Luminous Landscape Forum

Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Mort54 on December 18, 2007, 10:43:05 pm

Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Mort54 on December 18, 2007, 10:43:05 pm
Loved the article. I've lusted after a Leica for some time, but I swear, if I buy any more gear in the next year or so, I should be committed :-) But hey, if a new Leica came out with a 16MP full frame with no AA filter, and maybe a little finger grip (oh, heresy!!!) - well, being committed might not be too high a price after all.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: John Camp on December 19, 2007, 12:27:12 am
I once read an article on "Leica Glow" in which the author tried to explain the special glow that some Leica shots have. She said that her husband often shot pictures with Leica glow, but that she did not; and after a lot of analysis, IIRC, she concluded that Leica Glow was a real thing, compounded of extremely sharp lenses shot slightly out of focus, and either slightly under-exposed or over-exposed (one or the other, I can't remember which.) She said her husband got it and she didn't because he worked much more quickly than she did, and she was always somewhat more precise with exposure and focus, but sometimes missed shots because of that. Again, this is all from memory, but I think I'm close (the author was Frances Hicks, the glow guy was her husband, Roger; I think the article was in Shutterbug.)

I also think Leica shots often seem special because they are simply used differently than the big DSLRs. They tend to be used more like exquisitely good point and shoots, in more extreme, unusual lighting circumstances, and often with movement on the part of the photographer. As James says, you often wind up with unusable shots, but sometimes...you get nothing you'd see from a Canon or a Nikon, simply because they are so "correct" so much of the time, without the razor-like lenses on a Leica...A Leica seems to let the photographer show through.

I don't know; a Leica is still something you can casually pick up and walk out with, and that may also account for the different kinds of shot you get with it. My D3, love it as I do --- it's an absolutely brilliant camera -- is like walking around with a cement block in my hand.

Thom Hogan, the Nikon guy, has suggested that a Nikon F6 body with the D3 sensor would be a camera to hunger after; I'd add, "with the Zeiss ZF primes." I think then you might see some Leica-like shots from a DSLR. But not until...  

JC
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Rob C on December 19, 2007, 12:43:27 pm
John

I agree about the cement block: I have a smaller D200 and the other day, after walking around the place with it for about an hour and a bit I discovered two new bruises in my right hand. That tells its own tale.

I can´t quite get my head around the Leica M glass being so damn hot if it´s true that one can seldom get the M cameras to make anything sharp: that being so, how can anyone possibly tell whether the optics are good or are not? Surely, only careful focussing will reveal the ultimate quality of any lens?

The Leica reputation (myth?) goes way back before the Hicks photo-couple took up the pen; Salgado also seems to get some things crisp - are those the products of the R cameras rather than the Ms?

I felt the new article to be anything but an encouragement to buy; I have always been given to believe that with wide-angles, as with up to just over normal focal lengths, rangefinder focussing is the more accurate. Where is all this stuff going then, is it just more naked Emperors yet again?

Confused - Rob C
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: John Camp on December 19, 2007, 06:38:01 pm
Quote
I can´t quite get my head around the Leica M glass being so damn hot if it´s true that one can seldom get the M cameras to make anything sharp: that being so, how can anyone possibly tell whether the optics are good or are not? Surely, only careful focussing will reveal the ultimate quality of any lens?

The Leica reputation (myth?) goes way back before the Hicks photo-couple took up the pen; Salgado also seems to get some things crisp - are those the products of the R cameras rather than the Ms?

I felt the new article to be anything but an encouragement to buy; I have always been given to believe that with wide-angles, as with up to just over normal focal lengths, rangefinder focussing is the more accurate. Where is all this stuff going then, is it just more naked Emperors yet again?

Confused - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Despite all the bitching, top-end autofocus is IMHO extremely accurate. In any kind of fluid shooting situation, you'll get more in-focus shots with good AF. However, Leica lenses are very sharp, and can be beautifully focused; it's just that, they often are not (because of circumstances.) If you put them on a tripod, and take some time, they're the sharpest lenses in existence.

But that's not really how they were meant to be used. That was (still is) the domain of larger cameras, which is why Michael Reichmann takes MF cameras on landscape trips.

With a Leica, you can be sitting across a table from somebody, say, in fairly low light, shooting a Noctilux at f1, and you've got a DOF of a couple inches, maybe, with a fairly long throw on the focus, and if you've got soft edges, like hair...precise focus can be difficult or nearly impossible (so you take the shot anyway and call the result "Leica Glow.") Given the same situation with a N or a C, the autofocus is often right on, in a fraction of a second. But the Leica shot will give you that wonderful f1 isolation, and the OOF parts are so beautifully rendered...That's part of what James is saying. Notice that he used the Leica on special "signature" shots, the D3 on sports, and the Canons presumably where he need the most resolution.

The wide angles are particularly great with rangefinders for the simple reason that if you're shooting, say, at 16mm, and you have an idea of how long a range you're shooting at (like inside a cafe, or on a sidewalk) you can often preset the lens and not bother to focus at all, since everything from a few feet to infinity is in focus...so shooting is radically fast. In the same place, a AF would take the extra time to actually focus (unless you went all-manual.)

Some Leica users say Leicas are faster or more accurate in focusing than DSLRs, but I think that's mostly wrong, for most people, and maybe all people. I can't imagine anything faster than a D3; it can focus and shoot faster than I can frame a shot. if I had to turn a Leica focus ring 1/100 of an inch, I'd be slower. Simply thinking, "out of focus" would make you slower with a Leica than with a D3, and I suspect the same is true with the top-end Canons.

Edit: of course, there are situations where it is easy for AF to mess up -- like the standing low on a sidelines, with an isolated running back running down a football field, and a high-visual-noise grandstand behind him...and you can find that you've got a perfectly focused grandstand. You wouldn't make that mistake with a Leica.  

JC
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: melgross on December 19, 2007, 07:59:11 pm
I bought an M5 when it first came out, because I needed a camera that I could use for some lectures being given at Brooklyn College staff and department head meetings when I was a student there. They found out that I was doing fashion and ad work, so asked me if I would do this for them. I traded extra college courses for it, and it was worthwhile.

But, after that was over a couple of years later, I found myself using the camera less and less. While I never had any focus problems (in fact, I found it darn easy to focus), I did find that it forces you to shoot in ways you might not want to, due to its limitations. Before the '70's, indeed, before the '60's, the Leica's had advantages with the fact of life slow films, and slow lenses. But. later on, those advantages disappeared.

I found myself using my Canon F 1 more and more, and the Leica less and less, as the problems with wide angles and their framing difficulties cropped up (ah, no pun intended ). Same thing for tele's. Well, in any really useful way, there weren't any. And for what was there, it was clumsy, to say the least.

