Why

[Guest bwcolor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have taken pleasure for many, many years in the high quality prints I have been able to make with Leica equipment, using film. Right through M7 and new model lenses. But recently I became discouraged with M8 series prices, and decided to try something modern digital and much less expensive. So I bought a Canon Power Shot G10 for $500. It makes amazingly good prints, at modest aperatures, such as f2.8 to f4. Its modern features such as dependable autofocus, accurate framing, excellent exposure metering, anti-shake features, enable me to use it just like I have used a Leica. But the G10 is even smaller and lighter. I don't think I could tell the difference in 8 x 10 black and white prints from those I am accustomed to make from the Leica negatives.

 

It appears that there is some strong agreement that the current M8 series is out of date and perhaps a holding device for Leica for a couple of years. But even if there is a new M digital by next Photokina or whenever, why do I need to anticipate spending 12 times the G10 price for a camera that in practical use doesn't make better prints.

 

So I am coming to the opinion that the Leica camera philosophy is passing out of fashion, and more important, out of the realm of real utility. Sure, I love the craftsmanship and very wide aperature images (when they are in focus), but it appears to me that 95% of practical photography can be done better with a camera far cheaper than Leica can design and produce.

 

Please don't flame me for this. I am earnest in trying to get at the realities of modern camera design and usage. I would appreciate thoughtful comments, based on a broad viewpoint, on my concerns and ideas.

[piero]

...why do I need to anticipate spending 12 times the G10 price for a camera that in practical use doesn't make better prints...

 

interesting point,

I enjoy shooting and looking at prints made with the M8 compared to what I make with the MKlll.

I prefer the M8.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

I have taken pleasure for many, many years in the high quality prints I have been able to make with Leica equipment, using film. Right through M7 and new model lenses. But recently I became discouraged with M8 series prices, and decided to try something modern digital and much less expensive. So I bought a Canon Power Shot G10 for $500. It makes amazingly good prints, at modest aperatures, such as f2.8 to f4. Its modern features such as dependable autofocus, accurate framing, excellent exposure metering, anti-shake features, enable me to use it just like I have used a Leica. But the G10 is even smaller and lighter. I don't think I could tell the difference in 8 x 10 black and white prints from those I am accustomed to make from the Leica negatives.

 

It appears that there is some strong agreement that the current M8 series is out of date and perhaps a holding device for Leica for a couple of years. But even if there is a new M digital by next Photokina or whenever, why do I need to anticipate spending 12 times the G10 price for a camera that in practical use doesn't make better prints.

 

So I am coming to the opinion that the Leica camera philosophy is passing out of fashion, and more important, out of the realm of real utility. Sure, I love the craftsmanship and very wide aperature images (when they are in focus), but it appears to me that 95% of practical photography can be done better with a camera far cheaper than Leica can design and produce.

 

Please don't flame me for this. I am earnest in trying to get at the realities of modern camera design and usage. I would appreciate thoughtful comments, based on a broad viewpoint, on my concerns and ideas.

 

 

I wonder whether you actually made a comparison in prints between the G10 and the M8 ( or any camera like Canon 5D or Nikon D3 or similar). I did, -my wife has one - and found the G10 quite good- but not anything like as good as I would like. I will admit, though, that there might be a case for a comparison to film enlargements, if one is willing to forego the film look, but for the rest, current high-end digital, and that includes the M8, is far beyond that point.

[okram]

Why medium format?

G10 seems to compare to it (in some ways): Kidding

[photogdave]

I suppose if you were shooting nothing but landscapes in typical daylight conditions the comparison may apply.

But what about when you want to shoot indoors in low light?

What about when you want to make a portrait at full aperture with selective depth of field?

What about when you want to see the rendering signature of your favorite M lens?

What about when you make that special shot you deem worthy of enlarging to 16"x20" but you shot it at ISO 400 or higher?

I could go on but in these situations the G10 wouldn't keep up with any M camera.

