M8 stays in hotel room; shoots in Japan with Canon G9

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've read some of the above and seem to be missing something.

 

Is it not the photogrpher who takes the photograph? A camera by itself cannot take a technically perfect photograph. Someone without technical expertise and or and eye for a picture might be able to record an image, but that's not the point surely.

 

As for leaving your M8 behind and using a digicam instead, well whatever works best for you.

 

I think there are some M8 owners who haven't taken their cameras beyond their front door let alone a hotel room.

 

No, buying a Leica will NOT make you a better photographer. If you can't take a decent picture with a digicam then you won't fare any better with a Leica.

[ptruman]

I've got a hammer that I use to bash nails in when I want to knock something together quickly.

I have a screwdriver that is used to put things together more carefully.

I have a set of chisels that I use to cut dovetails when I want to craft the job and I've got the time to do it.

 

The bookshelves all look great and still stand.

 

I have a G9 to take pictures wherever and whenever I am. Its always in my jacket pocket.

I have a 5D that allows me a bit more control over what I'm doing. I need to take a big bag of tools with me though.

I have an M8 with amazing lenses when I need to take much care and time over my photographs. I only need a small bag of tools, but still need to remember to take it with me.

 

And the photographs taken with each all look great assuming I pointed it in the right direction, the light was OK and I managed to set the camera properly.

 

I like the hammer, the screwdriver and just love using the chisels when I've the time.

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

Not aimed at anyone here but relativism and politically correctness may be so boring sometimes. Of course not everybody is able to use an M camera properly, the same way as not everybody can use a Bessa or a Zorki with good results. Those are basically manual rangefinders. There is a learning curve. We may own both and use both with pleasure but we don't take the same pics with an RF and a P&S obviously, don't you agree?

[devils-advocate]

It is interesting to see how people read what they want to see, and not what was written. The pain of perceiving their orthodoxy to be questioned led many to miss that (i) the article was about the G9. It was so not about the Leica (which is why I neither posted any pictures from the M8 nor did any ‘direct comparison’); (ii) this was an article about photography while travelling for pleasure (actually stated rather explicitly in the second paragraph) and (iii) I never said that the overall image quality from the M8 was bad or inferior to the G9. Moreover, I was actually rather critical of the G9 in several respects, and concluded that it was not quite the P&S that could win my heart. In fact, I specifically commented on the lack of ‘robustness’ which I perceived in the RAW files of the G9.

 

What I slammed the Leica for was its crappy handling of basic photographic functions like framing the subject, measuring the light, changing the ISO and inputting exposure compensation. I haven’t actually read a single meaningful retort to any of these points.

 

The M8 produced some very nice images. It just turned out to be a much less useful tool for travel photography than the G9. I was as surprised by that conclusion as anyone. Moreover, I went as far as saying that the G9 captured images which the M8 simply couldn’t. Not that the M8 wouldn’t have produced a better image on a tripod….but that’s irrelevant. If you have the time and weight-capacity for a tripod, there are cameras that will produce far better image quality than the M8.

 

As for the GRD-II, I lustfully fondled it while in Japan, and likely will buy one. What holds me back is that I simply don’t find the 28mm field-of-view terribly useful. The GR-D and the G9 just aren’t competing cameras. Neither can do what the other offers.

 

I do, however, take issue with the notion that we don’t use digicams for ‘serious’ or ‘professional’ work. I shared that conventional wisdom for a long time, which is why I didn’t own one until very recently. One of the purposes of the piece was to critically re-examine this article of received faith.

 

I obviously agree that you don’t take a digicam to a professional job in most instances, because the added bulk of a professional camera system (or two) is normal, acceptable and not problematic in that context. But let me say it for about the tenth time: there are a lot of better cameras than the M8 in those instances – the D3, 1DsIII, anything MF….cameras I would never want to carry in the contexts where the Leica shines.

 

In its field of endeavour, however, (the one other than gilding the necks of over-moneyed and under-talented amateurs), the M8 is starting to have some serious competition from the top-end digicams. They’re not there yet in many respects, but it’s far, far closer than the price and mystique of the M8 would/should allow.

 

Since I have the luxury of no longer needing to impress clients with the size of my camera (a very real factor in the business world of photography), my dream is to be able to capture images I envision with a minimum of man-machine interaction, and a minimum of machine, period. This is, not coincidentally, the very foundation upon which the ‘miniature’ camera revolution spawned by Leica was based. We should embrace new technologies which advance these ideals, not fear them.