I ended up selling it in the early '80's, after having it for about 14 years.

Having a certain type of camera can make you think that you are shooting differently, or even better, but it is mostly a myth. even well known photographers can fall into that trap, as we see here.

Sometimes I regret it, but, we must move on.

The only thing about those days that I miss at all, is the split image rangefinder inside of all SLR's. THAT I would welcome.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: mahleu on December 20, 2007, 05:28:26 am
Quote
The only thing about those days that I miss at all, is the split image rangefinder inside of all SLR's. THAT I would welcome.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161865\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would get one for the almost silent shutter as well as the focussing. People love the clack of my SLR's in quiet theatre productions...
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Rob C on December 20, 2007, 06:51:56 am
Melgross

Starting from the end: split-image rangefinders in SLRs. I have had that battle with Nikon, writing to them for help with trying to get a split-image screen with grid line that was suitable for fast lenses, as against the one they already supplied which was NOT for fast optics. No dice, not surprisingly, but worth a try, I thought, and it would make my F3 more useful too.

I find the same trouble with focus in my D200 because I use manual lenses as I have never wanted to abandon control to the camera or lens and am happy to share them with the two cameras; anyway, who in their right mind wants to spend even more money on the same lenses! Recently, I was using the camera (D) with a 2.8/24 Nikkor in some alleyways where I was interested in some old door-knockers which might have made worthwhile pics. Anyhow, I discovered very quickly that my dream of a split-image screen had not died at all: trying to focus on the right bit of the image, check the little green dot of light at the same time to see whether it helped, all of this was a lesson in futility. I was doing hand-held, of course, and fairly tight framing (tripods are not part of my options any more). Tight framing - yes, not RF camera territory I guess...

John Camp

I know for a fact that the 21mm lenses for the Ms are good - I worked for a short time for a studio which did stills stuff for the BBC TV people in Glasgow and part of the job was recording room sets. The chap who owned the studio would send us out to do that with an M3 and a 21mm and having to do the printing of the negs, I knew they were excellent quality compared with the Nikon F alternatives which we had. There WAS a different character to the black/whites that we printed from the combination; when I left I took a print of one particular pic with me just because of that different colour (to the b/w).

The late Jeanloup Sieff would utilize an M with a 21mm for much of his work, and to great advantage; he also had Nikon F and Hasselblad gear, so it was from choice. But, I think in his case it might have been more to do with the perspective choice which the lens allowed him.

The arguments for RF as superior to Reflex for candid photography (now there´s an ancient word!) are a bit dubious too, when you go through them in detail. A split-image screen is as fast as you are going to get manually, and as grid lines are not going to be important compared with snatching the shot anyway, a straight Nikon F series will be as good as a RF Leica. Let´s face it, finding focus with your Noctilux isn´t going to be a cakewalk either, with zero DOF! For shots where pre-set distance is an option, the R-type camera will still offer more accurate framing.

I think the real advantage to the Leica option may well reside in the realm of lens quality when all the usual care is applied to the making of the shot; anything which consists of hit´n´run will never be able to serve as a sensible measure of absolute quality. Much as you say yourself, really, so we do agree.

Whatever, I´d still love the option of an M film body and one or two lenses!

Not to mention the fact that I would have liked to have had the confidence in RFinders to have bought a Mamiya!

Rob C
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: hankg on December 20, 2007, 08:52:25 am
The attraction of rangefinder camera's boils down to one essential thing: how you see the world through the finder. With an SLR viewing system you view the world through a tunnel with the scene rendered at full aperture with a narrow depth of field, with a rangefinder you look at the world through a transparent window with some discreet corner marks to indicate your crop. You see what's inside the frame and what's outside with no distortion or alteration courtesy of the viewing system. With the M3 and a 50mm you could shoot with both eyes open and see the frame lines floating in front of you like the camera wasn't even there.

Now it used to be that rangefinders had other advantages as well. The lack of a mirror made hand holding at slower shutter speeds possible but image stabilization has removed at least part of that advantage. The narrow register between film plane and lens made for higher quality optics especially at the wide end. Unfortunately what was an advantage with film is a disadvantage with digital. Finally with digital small size and quiet operation are no longer the exclusive domain of rangefinders as a matter of fact the M8 is not all that quiet.

As to focusing accuracy a practiced hand using lenses in the wide to normal range should be able to match or best most AF systems in the sort of situations the M was meant for (it's not a camera for the sports shooter). That's assuming your lens and finder are properly calibrated and the finder is clean. It is a finder system that could be improved but is eminently usable as is.

Finally, the early Leica's made Leica an iconic brand not because of image quality. If you wanted image quality you would have used a 4x5 press camera or at least a Rollie TLR. Leica and small format roll film photography was about emotional content over technical perfection, it allowed you to capture life in a way not possible with the 'better' bigger cameras. The M8 gets close enough to the feel and operation of the film M's that really it's only competition are not DSLR's but the little Ricoh GRD with an optical finder mounted. Comparing pixels between the latest DSLR and the M8 really misses the point. The M8 has more then enough IQ to do what an M was meant to do.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Rob C on December 20, 2007, 11:38:39 am
Hank

I agree that the advent of 35mm changed the face of photojournalism; I also know from experience that using a Rollei TLR alongside a Nikon F was not a brilliant combination  either.

But I feel that you point about the Leica is more historical than contemporary - there simply were no comparable slr cameras around then; my first slr in the 50s was an Exakta and IT was considered top of the (small) heap in its day! But even so, I think we ARE talking about image quality when we compare like with like - 35mm Leica glass with any other 35mm glass. I have seen it myself, as reported earlier. I also think that the same holds true for 35mm R lenses: the 180mm appears to have much smoother tonal transition than Nikon - many fashion photographers would also run Leica R lines for the benefits of Leica colour. None of that was money lightly spent!

But within the context of now, we aren´t even talking M film but M digital, where the digital has already shown to be a very compromised machine indeed. If you doubt that, look no further than the various threads/reports within this site. I have a gut feeling that the digital camera will never attain the legendary position of its film cousins.

The point about seeing the world with both eyes open (should you wish to view like that), within those shorter focal lengths isn´t at all impossible with a reflex either.

But, as we are not even comparing FF with FF, this entire line of conjecture gets a little lost along the way...

But then, isn´t that the way with photography?

Ciao - Rob C
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: hankg on December 20, 2007, 11:59:33 am
Quote
Hank

I agree that the advent of 35mm changed the face of photojournalism; I also know from experience that using a Rollei TLR alongside a Nikon F was not a brilliant combination  either.