[jaapv]

Well, hats off to Canon that they managed to squeeze enough quality out of 43 square mm of sensor (against 850 on the 5DII) to give at least a first impression of good prints. It does help, of course, that such a small format has a DOF from front lens to horizon, that always gives the casual observer an impression of sharpness.

[fotografr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you are not highly critical in examining your results, and if you shoot mainly landscapes, I can see where you might be happy using nothing but a G10. But take it indoors and shoot through a doorway with the lens zoomed to the wide setting, then bring your image up in Photoshop and see how "rectangular" the doorway is. Or photograph some artwork on the wall and see how straight the edges of the frame look from your G10.

 

Pincushion and barrel distortion is common with cheap lenses on P&S cameras, but you will not see it with most Leica glass. Aside from that, the contrast, speed, sharpness, flare resistance and color rendition associated with Leica lenses is sufficient to explain why we spend 12 times the cost of a good P&S camera for the M8.

 

Perhaps the time will come when there will be another digital body we can attach our M lenses to, and at that point maybe the M8 won't look very attractive by comparison. But for now, it happens to be the best box available to use our M lenses with.

[jaapv]

I don't think I could tell the difference in 8 x 10 black and white prints from those I am accustomed to make from the Leica negatives.

 

With all due respect, this may tell us as much about the quality of those prints as it might do about the quality of the G10. Any digital shooter can testify to the difficulty of getting digital B&W prints even close close to wet darkroom prints, let alone as good, and that with top equipment.

[don_panko]

For me the M8 is comfortable. It is the type of camera that makes me think and makes me part of the process instead of simply a button pusher. Automation is great but I still like to control the basics while taking advantage of the digital darkroom. Basically the M8 replaced film with a sensor so it bridges the old and new worlds which is why I enjoy using it.

 

I also think that great pictures come from great lighting and composition and not so much from hardware and software. My hit ratio of great shots per 1000 does not change much when I change cameras. I suggest that you find a camera that you enjoy using and don't worry that other camera systems may be marginally better or worse.

 

We recently toured a museum in Florence Italy and viewed many old oil paintings that captured images of people from that period. The portraits were the output of different painters so each had a different sytle but they were all suited to capturing a image of a human. Comparing detail and sharpness of these portraits didn't seem important to me.

[thompsonkirk]

IMO your satisfaction with the G10 depends on not printing larger than 8x10".

 

Expectations about print size change over time, & if you look in galleries & museums with an eye to print size, you'll notice that while 8x10 was a medium-small print a decade or two ago, now it would be classified as especially small. 20x30" prints are common now, & even 40x60".

 

It has to do with prints retaining their IQ in large sizes, now that they don't have to go an enlarging lens; & also on widespread use of 24" & even 44" inklet printers.

 

That's not to say the M8 is the best of cameras for larger format prints! But it's OK, if you don't crop, up to 20x30".

 

Kirk

[george +]

One of the advantages I find with the M8 picture quality is that I get pretty decent

images from very severe crops. I wonder if you can do this with the Canon.

 

But if it works well for you, that is fine with me. The price and weight difference are significant indeed.

[fordfanjpn]

Perhaps the time will come when there will be another digital body we can attach our M lenses to, and at that point maybe the M8 won't look very attractive by comparison.

 

That would be the G1. The adapter for the M-mount lenses is scheduled to ship this month. I'm really looking forward to seeing how the M glass looks with the G1 sensor.

 

Bill

[barjohn]

You might want to look at the new Panasonic G1 with the M or R lens adaptor. Then pick up one or two used Leica lenses and you have greater capability than an M8 even for large print sizes (12mpixels) and about equal ISO capability (good to 800, usable at 1600 forget 3200). Framing will be more accurate as will focus since you can enlarge the center portion for manual focus. It is alos lighter, slightly smaller and a lot cheaper.