 

We also have to be realistic about what ‘good IQ’ really means. The G9 is capable of producing fully professional-grade images at a size which would meet 95+% of photographic needs. Its image quality easily matches anything produced on early Leicas, given the limitations on film and lens technology up until at least the 1970s. In fact, many people would do well to revisit the ‘IQ’ of many of the great Leica shots. They are often grainy, slightly (to significantly) unsharp to our modern eye, heavily interpreted in their printing, and rarely shown bigger than an 8x10 print. And they’re still brilliant photos. Hmmmm. (In this comparison, the G9’s only real weakness is it’s excess of depth of field)

 

One last mildly intemperate note: as far as posting un-processed jpegs on the web as proof of anything is concerned, you might as well be mailing me your undeveloped film. Until a digital capture has been optimized for exposure, tone-curve, colour balance, noise reduction and sharpening, and printed on a sheet of paper, it isn’t ‘the photograph’. It’s raw material from which something may (or may not) be possibly made.

 

 

- N.

[Kent10D]

One last mildly intemperate note: as far as posting un-processed jpegs on the web as proof of anything is concerned, you might as well be mailing me your undeveloped film. Until a digital capture has been optimized for exposure, tone-curve, colour balance, noise reduction and sharpening, and printed on a sheet of paper, it isn’t ‘the photograph’. It’s raw material from which something may (or may not) be possibly made.

 

Nick,

 

I was with you all the way up the last paragraph (guoted above). All fair enough -- including your thoughts on the the use of unprocessed jpegs as proof of anything. There are certainly limitations there. But the bit about it not being a "photograph" until it's printed on paper is a bit anachronistic, I think. Paper is no longer the only valid form of final output. In fact, people go to a lot of trouble and expense to ensure that what they're seeing on their computer screen is a fair representation of what they'll see on paper, and they understand the differences. Like it not, the computer screen is where the majority of digital images are judged for quality and even disseminated.

[wlaidlaw]

 

What I slammed the Leica for was its crappy handling of basic photographic functions like framing the subject, measuring the light, changing the ISO and inputting exposure compensation. I haven’t actually read a single meaningful retort to any of these points.

 

- N.

 

NIck,

 

I think there might be a touch of pot and kettle. If you read all the posts on this thread, I think you will find that I responded and agreed with your comments on the problems of the M8's exposure control and tried to analyse the problem. I commented on the lens sensitivity of the metering and suggested a partial solution for those lenses that seem to struggle. Now it may be that you disagreed with this approach but I would argue that it does not mean that is was not a meaningful comment. I also felt that many others' comments were well thought out and meaningful.

 

Now I disagreed with you on the auto focus front although I feel that the M8's rangefinder is not a particularly good example and is not really adequate for anything longer/faster than a 50/f2 (if you want to see just how good a mechanical rangefinder can be, try a well adjusted Contax l, with its 100mm rangefinder base and tilting prism mechanism). Certainly with 35mm and shorter lenses, I get a lower percentage of wrongly focused shots with the M8 than I do when using various AF P&S cameras. AF can be superb and I would put forward as the winner the Nikon D300. If the M9 or M10 could have AF as good as the D300 but still with a good MF facility (maybe like Mark Norton suggested a live view with phase difference detection), I for one would be delighted.

 

A lot of the posts on this thread supported you that M8 versus small P&S is a case of horses for courses. My smallest lens for my M8 is my chrome 35 Lux and the M8, whilst not very big with that lens, is still heavy. Hence why like you, I find there are times when I am playing tourist, that a small P&S suits better. I do find looking at the shots I have taken with a P&S that I am often disappointed more with composition than the technical quality. I disagree with James that using a rangefinder does not make you a better photographer. I think the process of focusing with an RF and the bright line finder both consciously and unconsciously makes you frame and compose better. I certainly am always thinking "how will the DOF affect this picture?" With a small P&S, with their huge DOF, this rarely enters into my thought process.

 

Wilson

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you read the article it is about his own personal needs, but he has placed it in a semi-public forum under the pretence that it is about all travel photographic needs.

Calling himself the devils-advocate adds further to his unwillingness to see the needs of the greater audience. Basically he is a mate of someone who has a high profile web site so he got his chance to place himself in a position of authority that he knows what others want.

 

He actually shows a great ability to write well within a limited context

[lct]

...It just turned out to be a much less useful tool for travel photography than the G9....

It simply means that you don't play with DoF when you travel and you don't need wide apertures either.

 

...I obviously agree that you don’t take a digicam to a professional job in most instances....