But I feel that you point about the Leica is more historical than contemporary - there simply were no comparable slr cameras around then; my first slr in the 50s was an Exakta and IT was considered top of the (small) heap in its day! But even so, I think we ARE talking about image quality when we compare like with like - 35mm Leica glass with any other 35mm glass. I have seen it myself, as reported earlier. I also think that the same holds true for 35mm R lenses: the 180mm appears to have much smoother tonal transition than Nikon - many fashion photographers would also run Leica R lines for the benefits of Leica colour. None of that was money lightly spent!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162023\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I feel the point about the finder is still as relevant today as it was when the M was introduced. Today of course using a rangefinder is a choice as there are many other options. If I'm using a long lens at a wide aperture I prefer a SLR as what you see in the viewfinder is what you get but for normal lenses doing the sort of shooting the M is associated with I'll take a small rangefinder. It's a very different way of working and seeing and it's one I prefer even though it may be a minority view.

I have an M8 and have owned and shot extensively with the Canon 1 series digital and as far as image quality is concerned with 35mm high end digital cameras any of them can do a capable job. The IQ differences with digital are miniscule. In terms of the end product in print a Canon with L glass can do the job every bit as good as a Leica with Leica glass or a Nikon. The real differences are in handling and ergonomics and whether you require things like weather sealing or tilt shift lenses or high quality ultra wides, etc., etc.,.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Paul Kay on December 20, 2007, 12:18:07 pm
Quote
Having a certain type of camera can make you think that you are shooting differently, or even better, but it is mostly a myth. even well known photographers can fall into that trap, as we see here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161865\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Having (or using) a certain type of camera can most certainly make you shoot differently, not necessarily better, and the myth is (mostly) to anticipate that the ownership of different equipment will somehow, magically, make someone a better photographer! But you are right in that well known photographers are only human and probably have similar failings to the rest of us.

From my own point of view (as someone who fist owned a Leica M when studying (photography) many years ago), I would say that one aspect of the Leica M that is underrated is the discipline it instills into photography. My own experience in going back into M photography (I've dabbled with Leica rangefinders several times) is that I am made to think far more precisely about both focus and composition. There are of course many other reasons for using Leica M cameras (film or digital) but trying to justify them purely in terms of optical quality is not easy (though the files are very nice!) although in today's pixel obsessed world it is tempting to try.

My own justification for owning and using an M8 is that I like doing so, and the files it produces suit my requirements and are quick to adjust for how I want them to be. Add to this the size, weight and familiarity and I'm more than happy to use one. Although the web would have you believe that reliability is a huge issue, I'm cynical about the web's ability to differentiate between a small or a big problem as opposed to a vociferously announced one!
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: John Camp on December 20, 2007, 01:11:59 pm
Quote
My own justification for owning and using an M8 is that I like doing so, and the files it produces suit my requirements and are quick to adjust for how I want them to be. Add to this the size, weight and familiarity and I'm more than happy to use one. Although the web would have you believe that reliability is a huge issue, I'm cynical about the web's ability to differentiate between a small or a big problem as opposed to a vociferously announced one!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162035\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I certainly think that liking a camera is a good reason for shooting it, and I do that myself -- and I also shoot Nikons because I like them better than Canons, not because I think they make better photos.

I'm also somewhat cynical about web judgments, but not when it concerns the Leica M8. I read the main Leica forum, and virtually everybody on the forum, it seems, has had a very serious problem with their M8-- these are not people who are self-selected *because* they had a problem, but Leica enthusiasts who were anxious for the M8 to succeed, and then had serious problems.

The first batch of cameras actually had a mechanical/electrical problem that had to be fixed. I sent my camera back to Solms, and it was fixed. That took two months. Then it broke again, a month later, and this time, after examining it, Leica gave me a new camera. The M8s failed so often, and so comprehensively, that certain problems were given specific names, and when you developed those specific symptoms, you knew you were toast. If somebody put a gun to my head and demanded that I produce a percentage number of failure-in-use of the M8s produced before, say, last February (that is, from the first sales in November of 2006 through February of 2007) I would say that number would be greater than 60 percent. That does not include cameras that had to be sent back for the mandatory repair (which would push the number to 100%), but didn't actually fail in use.

One of the members of the Leica forum, am engineer, actually disassembled an M8 and the M8 battery charger. The assembly quality of the charger was disgraceful. It looked like the inside of a $2 flashlight.

I carry my M8 all the time, for the reason you gave above -- I like it. But it has lots of problems.

Rob -- I don't think we disagree. However, the M8 gives the IQ equivalent of a top-line DSLR, IMHO. If Nikon produced a body the size of an F3 with the D3 chip inside of it, and with (only) M8 battery life, I would buy it in a minute (and use Zeiss primes on it.) Unfortunately, the top-end Nikon/Canon cameras  weigh more than some LF cameras, and also have a huge, obtrusive frontal area; and as I pointed out in another post, some of the common lenses (like the Nikon 17-35 zoom) are, by themselves, as large as the Leica camera. *That's* the problem with using DSLRs in candid photography; it's not the IQ.

If you're doing some heavy duty PJ or studio work or whatever, and failure is not an option, you put up with the size and weight; it's the job. If you're going out for a ramble in the woods with the dog, or down to the art fair, the Leica's nice.

JC
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Rob C on December 20, 2007, 02:59:34 pm
As a matter of passing interest, but on-thread, please have a look at this - if the subject doesn´t interest don´t bother going into it, but DO read Stan Malinowski´s INTRODUCTION, however difficult it might be on the eyes, what with being so tiny and so on.

http://www.modelpix.com/retroframes.html (http://www.modelpix.com/retroframes.html)

Ciao - Rob C

Edit: If you look at the pics under Malinowski at Work, there´s one titled Stan with Cigar. Is that an early Leica R model? Shot was taken circa ´83.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: melgross on December 20, 2007, 04:01:46 pm
Several things about using RF's for candid work are in order.

One is that the cameras are smaller, and less bulky, than SLR's. When you are doing candids, where the people (you don't know, usually) are close enough to be distracted by your work, a smaller camera is a benefit. The quieter shutter (the reason I bought mine) is also beneficial.

As for wides, Leica makes really fine lenses. No one will argue that. But, as one begins to get closer, there is less correspondence to what one sees in the viewfinder, esp. with the widest models. The corner cutoff rarely bother me though.

When I said earlier that one THINKS one is shooting differently, but isn't, I meant that the results are rarely different. But, one thinks they are. Other than the quieter shutter, and smaller size, and I remember the whacking the M5 got when it came out about how big it was, I've never found any advantage to them as far as shooting went. Sometimes, in really dim light—1200 Tri-X and Accufine time, my M5 could be a bit easier to focus, but not always.

