Really, really small back up for M8

[Steve Pope]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Maybe it's counter-intuitive to a Leicaphile, but in practice it's SIZE (or the lack of it) that turns out to be the priority for a carry-all backup, rather than image quality. At least for me. The problem with all the high-end compacts - like the Ricoh, the Canon G9/G10 or the Panasonic LX3 - is that they just aren't all that compact compared to the M8...nor even compared to the smallest DSLR. Which kind of begs the question as to what the pro-sumer compact is really for: if your substitute compact isn't truly pocketable, then why not take the main camera in the first place? Or even consider acquiring a back-up M8 to your main M8?

 

It doesn't shoot in RAW, but I don't think you can get acceptable IQ in a smaller form factor than the Canon Ixus 100IS (below). It's a delight to use, but in no way treads on the toes of the main camera. It's so absurdly tiny, it's at last possible to always have a camera on you yet genuinely not notice the weight or bulk.

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]

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

[wlaidlaw]

Steve,

 

You are absolutely right. I should have bought an Ixus. I had an 850IS in the past as a small back up to my Digilux 2 before one of my kids decided their need was greater than mine. I was always amazed by its IQ and it even had a small optical VF like your 100. I was just seduced by the thought of a digital version of my much loved film 8 x11mm Minoxes. Others have suggested to go back to using a film Minox but unless you have your own darkroom, this is just too expensive. As I posted above, over GBP50 to develop and print one 36 photo cassette. There is nothing anti-Leica about wanting small as after all, that was the original reason Oskar Barnack developed the Leica.

 

Wilson

[Steve Pope]

Do you remember the miniscule SLR lookalike Pentax 110 system, Wilson? I had a 'Minox' moment like yours, in the 1980s, when I wanted a tiny complement for the tanklike Nikon F3. The ultra-miniature Pentax and accompanying range of prime lenses looked fantastic in their attache case, like something Desmond 'Q' Llewelyn would have given Bond for a secret assignment. But the negative size was simply too small for acceptable image quality - the same issue as the small-sensor digital compacts today. Inevitably, it was a disappointment for the purpose I'd bought it for, and made a better paperweight than a camera.

 

It's a bit of Holy Grail, this. I think the main problem in the pursuit of the ideal compact back-up camera is in unreasonably expecting them to emulate your main camera...when that's a technical and physical impossibility. This seems to be creating a pressure on the manufacturers to pimp up newer top-of-the-range models to almost equivalent bulk, and cost, to their entry level DSLRs, thus defeating the purpose of the 'second camera' concept. And it doesn't help that Leica themselves describe the latest Panaleica compact as the 'baby brother' of the M8, when it is demonstrably no such thing. No, it's better to free these tiny little gadgets to be themselves - not poor relations to the main system. In practice, you don't need viewfinders and full manual capability - and how useful is RAW if there isn't enough headroom to do very much with the files? That's what your M8 is for, no?

 

Go really, REALLY small, like the Ixus 100...or don't bother. That's my conclusion after a long stint with the G9 as the second camera.