[Guest DuquesneG]

You might want to look at the new Panasonic G1 with the M or R lens adaptor. Then pick up one or two used Leica lenses and you have greater capability than an M8 even for large print sizes (12mpixels) and about equal ISO capability (good to 800, usable at 1600 forget 3200). Framing will be more accurate as will focus since you can enlarge the center portion for manual focus. It is alos lighter, slightly smaller and a lot cheaper.

 

Dumb question: will the M adapter fit on other 4/3 cameras too? I wouldn't mind picking up a used Oly as a backup for a couple hundred dollars, and sell one of my M8s and only upgrade the remaining one.

[mhoersch]

Reichmann illustrates in his article that a Porsche isn't any faster than a bicycle if it is driven at the speed of a bicycle. Now, I suppose that does prove something, but I'm not quite sure what, exactly.

[fotografr]

You might want to look at the new Panasonic G1 with the M or R lens adaptor. Then pick up one or two used Leica lenses and you have greater capability than an M8 even for large print sizes (12mpixels) and about equal ISO capability (good to 800, usable at 1600 forget 3200). Framing will be more accurate as will focus since you can enlarge the center portion for manual focus. It is alos lighter, slightly smaller and a lot cheaper.

 

Not bad, if you don't mind "overall soft images." Test comparisons showed both the Canon Rebel XSi and the Olympus E 420 kicked the panasonic's butt for image quality--and those two cameras aren't very high on the scale.

[Guest]

With all due respect, this may tell us as much about the quality of those prints as it might do about the quality of the G10. Any digital shooter can testify to the difficulty of getting digital B&W prints even close close to wet darkroom prints, let alone as good, and that with top equipment.

 

Having (also) an G10 makes one the aim of rudeness in this forum?

 

I have two M8 (and dream of having twice the time for photo instead) mainly because I was afraid of problems that never happened. But I accept, that a world class photographer with a casual G10 in his hands could easily outperform (not only) me ON MOST SUBJECTS.

 

We have to live with the latter, (finding time, energy and top class equipment and helping each other how to use it) but why... Anyway, it's Christmas time folks! I think it works to be argumentative in a seasonal way, too.

[SJP]

For me the primary resons to like the M8 more than any other (digital) camera I have owned is that it has in essence the same ergonomics as a classic 'real' camera: aperture, shutter speed, focus, frame -- click. I feels like a camera.

 

The second and ultimately more important point is the quality of the lenses. They are incredibly expensive (in a relative sense) and worth every penny.

 

It costs me about 40 euro per hour to get a resonably skilled technician machine something, add overhead etc. then 50 euro per hour is a resonable guestimate. A medium level Leica lens is in the 2400 euro ballpark - with 20%VAT (in NL) and I guess about 25% (at least) dealer and wholesaler markup. So Leica gets 1500 euro max. so if they build the thing in about 15 hours they have 750 euro for the other stuff. Sounds about reasonable considering you also need to order glass & machined parts and use coating and grinding equipment, pay dr. Kaufmann, heat the building, have a cantine, organise a Christmas party, deal with gaurantee issues, marketing, websites, firmware upgrades, logistics, transport ...... This stuff is cheap considering the small turnover.

[Gentleman Villain]

Comparing a Canon to a Leica is sorta like....trying to compare a friday night dinner at The Olive Garden to a homemade Christmas dinner with my Italian family

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[biglouis]

Personally, I think the issue is one of content. Good content and by that I mean an arresting subject will look good whether you shoot it on an M8 or a box brownie (well, perhaps I exaggerate a tad). I was often surprised at the quality I could obtain from my D-LUX 2 compared to either my R-D1, D80 or M8. But what it really comes down to is that compelling content is not about sharpness or contrast or framing, it is about the image.

 

The conclusion of many of us at the recent Capa exhibition in London is that a lot of his photographs are ill-framed, poorly focussed and badly exposed. However, the content, especially his Omaha beach shots on D-Day are some of the most compelling and communicative captures ever.

 

Bottom line, I like working with my M8 for a number of practical reasons but the only tool that is responsible for my content is my eye and my technique - the camera is a means to the an end, not the end itself.

 

LouisB