M8 review

[BernardLanguillier]

My own experience, nearly always in dense urban settings, is that an slr-style camera seems to make people very self-conscious.  People see a 72mm-77mm diameter lens pointed their way and they often either pose for, or retreat from, me.  When I use my Leica M7 people are far less reactive.  I think this is due to two factors.  First, unlike shooting with an slr, people can see my face while I'm shooting.  Second, the Leica looks like (and actually is) an antique that couldn't hurt anyone.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83933\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's interesting indeed. I was trying to figure out the reasons why so many people like the M6 and find them useful for street shooting, and I also feel that the fact that the camera only hides a smaller part of your face must play a big role.

Cheers,
Bernard

[jani]

Please don't get me wrong.  Autofocus may be just fine.  I seriuosly doubt everyone needs it.  All I ahve been trying to say is I think it is better to understand focus and exposure before giving up those decisions to Canon (or whoever).  Like DoF, who do you trust?  If it is Canon, for instance, just say so.

If that was what you've been trying to say, why didn't you just say so? But whether "everyone needs it" or not, it's still rather silly to diss AF because not "everyone needs it". "Everyone" doesn't have to need AF for it to be useful, only "many".

In my experience, autofocus can be more precise than my own manual focusing. But my own manual focusing can also be more precise than the autofocus. It depends on the situation, as well as how well trained you are at using your camera.

And  whether you've accidentally adjusted the diopter; I just lost a bunch of MF action shots because of that ...

[howiesmith]

jani, apparently I have offended you big time.  I apologize for that.  That was never my intention.

I am not dissing autofocus or people who use it.  Auto focus, like auto exposure, is fine.  It is my personal opinion that a photographer should know and understand what the camera is doing for him before he turns those decisions over to the camera.  

Actually, allow me to change "a photogrpaher" to "I."  It no longer matters whether any other photographer understands that.  Sorry I brought it up.

One last question.  Did you learn anything when you "accidentally adjusted the diopter?"  I hope so.  For me anyway, it is a poor outing that produces nothing but missed shots.

[macgyver]

Where I was going with this is; "My comment lies more in the fact that if it wasn't a usefull and helpful feature then it probably wouldn't be included."

Black bodies and gray lenses are of no photographic usefulness or helpfulness at all.  I maintain the color of the camera or lens is simply not relavent.  But since they are availbale, you say they must have a value and use.  You've already said they make you look like a pro.  I guess that is good enough.  I remember when a black body was an extra cost option and the really cool thing was worn chrome that showed some brass underniegth.

So what is more valuable?  A sideline pass or a black camera or feeling like a pro?  I knew a swimmer who shaved his body before big races.  Said it made him feel faster.  I guess if he felt faster, he might have been.  If you feel like a pro, are you?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83932\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ok, i get you better now.  And, you will notice, I did not say they "made [me] look like a pro".  Think of it this way, I once read an article by Michael Johnson talking about his decision to purchase a KM 7D.  Part of what he said was that he planned on doing some portrait work on the side and didn't want a camera that was the exact same as some of his clients were likely to have.    (I seriously doubt that this was any great factor for his purchase decision, but I'm sure it was a benifit, at least to him)  Also, again, I said that the majority of me choosing a black camera over a silver one would be personal choice.  I think they blend in better and look nicer.  Personal choice.  In fact, in the M8 review, didn't MR say something about the black M8 being more low key?  I don't think he was saying it made him a better photographer, simply that it was less likely to be seen.

Yes, different colors have a value and use.  But it may not be strictly photographic.  Maybe its just to appeal better to different people.  One guy likes black; one silver.  Do the different colors of cars have a function?  Well, mechanically no.  But asthetically yes.

[howiesmith]

I figure, among other things, that silver looks cheaper and if I am trying to market myself to a client it might be better to err on the side of more professional looking. 

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83928\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm sorry.  I did err.  I did think you said that a black body made you feel like a pro.  

So you think a black camera will help you market yourself and a client might see you as "more professional looking" if you have a black camera?

[BJL]

Yup. That's why they're so big. I use a D2x
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83874\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The size and weight of the D2X has very little to do with basic automation features like AF an AE: look at the smallest automated SLR's, film and digital, to see the real (rather slight) impact of adding automation on a camera's weight and size.
Canon Rebel K2 (35mm format, but a film camera): 365g,  130 x 95 x 66 mm
Olympus E-400: 380g, 130 x 91 x 53 mm
Canon Rebel XT: 485g,  127 x 95 x 64 mm
Pentax K110D: 485g, 129.5 x 92.5 x 70 mm
Leica M8: 545g 139 x 80 x 37 mm
The Leica is shallower because the depth of the others is measure to the protruding right hand grip; it is less high from the absence of a prism hump. No sign of a benefit due to absence of automation.
Size varies so little that I suspect that we are close to a minimum size needed for comfortable operation.

And people like Michael and companies like Canon keep asserting that smaller DSLR formats like 4/3 does not have any significant size and weight advantage over larger DSLR formats, so I suppose larger format automated DSLR's could also be under 400g some day!