Not a matter of pro tool IMHO. A lot of pics one can take with a RF are impossible to get with a P&S. Try to get blurred foregrounds or backgrounds with a P&S and compare to what a mere Bessa with a CV lens can do.

[earleygallery]

Ultimately a review of this sort - any 'non technical' review - is typically one person's thoughts/impression/decision. Nothing more nothing less.

 

We give our own 'reviews' of equipment we use on this site all the time. It doesn't make anyone right or wrong its just different personal opinions and preferences. Nor does publishing your opinion on a website or in a magazine make it any more valid IMO.

[earleygallery]

I disagree with James that using a rangefinder does not make you a better photographer.

 

Hi Wilson,

 

My point is that some people - I have met them and seen their work - just can't take decent photographs.

 

They think the problem is the equipment, so they buy more and more expensive cameras, or just buy the best anyway, thinking that the camera alone will suddenly turn them into a talented photographer.

 

I worked in a camera shop for a while when I was 16. I remember one gentleman who came in and bought several Nikon F3's for him and his sons (who were in their early teens, neither seemed particularly interested or bothered), and numerous Nikon lenses - the best/fastest version of each. I hadn't seen the owner of the shop so pleased as that day.

 

A few days later he called in and asked if we wanted to see some of his photographs. He then produced a Boots wallet of 6X4's. Out of focus, wonky and badly exposed shots of his Hi Fi, the cat, his car outside his house...........he was delighted with them. Of course we all said appreciative stuff and then he bought another couple of lenses, some filters, tripods, flashguns.........

[marknorton]

Reminds me of a geekish friend at University in the 70's who bought a bogglingly expensive (for us impoverished students) hi-fi and the only thing he had to play on it was a Shure cartridge tracking test record...

[Guest stnami]

James you weren't employed by this forum? ........except we have carparks as an added bonus here ............ :D :D

[giordano]

Exactly right. I also think why some think the M8 can't expose properly is because the thumbnails and/or jpegs the M8 writes for chimping purpose are generally horrendous. Hopefully this will change some in 1.2. More and more I am going by the meter itself (in manual mode) as well as relying on the histogram and using chimping only for composition purposes. Once you get them into your RAW converter one realizes how good the metering in M's truly is.

 

IMHO the M8's meter (like the M6's, the only other TTL Leica meter I've used) is very good indeed at taking an average reading from a smallish undefined central area that is different with every focal length ... which is not enough for auto exposure on a digital sensor. If I just frame the shot and do what the M6 or M8 meter says, I get maybe 80-90% satisfactory exposures with neg film and 40-60% with reversal film and digital.

 

The only way to improve those percentages is by increasing the sophistication of the overall metering system. With Ms, that means engaging the photographer's brain; with DSLRs and P&Ss, it has led to fantastically complicated matrix metering and image analysis.

[andym911]

Lots of emotion on any thread that threatens the M8 in any way..it is after all a Leica Forum.

 

However I thought the review was a good read....

 

Nothing more or less than one persons opinion and experiences travelling to a country, that describes his photographic needs and experience with a camera.

 

He needed and wanted:

portability

varying focal length

Good quality output

low noise

Easy and fast metering and WB

 

He presents his impressions and reasons that he preferred the G9 for this photo event rather then the M8..All pretty valid and understandable IMO.

On top of that he shares some images that are representative of travel shots and are pretty good.

 

In summarizing he mentions some of the weaknesses of the camera and gives the reader a balanced view of the G9.

 

Why do so many get so worked up about it I don't know..overall it seems that the G9 was fit for purpose.

I do have an M8 don't have a G9, and never will, but still found it an interesting read.

 

thanks

andy

[stunsworth]

What I slammed the Leica for was its crappy handling of basic photographic functions like framing the subject, measuring the light, changing the ISO and inputting exposure compensation. I haven’t actually read a single meaningful retort to any of these points.

 

Experience will tell you what will be in the frame. No the frame lines in the M8 aren't accurate at all distances, but this is a limitation of the rangefinder system that has been present in all the rangefinder cameras that I've ever used. Last time I looked at a Canon p&s (S70), the viewfinder was no more accurate and it also presented a very distant, small and dim view of the subject that was _far_ worse than that seen when using an M.

 

The light meter is essentially the same as in the M6/7. I've never experienced any problems metering with either my M6 or M8. Again it's a question of experience and knowing how to compensate for the various lighting situations you find yourself in. As someone else has said the M8 is not a p&s camera, if you treat it as one then you will be disappointed. I don't get the big problem is changing the ISO, two quick consecutive taps on the same button and your taken directly to the ISO menu. Sure a dedicated button would be nice, but I'm not sure it would be any faster.