In the more general areas of photography, though, I always felt that the M series was under a great disadvantage. Fewer lenses. No zooms. Few accessories.

Removing the bottom cover to re-film the camera was always a bug of mine. Sheesh! They still do this with the M8 for Flash and battery! I cant think of a single good reason for that. I've seen people drop that danged cover into the dirt, after losing their grip on it.

Come on Leica. This is the 21st century!

And lastly, those split image rangefinders previously found in SLR's. I'm led to believe that they mess up auto focus. I don't remember if the early autofocus film cameras still had them. does anyone remember?

My 5D allows changeable focussing screens. They should have one that can be used without auto focus, but with the rangefinder, should we choose to go that way at times.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: melgross on December 20, 2007, 04:08:38 pm
Quote
Edit: If you look at the pics under Malinowski at Work, there´s one titled Stan with Cigar. Is that an early Leica R model? Shot was taken circa ´83.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162098\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Somehow, the Leica "R" never interested me. The expense didn't seem to be worth it, and the cameras have always seemed so bulky, particularly in the days of smaller pro SLR's. Though now the pro Canon and Nikon digital units make it seem small.

It just occurred to me to write that I was disappointed that the M8 didn't come with a full frame sensor, as the camera's lenses have always presented excellent edge quality. I do understand some of the problems their non-retrofocusing wides will have there, but I have to hope that Leica is working on that issue.

Even the price of Leica is no longer high when compared to the top Canon and Nikon models, not to say the medium format digital models.

Would a full frame Leica be so out of the question?
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: thompsonkirk on December 20, 2007, 06:26:05 pm
I was surprised by the article's emphasis on focusing problems.  I just don't have 'em.  

I wonder if some variability arose in switching back & forth from uncoded VC to new coded Leica lenses.  Older lenses were designed to focus on the film plane, & different manufacturers made different allowances for film flatness - and had different quality control tolerances.  Leica doesn't always get this just right on new lenses.  But when you send an older Leitz lens in for coding, part of the service is to make sure the lens will focus exactly on a sensor plane.  

I first noticed this when my 35mm Summicron that focused perfectly on M4 & 6 tended to front-focus on my M8.  My spare 35mm Summicron, which didn't seem as sharp on film cameras, was perfect on the M8.  My dealer explained that adjusting for these variations was part of the coding operation.  

So I don't think there's anything wrong with Leica rangefinders - it's more likely that some lenses are calibrated more accurately than others to the sensor plane.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Rob C on December 21, 2007, 05:02:21 am
melgross

The Leica wasn´t the only one with a film loading design flaw: the Nikon F back too had to be taken OFF in order to put in film! But they cured all that with the F2 which was a honey of a camera. Then, of course, the F4 was created to drive me insane with constant reloading problems which, in essence, meant that it always took me at least three goes at it to get the damn thing to engage. Just think about that if you have human subjects... Which, of course, is why I got rid of it and bought one of the last F3s.

Ciao - Rob C
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: ashaughnessy on December 21, 2007, 06:29:14 am
When I take a picture (on 35mm film), scan it and it ends up on my computer I'll always judge its sharpness at 100% magnification, as a matter of course, and then I'll always print it at A3+, as a matter of course, because I can. I'll see any deficiencies in quality immediately.

I've never worked in a darkroom but I can imagine that you can't see the image quality in a 35mm negative until you've printed it. If your normal darkroom workflow is to print on 8x10 paper, perhaps with a border so you get perhaps a 9x6 image, you might be entirely happy with the image quality, compared to the minute examination you can so easily give it magnified to 100% on your computer screen.

I've recently been using disposable film cameras, with the explicit intention of not printing the pictures larger than about 7x5 inches. The results are absolutely full of imperfections but at 7x5 some of the imperfections look lovely and give the pictures a definite character that I enjoy. As a result I've bought an old Olympus Trip to keep on doing the same thing. It's really hard to focus but I don't care too much at 7x5.

So I wonder if digital cameras have changed our requirements for focussing accuracy?

Anthony
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Camdavidson on December 21, 2007, 08:11:32 am
Quote
I was surprised by the article's emphasis on focusing problems.  I just don't have 'em. 


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162144\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

To Quote....

Leica M8 Revisited by James Russell

"I'm not a range finder guy.

In fact for my entire career, other than hold somebody's point and shoot at a party, I've never shot a frame of film or digital with a rangefinder camera....."




Using any new piece of gear is never really easy until you feel at home with it.  Until you've used it in all sorts of situations and feel that you are in sync with the camera.  That happens with any new piece of gear.  I just tested a D3 for Nikon and even though I have not shot Nikon in five years, the muscle memory was there and everything felt instinctive and right.

I've used M Leicas all my life.  I started off with an M2 in high school and have pretty much always owned a M camera of some sort.  (either an M4, CL or M6)  I own the M8 and have never had any focusing problems with it....but then again...I've used M cameras for a long time and even when I focus and recompose, I know how much to shift my focus depending upon if I reframe to the left or right.

The M8 is a very different beast than any other Leica.  It is quirky.  I had one in for repair and it was quickly replaced when it was discovered that it locked up after it was repaired.  Leica is a super small company led by good people who are trying very hard.  

I am 50-50 on the M8.  I love that Leica is in the digital age but I do wish it worked a little bit better than it does.  Leica got hit with some pretty significant problems after the M8 was released and they have worked to solve them.  One is  a stop-gap measure but it solves the problem of the IR contamination.  

I just shot an annual report for a conservation group - people and aerials in North America.  I shot mostly with the M8's and the client was very pleased with the files and results.  The only time I shot with the Canon's was when I knew we were going for more than a double page spread. (It was a fold-out double truck)

Yeah, it takes time to learn how to focus a rangefinder properly.  If you've been depending on auto-focus or using medium-format with the bigger viewfinder than it is a bit of a stretch to get use to the rangefinder patch.

But once you do, and you use it for a while, it becomes second nature and you understand something you've known all along, that the M is a very different camera but it just feels right.

Not something to be derided or lusted after.  It is a tool that hopefully, is an extension of who you are as a photographer.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Rob C on December 21, 2007, 11:13:53 am
Quote
When I take a picture (on 35mm film), scan it and it ends up on my computer I'll always judge its sharpness at 100% magnification, as a matter of course, and then I'll always print it at A3+, as a matter of course, because I can. I'll see any deficiencies in quality immediately.

I've never worked in a darkroom but I can imagine that you can't see the image quality in a 35mm negative until you've printed it. If your normal darkroom workflow is to print on 8x10 paper, perhaps with a border so you get perhaps a 9x6 image, you might be entirely happy with the image quality, compared to the minute examination you can so easily give it magnified to 100% on your computer screen.