[BJL]

macgyver said

The bottom line has to be the fact that autofocus will help you get photos that you might not have been able to get otherwise, in certain situations.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83917\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

to which Howard responded

Is it possibe, " in certain situations," that the opposite is true?  Just possible?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83917\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes; there are situations where manual focus is a better choice; no one is denying that. That is why every modern camera with autofocus also offers manual focus.

A camera with both AF and MF options covers both types of "certain situation".

I do use manual focus when appropriate, and indeed am contemplating buying a manual focus only camera, for exactly the cost reason you mentioned: it would be a discounted manual focus medium format camera, where the cost of AF models is substantially higher. But in 35mm and smaller, the cost and size argument is specious.

[howiesmith]

Unless one is extremely weak-willed, what is the advantage of a camera that requires one to [set the shutter speed, aperture and actually focus the lense by hand] manually over one that allows it, while also offering options for automation too?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83555\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is as simple as liking to set the shutter speed, aperture and actually focus the lense by hand.  There are some folks (well, at least one anyway) who just enjoy such "weak-willed" activities.

I have a table saw that can make a very large pile of saw dust in almost no time.  But I still like to sit on the porch and whittle.  Sometimes it isn't about making big piles of wood chips fast.

Can you explain why a manual camera user is "extremely weak-willed?"  I don't follow that at all.

[jani]

jani, apparently I have offended you big time.  I apologize for that.  That was never my intention.

No worries, no offense taken.

One last question.  Did you learn anything when you "accidentally adjusted the diopter?"  I hope so.  For me anyway, it is a poor outing that produces nothing but missed shots.

For one thing, I had plenty of good shots from the same session, too; around 40% of the total were presentable.

Most of these were the ones captured with AF.

After I discovered the erroneous diopter adjustment, my MF shots were better, too.  Huge surprise (not).

I also know the reason why this was difficult to notice at first glance; the viewfinder of a 20D is simply not good enough for precision focusing, so it's like an educated guesswork whether something is in focus or not. That was not such a big problem with an EOS 650, nor with an EOS 1D MkII or 5D. It's a shame, then, that the AF of the 20D isn't up to snuff compared to the 1-series.

What I learned? I didn't learn anything I didn't know from before. Yes, I should've checked the diopter setting, but I already knew that. Knowing isn't the same as doing, unfortunately, and stress/time constraints can make me skip details like that ... and the abominable CF for mirror lock-up.

[jani]

It is as simple as liking to set the shutter speed, aperture and actually focus the lense by hand.  There are some folks (well, at least one anyway) who just enjoy such "weak-willed" activities.

You're missing his point.

Those are the advantages of a camera offering these manual settings.

To repeat:

what is the advantage of a camera that requires one to [only use manual settings]

Think about this carefully.

As for BJL's comment about being weak-willed, I think that was reflecting on the camera maker making the decision for you: "you have to use manual focus, choice is bad".

This also appears to be your point of view. Why is having that choice bad?

[howiesmith]

I also know the reason why this was difficult to notice at first glance; the viewfinder of a 20D is simply not good enough for precision focusing, so it's like an educated guesswork whether something is in focus or not.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84033\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Be patient because I am confused.

I have heard that every camera with autofocus also has manual focus, so a photographer can switch back and forth at will when conditions warrent.

Are you saying manual focus is essentially worthless on the 20D because the view finder isn't good enough?  Sounds like you really need autofocus full time, at least on this camera.  Is this a common condition with other digital cameras?  Is autofocus an essential feature rather than merely a goodie?

Here comes a stretch.  Could it be that if autofocus were removed (and I said if), sales might really plummet because there would be a camera that couldn't be focused reliably?

[BJL]

Can you explain why a manual camera user is "extremely weak-willed?"  I don't follow that at all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84027\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, you do not follow: I said nothing about manual camera users being weak-willed.

Rather than repeating myself, I suggest that you go back and try to understand what I actually wrote.

[dlashier]

Are you saying manual focus is essentially worthless on the 20D because the view finder isn't good enough?  Sounds like you really need autofocus full time, at least on this camera.  Is this a common condition with other digital cameras?  Is autofocus an essential feature rather than merely a goodie?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84038\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There are a couple issues. One is the the Canon DSLRs with less than full frame have a masked (smaller) viewfinder. There other is that cameras with AF have a different focus screen that makes manual focusing difficult. On the pro bodies you can replace the focus screen with one that works better but the problem is that this then screws with metering, in particular with center spot metering.

I love AF for action or for quick snapshots but for more studied type stuff (eg landscapes) I got mis-focused shots during the 40 years I shot with manual focus, and for macro, AF is virtually worthless. So AF is the one auto feature I actually like, I just wish I could have both and I can't do that without giving up the center spot meter. With the type of shooting I would do with an M8, I wouldn't miss AF much if at all.

- DL

[howiesmith]

I can and do all of that manual operation with everything from my Pentax K-1000 to my Canon Elan II (EOS-50?) to my Olympus E-1, which lately is always set in manual focus mode. (Yes, manual focus on Olympus E system lenses, despite the concerns of some about them using manual-focus-by-wire as opposed to manual-focus-by-mechanical-coupling.)
Unless one is extremely weak-willed, what is the advantage of a camera that requires one to do these things manually over one that allows it, while also offering options for automation too? (I can hit the E-1's AEL button to activate AF if the need suddenly arises.) Bold emphasis added
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83555\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OK, here is your entire post.  I still don't see who "one" refers to if not the user, the one doing these things manually.