 

As for exposure compensation then I agree that could be faster, _however_ if you want the fastest compensation then shoot manually. Provided you can remember which way to turn the aperture and/or shutter dials - and by how much - then you have a very fast system and it's exactly what how I used my M6.

 

Finally, if you want all the bells and whistles and automation of a p&s then it should be no surprise to anyone that you didn't prefer the M8. That's fine, it isn't a problem, it's your preference. Just don't try to present it as some universal photographic truth, it's just your preference.

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}As for exposure compensation then I agree that could be faster, _however_ if you want the fastest compensation then shoot manually. Provided you can remember which way to turn the aperture and/or shutter dials - and by how much - then you have a very fast system and it's exactly what how I used my M6.

{snipped}.

 

Yes, couldn't agree more on this...

 

I realize I might be in the minority here, but I've always just shot the M8 in M mode and the meter (which, it has to be said, is more like a spot meter) has been great. I'd love to see the shutter speed in the VF; that's about all I'd change on metering.

 

On the other hand, manual is the way I like to shoot. To me, this is a minimum of machine / mind interactivity, because I'm used to it and actually like to control the effect of shutter and aperture selections,

 

I've yet to see a PS that lets me easily change shutter and aperture without taking my eye off the subject.

 

I don't have a G9, but the G7 is pretty awful in this regard. YMMV, obviously.

[jrc]

I pretty much agree with everything Terry said back several pages ago.

 

Nick has reworked his G9 a bit to add a better grip and a lens shade. That means it's no longer really a "pocket" camera, which he mentions. If you're going to have it in your hand all the time, the M8 seems like no larger burden.

 

I shot an G7 and have messed with my son-in-law's G9, and I liked both of them. They're good cameras. While some people here argue that IQ is almost everything, it's really not -- I don't think that most people get their best photographs while traveling. They just don't know enough about the territory to get really insightful photographs -- at least, I don't. When I'm traveling, I'm taking memory shots, and for that, I don't need maximum quality; I want good quality, with a lot of zoom range. Sometimes, of course, having only a small camera will come back to bite you. I had only a point and shoot in my only visit to Monet's garden, when it was in full bloom, and felt like throwing myself off the bridge (though it would have been a short fall.) Most big European cities have places where people cluster in the evening, to walk and socialize -- the G9 doesn't work under those conditions. ISO 200 doesn't cut it.

 

Nick's article might have been better if he simply hadn't mentioned the M8, and had done a "serious photographer tries a G9." Then, I don't think many people would have had a problem.

 

The problem comes with a somewhat specious comparision -- the M8 and G9 are different cameras, good for different purposes. If Nick had been given his choice of cameras, with five other people (competitors) making the same choice, with the best group of shots from a single individual to be published in Aperture...would he have gone with the G9?

 

I did like his photos, by the way. I have little faith that I could duplicate them with my cell phone.

 

JC

[ptomsu]

Well folks, it seems to be a characteristic of many members in LFI to instantly start fighting for Leica and their products. While this is of course understandable, it would help to listen more to observations coming from some people who try other brands and different product ranges.

 

I for myself, having NO experience with G9 (and predecessors) became noisy, went into a photo store and tried the G9. Nice little camera, but I personally don't like the feeling and handling. So I will not buy this and rather wait for a G10, which fits then my list of wishes or a Nikon P5100, which feels MUCH nicer in my hands (or should I say fingers) but lacks the RAW and a 28. I really hope Nikon will bring this and then I will be a fixstarter!

 

BUT THE GOOD THINGS ABOUT THESE THREADS: YOU START THINKING ABOUT NEW WAYS AND NEW PRODUCTS!!!

 

And this is tremendously valuable.

[owen_coors]

I've really enjoyed this thread alot! After reading the LL piece in question I went to the store and purchased a G9 this weekend. I'm absolutely thrilled with the files and the prints from my narrow dynamic range Kodak 1400. Nevertheless, to me, the G9 is a slow performer in the raw write time and shutter lag categories and if I were a street shooter (I'm not) I would not go with this digicam model.

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest guy_mancuso]

That pretty much is the death of the P&S shoot camera's in general very slow shutter lag and very slow raw write times and it has been that way for a long time and that will be the big hurdle for all of the P&S camera's companies. Frankly the main reason i don't have one all the time with me i have a D-Lux 2 which actually my wife uses but the slow shutter lag on all of them kills it for street work. Unless you are really well tuned in to what happens next and anticipate. That is something that is between the ears .