I've recently been using disposable film cameras, with the explicit intention of not printing the pictures larger than about 7x5 inches. The results are absolutely full of imperfections but at 7x5 some of the imperfections look lovely and give the pictures a definite character that I enjoy. As a result I've bought an old Olympus Trip to keep on doing the same thing. It's really hard to focus but I don't care too much at 7x5.

So I wonder if digital cameras have changed our requirements for focussing accuracy?

Anthony
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162256\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The darkroom experience did not hide problems/mistakes with camera and/or film malpractice; the problem was that very often the photographer did not print his own work and, as a consequence, had no idea if he was over- or under-exposing his work in a habitual manner. But, and a big but, his printers sure did!

There is nothing on record, of which I am aware, that claims the success rate with film to be any higher than with digital capture. Both require that the photographer understand what he is doing. I would suggest that in the realm of film, b/w was even more prone to bad practice because few people knew how to read a negative, whereas anybody with half a vision can spot a dud transparency.

If you did do your own printing, you would often run the enlarger right up to the top of its column just to have a look at what you´d got. For my own part, most of what I did commercially fitted on 8x10 and was mainly on grades 2 or 3. I did not like Multigrade or, even less, RC, which was another reason why I eventually gave up my last darkroom, though that one had no commercial pretensions. But, in general, I wouldn´t agree at all that digital and 100% has made any difference to the informed photographer and his quest for quality.

Where big differences did arise, was when there was a need for display prints on 40" rolls of paper, which showed up the differences between Nikon and Hasselblad capture, even though the 35mm was usually on FP3/4 and the 6x6 on TXP 120. The same, of course, was the case with colour.

Basically, film or digital, you require the same sense of accuracy and care with the whole operation of making a photograph - I see neither way as a shortcut to success.

Going back to the ´special´ look that Leica glass can give a print, perhaps this sense of difference was due to the look of a Leica neg printed on paper in a wet darkroom. I have not heard of the same look being available via scans and machine printing. Even in a wet darkroom, using anything but SWG was always a passion killer. I have never heard of an M8 being talked about in that way - maybe digital capture is a huge leveller of lenses, and not in a happy way!

Rob C
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: djgarcia on December 21, 2007, 02:20:04 pm
Rob, I think that may be because it's easy to mush up the basic look and feel of a lens in the digital realm. Some feel you can reproduce any lens personality by altering the digital processing. I myself don't, so I use Zeiss and Leica glass and try not to mush it up .

One thing hard to emulate or correct for is excessive backlight flaring and lack of contast due to flaring which both Zeiss and Leica usually handle so well. Of course you can always do some really fancy and convoluted area cloning ...

As always, YMMV ...
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 22, 2007, 10:08:48 am
Quote
Loved the article. I've lusted after a Leica for some time, but I swear, if I buy any more gear in the next year or so, I should be committed :-) But hey, if a new Leica came out with a 16MP full frame with no AA filter, and maybe a little finger grip (oh, heresy!!!) - well, being committed might not be too high a price after all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=161635\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks James Russell for a great article.  I miss you on the forums!
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: thompsonkirk on December 22, 2007, 01:44:11 pm
In the fall issue of LFI (leica Photografie International), p. 27, you'll find this (bad) news about the special Leica 'glow', in an article about the new Summarits & their return to spherical lens design:

"Can we expect a renaissance of the creamy Leica glow of early days, which has its special appeal but is in fact nothing more than an aesthetically pleasing side effect of undercorrected spherical aberration?

"The answer is no," because of design & production techniques that reduce optical aberrations.  

Kirk
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Craig Lamson on December 22, 2007, 02:15:50 pm
deleted
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Rob C on December 22, 2007, 05:04:45 pm
Seems a strange explanation for a pleasing effect - but they should know, I guess.

Maybe it´s just another example of things improving without getting in the least bit better.

Cheers - Rob C
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: djgarcia on December 22, 2007, 05:17:16 pm
How did that Winston jingle go ... "What do you prefer, good grammar or good taste?"  
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Craig Arnold on December 23, 2007, 12:19:24 pm
Quote
In the fall issue of LFI (leica Photografie International), p. 27, you'll find this (bad) news about the special Leica 'glow', in an article about the new Summarits & their return to spherical lens design:

"Can we expect a renaissance of the creamy Leica glow of early days, which has its special appeal but is in fact nothing more than an aesthetically pleasing side effect of undercorrected spherical aberration?

"The answer is no," because of design & production techniques that reduce optical aberrations. 

Kirk
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162518\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

mm, except maybe with the new Canon 50 f1.2 L. I am reluctant to jump on the bandwagon with the crowd over at that other place, but it's taking a while to learn the foibles of this lens. I think I am pretty sure I'm getting some weird backfocus at certain apertures and focus distances (and they're not necessarily where you think they might be). Allegedly a result of the spherical aberrations from the design.

I happened to notice a particularly interesting glow on some of my shots from yesterday. Just a result of the fog, or some nasty CA perhaps? I don't know if it's anything like as attractive as the Leica glow.

I love the lens in general, but it is going to take a while till I figure how to get the best from it.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: melgross on December 24, 2007, 02:14:37 am
Quote
melgross

The Leica wasn´t the only one with a film loading design flaw: the Nikon F back too had to be taken OFF in order to put in film! But they cured all that with the F2 which was a honey of a camera. Then, of course, the F4 was created to drive me insane with constant reloading problems which, in essence, meant that it always took me at least three goes at it to get the damn thing to engage. Just think about that if you have human subjects... Which, of course, is why I got rid of it and bought one of the last F3s.

Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162249\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

True, though I was never much of a Nikon person, and loading was one of the reasons.

But, at least Nikon did change that in response to requests (demands) from it's customers.

I never really felt that Leica cared as much what its customers felt about such things. Leica has always had this belief that people would buy its products because of its idiosyncrasies.

There is NO reason why the bottom must still come off.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Rob C on December 24, 2007, 05:26:11 am
Melgross

"There is NO reason why the bottom must still come off."

When I was a young photographer I never heard that said; now that I´m an old photographer I hear nothing else.