Now can you explain?

[jani]

I have heard that every camera with autofocus also has manual focus, so a photographer can switch back and forth at will when conditions warrent.

Are you saying manual focus is essentially worthless on the 20D because the view finder isn't good enough?

No.

I'm saying that it's not good enough for precision focusing in the context of action shots; I'm sorry that wasn't obvious.

And with "action shots", I mean those where you need to focus quickly. (Now I know some people will point out that a Leica M is good for that. See below.)

In landscape and street photography, I would more often have the leisure to check and re-check, adjust and re-adjust, and even use smaller apertures to increase DoF. And in decent lighting conditions, MF becomes easier, and I often make good use of it.

Apart from doing various landscape and street photography, I take quite a lot of pictures of pool billiards players, under extremely difficult lighting situations.

The 20D isn't good enough to do reliable manual focusing under those conditions; I'm too dependant on a wide aperture to be able to do DoF-workarounds.

But the 20D is good enough with autofocus that it often is better at precision focusing than me, with that camera.

Sounds like you really need autofocus full time, at least on this camera.  Is this a common condition with other digital cameras?  Is autofocus an essential feature rather than merely a goodie?

For this kind of shooting, yes, it's essential. But I'd also regard reliable manual focus an essential feature for those times when I know where the player's face will be in a few seconds. (I'm a pool billiards player myself, so I can anticipate these moments quite well.)

Here comes a stretch.  Could it be that if autofocus were removed (and I said if), sales might really plummet because there would be a camera that couldn't be focused reliably?

Sales would plummet because the competition has autofocus, and most people who buy cameras in this class desire autofocus.

Also, AFAIK, autofocus in the 20D isn't considered particularly inferior to its competition.

But the 1-series cameras have superior autofocus, and for center focus, the 5D is also pretty good.

Don's points are also interesting; I didn't realise that changing the focus screen would mess up metering.

Too bad there are so few fast Leica telezooms (or even tri-elmarits, or quads, or whatever!) around 70-300 mm with IS. Even worse, too bad that I wouldn't be able to afford that.

[John Camp]

The size and weight of the D2X has very little to do with basic automation features like AF an AE: look at the smallest automated SLR's, film and digital, to see the real (rather slight) impact of adding automation on a camera's weight and size.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83994\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So you're essentially arguing that Canon and Nikon make their top-of-the-line DSLRs large and heavy because they prefer large and heavy, rather than small and light, and that the technology packed inside has nothing to do with their size?

I disagree.

JC

[jani]

So you're essentially arguing that Canon and Nikon make their top-of-the-line DSLRs large and heavy because they prefer large and heavy, rather than small and light, and that the technology packed inside has nothing to do with their size?

That would be putting words into the other person's mouth, just so that you have a strawman argument to attack.

The top-of-the-line cameras are large and heavy for at least two very obvious reasons that have nothing to do with the technology inside:

1) Robust, weather-sealed bodies (affects weight)
2) Better ergonomics and built-in vertical grips (affects size and weight)

[Ken Tanaka]

The top-of-the-line cameras are large and heavy for at least two very obvious reasons that have nothing to do with the technology inside:

1) Robust, weather-sealed bodies (affects weight)
2) Better ergonomics and built-in vertical grips (affects size and weight)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=84050\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

(3) The professional Canon "1" bodies also have large 12v batteries which significantly add to overall weight (while also significantly extending the time between battery changes),

(4) There is a great deal of circuitry inside these bodies that's not present in other cameras.

This discussion has wandered far afield from the M8, eh?  

[Nill Toulme]

...the Canon DSLRs with less than full frame have a masked (smaller) viewfinder....[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Don I had never thought about this in exactly this way before.  I imagine that in the smaller cameras the viewfinder is physically smaller generally, but in the 1DMkII it must literally be masked, no?  The room for the larger view is obviously there, as it's utilized as such in the full frame 1DsMkII.

Does this mean — in theory at least — that in the cropped 1DMkII we could have the benefit of a larger view than what the sensor is recording?  I.e., instead of a 98% or 100% view, actually have something like, what would it be, 125%?  That might have all sorts of advantages.  It would be like the old "sport finders."  It would also be like the Leica's rangefinder — you'd see the frame, and also what's outside the frame, and could compose accordingly.

Would that work?  I think I would love it for shooting sports.

Where it just might have real application would be in the much-rumored next-generation "combined" 1-series.  In fast crop sports mode, we could have the option of either a masked viewfinder, or to retain the full finder view but with rangefinder-style frame markings superimposed.

Does the Nikon with the alternate-crop mode work this way by any chance?

Nill
~~
[a href=\"http://www.toulme.net]www.toulme.net[/url]

[Scott_H]

This discussion has wandered far afield from the M8, eh?

Just wait; I sense we are on the cusp of a dof discussion.