M8 at this point is the service organization behind it.)

....Walt

 

Walt- I just put the GRD in the pocket of my jacket without switching it off - a light pressure from the side made the camera unusable. This was during vacation - so I couldnt use it anymore. My gx100 was faulty from the beginning, and my mistake that I brought a near new camera to vacation (did only few testshots before and didnt realize the problem at home) - the same thing-not usable during my vacation.

I justmean those tiny lenses and their mechanics are not durable and reliable. Everybody should keep this in mind IMO. Either bring a backup or be prepared that it might get stuck one day.

[Ko.Fe.]

Good, odd days...

I have no idea why someone would ever come with GRD vs M8. Was market this undersaturated back then? 

Totally, absolutely different cameras.

One is next to FF, interchangeable lens mount, higher ISO, IR and regular colors RF camera. Regular size camera, as long as lens is not too big.

Another is ultra compact with fixed lens, tiny sensor, colors only at low ISO and authentically noisy in BW @ ISO 1600.

One is 5000 USD camera back then, another 500. Ten times difference in price.

I don't have GRD, yet. It is on its long way from Japan. They are in 100 USD price and still possible to find. And maybe working.

M8 is anywhere between above 1K USD and closer to 2K USD.

I do own GRD III now and used to own M8.  

People are still buying M8 and they are desirable. GRD... some tiny cult does exists still. 

M8 was serviceable by Leica until recently.   GRD is typical Ricoh "service". 

Saying all of this... Since I'm gravitating to BW for street and daily everywhere I go photos in BW, I'm finding GRD series to be more handy than M8.

But for color and quality family or else pictures no GRDs are nearby M8.

To be honest I'm not impressed with entire GR line colors either...

 

[Ernstk]

On 6/23/2021 at 8:22 PM, Ko.Fe. said:

Good, odd days...

I have no idea why someone would ever come with GRD vs M8. Was market this undersaturated back then? 

Totally, absolutely different cameras.

One is next to FF, interchangeable lens mount, higher ISO, IR and regular colors RF camera. Regular size camera, as long as lens is not too big.

Another is ultra compact with fixed lens, tiny sensor, colors only at low ISO and authentically noisy in BW @ ISO 1600.

One is 5000 USD camera back then, another 500. Ten times difference in price.

I don't have GRD, yet. It is on its long way from Japan. They are in 100 USD price and still possible to find. And maybe working.

M8 is anywhere between above 1K USD and closer to 2K USD.

I do own GRD III now and used to own M8.  

People are still buying M8 and they are desirable. GRD... some tiny cult does exists still. 

M8 was serviceable by Leica until recently.   GRD is typical Ricoh "service". 

Saying all of this... Since I'm gravitating to BW for street and daily everywhere I go photos in BW, I'm finding GRD series to be more handy than M8.

But for color and quality family or else pictures no GRDs are nearby M8.

To be honest I'm not impressed with entire GR line colors either...

 

I use the newer APS-C based Ricoh GR.

It's an exceptionally good camera and sometimes I'm torn whether to use the M8 or take the GR. The M8 still has the edge for image quality but the GR is an almost unbeatable package, particularly for street photography.

Ernst

[erniethemilk]

I have a GR3 which I use mainly when I’m out with my M6 and want some instant gratification from digital rather than have to wait to finish a roll and get it developed 😂