Ciao - Rob C
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: drew on December 24, 2007, 10:50:45 am
Interesting thread for me.....
Earlier this year, I bit the bullet and finally sold all my film gear (well almost all, you can never have too many cameras). So as well as my existing Canon digital outfit (1ds MKII/5D), I had some money to splash. I have read a lot about the M8 and in spite of the problems with it, I thought I was tempted not least because I thought it might give me a fresh outlook (not that fresh as I have used Xpans), but also because it was a digtal alternative. Also, I have to be honest and admit that a middle-aged man past his prime might look cool with one round his neck (in the right sort of secure environment you will understand). I had a look at the prices and determined that the camera was cheaper to buy in the UK, while the tri-elmar 16-18-21 lens with viewfinder was much less in the US. So, since I was in Chicago last month, I thought I would have a serious look at this combination in Calumet.
I must say, when I picked up the camera, I just thought I am going to have this. Then a bit of common sense kicked in and I had a look at it together with the tri-elmar. Right, so you set the focal length on the lens and then remember to apply a focal length multiplier of 1.3. You set the corresponding focal length on the viewfinder bearing this in mind (so that is 21mm only then for 16mm on the lens). Then you focus through the camera's finder and if you want your framing to be slightly less inaccurate, you dial in your parallax correction on the lens viewfinder. then you compose and shoot......hmmmm. By this time I would have got off at least ten shots on the 5D. Then I compared similar files out of it directly with one of Calumet's own 5Ds. If you turn the noise suppression off in ACR, the files out of the 5D show less noise at the same ISO and less moire and they are sharper, leaving aside the issue of the optics which may be better on the Leica. So, sadly the latter day Sebastaio Salgado within me died quietly on the spot and I gave the camera back. I did splash some cash on a very nice and compact 70-200 F4L IS USM lens for the Canon. Only wish it was black though.
I think there is an awful lot of complete twaddle written about Leicas and I absolutely agree with the person who invoked the old analogy of the emperor's new clothes. All this stuff about 'bokeh' and Leica glow...please give me a break. Can anyone show me a single photographer who built his or her career on the quality of their 'bokeh' notwithstanding what Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz continue to write on the subject???
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Rob C on December 24, 2007, 11:58:07 am
Drew, I am also all for secure environments; there is something wrong when everywhere isn´t secure enough to permit us gentlemen of a certain age to progress smoothly wherever we legally wish to go.

But then. this isn´t really new. I remember l956 and the Suez crisis: I had a Bond three-wheeler (I´m amazed I can admit to that) becasue it was one step up from a bicycle, what with a 197cc Villiers two-stroke engine putting out a masive 9 horses, but a head-on wind was often a challenge too far. Anyway, I am distracting myself. One particular foggy night I climbed into the thing, armed with my camera which (I can no long remember  for sure) was either a Voigtlander Vito B or an Exakta, determined to get some foggy atmospherics of the Clyde waterside... right, night, Glasgow south-side, Gorbals but a stone-throw away - I didn´t get anything at all because within a couple of minutes I was off in a cloud of characteristic two-stroke exhaust. Chicken? damn right.

But back to the Bond: I eventually gave up and went back to a bicycle.

Ciao - Rob C
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: idenford on December 24, 2007, 09:35:41 pm
I love to read the stories on What's new in Luminous Landscapes, plus I buy the videos and read all the educational posts.
But I have to tell you that I think James Russell's work and his comments on his website are about the most narcissistic I have observed and read recently.
Anybody who starts out bragging about his platinum or black american express card to me is about the most tasteless comment you can make imo.
Now I recognize that I am a relatively new photographer and probably know a microcosm of how to shoot a good commercial photo for a multi million dollar client, but his models look awful for the most part, way too thin and the tone of the shots makes them look even worse to me.
But most importantly, for me, I look at his photos and it's about how clever he has made them look, rather than not noticing who took the shot. For me a great photo is one where I am not thinking about the photographer, I am engaged in the image and the photographer has made me forget he/she was there.
I never feel the presence of the photographer when I look at Michael Reichmann's shots, he takes me someplace and I forget he was there. To me that is genius and art.
It's like good fiction, you forget you are reading a made up story and are transported into a world that exists in the author's mind, but involved a reader as well, rather than, "look at my creative use of language here, aren't I clever"?
My apologies if I offended anyone as I am not in the earnings or experience stratosphere of James Russell and my never be, but I never want to shoot like that thanks nor look at anymore of his stuff or read his opinions.
I'll skip the Leica and save for The top of the line Canon Mark lll ds
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Rob C on December 25, 2007, 06:36:05 am
idenford

I think you are entitled to your opinion, as we all are, but I do think you are missing one or two tricks.

In business, the appearance of success is almost as important as the substance of success; much of the time you are selling to, and dealing with, people who neither appreciate your skills nor really understand what you are doing. The website is for clients, not other photographers, and the more status symbolism you can introduce the better; for a start, your client will not expect a cheap job...

Your remarks about the models strike me as more about yourself than the work; look at any agent´s website and all the fashion guys are pushing a common style of visual look - only the names are different. This is cyclical, in some ways, and illustrates how insular is the world of fashion photography AND its clients. You need only look at work from different periods to see how similar it always is within its time-frame - the look of the day is what makes the whole thing tick.

That is also one of the reasons why many fashion people find themselves moving on to other lines of photography after about ten years (if they are lucky) because they no longer fit the ´now´of the thing.

Whether or not one particular guy rings your chimes is always going to be a personal opinion - in mine, few American photographers manage to do so because, compared with their European counterparts, I feel they over-produce what they do. That said, I do feel the same is slowly happening in Europe too, with the unique, personal approach of the 60s, 70s and even 80s photographers being eroded and diluted by the ever-growing input of the TEAM. There was a time which I remember fondly, when you took a girl and went out into the street with her; she could and did do her own hair and make-up, the pictures belonged to both of you. Now, who is the creator?  I remember hearing the late Helmut Newton make this same point: he remarked that in his prime they used to let you out onto the streets of Paris like mad dogs; you did what you did. Now, he said, it is all different, everything has become a production, everything is such a big deal, there is so much cost involved...

I´m glad I had my time when I had my time.

But you still have to understand the ethos of the moment.

Ciao and Merry Christmas

Rob C
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: idenford on December 25, 2007, 10:16:45 pm
Quote
idenford

I think you are entitled to your opinion, as we all are, but I do think you are missing one or two tricks.

In business, the appearance of success is almost as important as the substance of success; much of the time you are selling to, and dealing with, people who neither appreciate your skills nor really understand what you are doing. The website is for clients, not other photographers, and the more status symbolism you can introduce the better; for a start, your client will not expect a cheap job...

Your remarks about the models strike me as more about yourself than the work; look at any agent´s website and all the fashion guys are pushing a common style of visual look - only the names are different. This is cyclical, in some ways, and illustrates how insular is the world of fashion photography AND its clients. You need only look at work from different periods to see how similar it always is within its time-frame - the look of the day is what makes the whole thing tick.

That is also one of the reasons why many fashion people find themselves moving on to other lines of photography after about ten years (if they are lucky) because they no longer fit the ´now´of the thing.

Whether or not one particular guy rings your chimes is always going to be a personal opinion - in mine, few American photographers manage to do so because, compared with their European counterparts, I feel they over-produce what they do. That said, I do feel the same is slowly happening in Europe too, with the unique, personal approach of the 60s, 70s and even 80s photographers being eroded and diluted by the ever-growing input of the TEAM. There was a time which I remember fondly, when you took a girl and went out into the street with her; she could and did do her own hair and make-up, the pictures belonged to both of you. Now, who is the creator?  I remember hearing the late Helmut Newton make this same point: he remarked that in his prime they used to let you out onto the streets of Paris like mad dogs; you did what you did. Now, he said, it is all different, everything has become a production, everything is such a big deal, there is so much cost involved...

I´m glad I had my time when I had my time.

But you still have to understand the ethos of the moment.

Ciao and Merry Christmas

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162998\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

thanks for the feedback, I was not being mean spirited in any way, the guy clearly is talented and knows his craft, I just dislike what he does and the whole nine yards about the credit card and everything. I think in art understatement is more appealing as in business. But Mcdonalds is not understated nor is Burger kIng. They are right in your face with their product.
If money is the motivator, you gotta do what the market wants.
I think you can learn from stuff you don't like and I always try to look at something and see what the artist is trying to do, as I said, I feel in his case his work is more about him and less about  the story he is trying to express in his shots.
But I know many respect him, he does not speak to me, just like people who love Motorhead are most likely not going to be fans of Celine Dion.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Rob C on December 26, 2007, 01:09:48 pm
idenford

Well, as you appreciated, the site is ALL about busines and I can´t think of any way you can sell your services in a business where first visual impressions are so important and patience not a known trait, without being in-your-face, as it were. Also, part of success is being able to have a signature style; that, of course, is ever more difficult to achieve now that PS experts are also having an input and THEIR eyes are not unsullied by references to their own competitors... oh those simple, honest days of the 60s, where what you saw in a print was usually what had been there in the first place!

I should also have mentioned, in my earlier post, that another aspect of making a big show of your busines is that when people have to spend huge sums of money on a campaign, they need to be sure that the bloke being entrusted with the work isn´t going to desert or run off with product or advances and leave them in a mess!

So yes, the more positive something looks, the better the feeling a client will get.

He might well end up getting a lousy job, but that´s something which can happen to any photographer, regardles of reputation, photography being the unpredictable bitch that it is!

Ciao - Rob C
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: melgross on December 26, 2007, 03:39:28 pm
Now, we seem to be getting to the differences between photography as art, or as work for hire.

When I started out, in 1969, all of 19 years old, ad photography, except for a few such as Stern and Avedon, was just pictures, ephemeral and often thrown away after they weren't needed any more, except for the Black Book.

Later, we began to see ad work as art. Now, sometimes, it's difficult to see the product in some ad photography, esp. when it's fashion.

Things have come a long way from the style of just showing the product. A long road from Stern.

Now, every photographer must have a distinctive style, and not just know the technicalities of the craft. This leads to some poor, but distinctive work.

It's the way of the world.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: idenford on December 26, 2007, 04:23:23 pm
Must be my wife rubbing off on me a bit. She was brought up in the Uk just toward the end of the war and it was socialism central for years.
I was the in your face person when I went to sell her books for a television series and now we have two, one of which airs on CITY TV and UKTV in the new year.
So yeah, none of that would have happened without me being in somebody's face and pushing like hell.
But . . . .  you guys are giving me a great lesson and great feedback on this. It's not going to change my mind about my opinion, but it is interesting to hear a response to my feelings about JR's work. Clearly there is a formula for success here, but I had the impression that not all his stuff was about ad work.
thanks
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: picnic on December 26, 2007, 04:59:37 pm
Quote
Must be my wife rubbing off on me a bit. She was brought up in the Uk just toward the end of the war and it was socialism central for years.
I was the in your face person when I went to sell her books for a television series and now we have two, one of which airs on CITY TV and UKTV in the new year.
So yeah, none of that would have happened without me being in somebody's face and pushing like hell.
But . . . .  you guys are giving me a great lesson and great feedback on this. It's not going to change my mind about my opinion, but it is interesting to hear a response to my feelings about JR's work. Clearly there is a formula for success here, but I had the impression that not all his stuff was about ad work.
thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163242\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I feel as though I must have missed something.  I read James' D3 review (where he pulled out his Amex card 3x to buy it--same card this lowly shooter has) and I read the Leica M8 article and I've yet to see where he flaunted anything about his status (i.e., gold and black Visas??)---but yes, its obvious he does well LOL.

I've visited his site many times over a number of years.  I'm not into fashion photography particularly, but still look at his (and others) work.  I'm more drawn to his sports images--and others.  

I actually felt that James was telling it like it was--he had his own issues with the M8--but still loved it.  I sort of saw it as a little love letter to Leica (and I don't own one, just wish I did).  I've missed his wit and knowledge (and others--from the RG forum and here) and enjoyed both very personal reviews of gear that he enjoys using.  Neither are in my future--that doesn't make me enjoy less his and others pleasure with these wonderful tools.  

I still wonder if I missed something LOL.

Diane
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Rob C on December 27, 2007, 04:28:38 am
melgross

You started in ´69 and I started in ´60 with my own little show kicking off in ´66. So yes, we both are a little long in the tooth!

Having said that, I think you missed a little bit of history when you figured photography as art in ads started so late: have you no memory of the American car ads? Those beautiful shots from the 50s, and even the 60s were really great art in themselves. The cars were also works of art (in the States and perhaps in Italy for the expensive post-war ones) which is no longer the case, in my view. Further, the LP covers of the 50s were pretty interesting too, doing a hell of a lot to sell the square format! Stern was/is a great photographer in his own right, but no photographer in advertising is truly free any more - it´s back to this bloody TEAM thing that has turned fashion into what it is, something that doesn´t reflect the tight photographer/model relationship but merely represents what passes for some sort of trade consensus of what fashion photography is about, no, what fashion photography is.

It would be interesting to hear some feedback from the photographer about whose work/camera experience this thread is a result. Perhaps he doesn´t see any of this comment reflected in his life.

Sometimes the internet makes you feel like a dog baying at the moon.

Ciao - Rob C
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Camdavidson on December 27, 2007, 08:09:49 am
If interested, there are several other user reviews of the M8 that some may find interesting or helpful.

Uwe Review (http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/leica_m8/Leica_M8_review.html)

Andy Biggs (http://www.andybiggs.com/blog/the-leica-m8/)

Todd Korol (http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1796)

Online Photographer Blog (http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2007/04/leica-m8-pro-and-con-pro_6765.html)

Zone Numerique (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zone-numerique.com%2FTest_83_Test_du_Leica_M8.htm&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools)

Bruno Stevens (http://dirckhalstead.org/issue0709/camera-corner-the-leica-m8-on-assignment.html)

Roger Richards (http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0709/camera-corner-leica-m8.html)

Reid Reviews (A paid site - many updates to the M8 review including lenses) (http://reidreviews.com/reidreviews/)
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: James R Russell on December 29, 2007, 12:59:16 am
Quote
it´s back to this bloody TEAM thing that has turned fashion into what it is, something that doesn´t reflect the tight photographer/model relationship but merely represents what passes for some sort of trade consensus of what fashion photography is about, no, what fashion photography is.

It would be interesting to hear some feedback from the photographer about whose work/camera experience this thread is a result. Perhaps he doesn´t see any of this comment reflected in his life.

Sometimes the internet makes you feel like a dog baying at the moon.

Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163340\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Every photographer/ artist has outside influences, either direct from clients, editors, gallery owners, or just subconsciously from being visually bombarded by the 4 million images hanging in windows, stores and news-stands on Broadway.

Then you add in the thousands of comments/critiques you receive in your career, good and bad and it takes a strong personality to shake them loose so something even close to original can be produced.

It was that way during Stern and Kane's time and it is the same today.

Actually I know someone  well that worked with Art Kane  and as talented as his work was, it was anything but small production, not always intimate and rarely without pressure.

Also, every photographer is a reflection what what they put in front of their lens. Great, interesting and unique subjects inspire, less than great, interesting and unique subjects place the session into damage control, or a better description would be blandness control.

This holds true for every genre of photography, not just fashion.  Avedon's American West would look much different if it was shot at a mall in El Paso using GAP employees as subjects.

Also Avedon's West would have a much different look if the production values of crew, lighting and background were not added into the artistic mix.

I've heard forever about the purity of the image, and though I understand the statement, I know that  photography isn't a painting that only results out of the mind and hand of the artist and even if that was true, that is but one segment in an art that has many classifications.

Photography is a tangible record of a real moment, whether that moment is found, constructed or contrived and regardless of popular belief nearly all photography of merit is contrived in some way.

Yes sometimes the "Team" approach can be limiting, but that usually depends on  the "Team" and who is responsible for the room.  Everyone in my group I've worked with for years and in my view they have a very positive influence on the work.  Once again, great hair, makeup, styling and attitude inspires, and  . . . well you get the idea.

Also never underestimate how important a talented producer is to a project.  Stepping off a plane to waiting cars, drivers, equipment and resource is invaluable.  Nothing frees the mind like a smooth production where every contingency is planned for.

It can take years, investment, human equity and a hard earned reputation to assemble a a great "team" and more importantly to find clients that expect more from a photograph than what was done before on page 6 of your portfolio.

We are also a reflection of the attitude of the day.   An upbeat, excited room will produce a better result than a negative atmosphere and if not better, at least a whole lot easier.

There seems to be this misconception that fashion photographers come on set wearing a scarf, holding a fluffy poodle and only contribute to the photograph by pushing the button between sips of a low fat, low whip lattte and maybe that happens in some instances, but not on our productions.

We work like warriors and move the room to fit the subject.  If the model plays left and the lighting is set to the right, we move the room 180, rather than force the subject into something that probably will never work.  

The essence of professional photography is being able to produce the desired result on demand.  Sometimes, with some projects the bar is raised high and those are wonderful days.  Other times we're limited by  time, budget, or the initial directive, but the "on demand" part of this sentence should not be underestimated.

Maneuvering your way into having great subjects and resouce is an art in it's own right.

I have a reputation for shooting a lot of different work in a wide range of genres.  I do this by choice and for many reasons, some personal, some economic, but mostly because I really have never understood the difference between shooting farmers in Brazil or models in Milan.  To me it's  all just subject, light and background and a goal to produce an image with a final, positive result.

I work with a crew of one, or 25 and each require different management skills, but one style of production is no more or less valid or intimate than the other.

For years I've seen aspiring photographers thumb through a magazine or go online and respond "I could have done that if I had that model, that location, that budget".  

Maybe, maybe not, but  once an image is published it's pretty much road-mapped for everyone to see and emulate.   Having the original thought on the day and the ability to assemble the people needed is a much different proposition.  Doing it under the pressure of large expense, nervous clients and limited time, resets the dial to a higher frequency.

In my view, a photographer's jobs is more than just composition, lighting or direction.   It's learning how to read, respond and diffuse a whole mix of different situations, personalities and cultures and do it so the process and result are positive.

Working for clients in Japan requires a different  approach than communicating with clients in Paris, New York, or Chicago and the faster I and the crew recognize these differences the sooner we can get to the job at hand.

Few projects, personal or commissioned, come to pass without a long list of desires and objectives and acomplishing these goals is the biggest challange and has the greatest reward.

As I write this I have people working in three cities and two countries on production.  They stop their lives and go to work at less than a moments notice and I am grateful and proud beyond explanation to work with people of this character.

Crew such as this don't do it for the money, the client, or for me.   They answer to their own calling,  always at the expense of a "normal" personal life.



James Russell
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Craig Arnold on December 29, 2007, 04:08:00 am
I loved the article James.

Anything that can inject a bit of enthusiasm into our working life (or hobby) has to be a good thing.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Rob C on December 29, 2007, 05:34:26 am
Well-written re-exposition of your point of view as stated in your site - there is nothing there with which anyone should be able to argue, but having agreed with what you say as being totally relevant to YOUR way of doing things, you have also to accept that yours isn´t the only way either. I don´t think you ARE saying so, but it could be inferred that you are perhaps heading there...

I have worked in fashion too, though my experiences were during the 60s up to the mid-70s by which time I had abandoned the genre in favour of designing, shooting and producing bespoke company calendars.

My fashion stuff took me to UK Vogue for whom I did promotional shoots in Amsterdam, Luxembourg, Portugal, Malta and other places now confused in my mind with the calendar work... that´s not being smart-ass, just the truth: after a while the trips and people all become the same damn thing.

In all of those events, it was the ones where some representative of the ´company´ had an input that things were less than they could have been. So you see, it is not always a TEAM that leads to best results - often, it can eff the entire thing up quite considerably.

I have already written here (at least I think it was here) that for me, professional photography was not a choice: it was a compulsion from the perspective that only through finding somebody else to pay for my dreams could they happen. And that was always how I did things - clients paid for me to shoot my little heart out.

The team thing is, in my admittedly insular view, a relatively recent thing. I quote part of a conversation with Lillian Bassman from David Baileys´s Models Close-Up:

´The forties Harper´s Bazaar photographer Lillian Bassman has now returned to fashion images. "I don´t work with top models," she says. "They don´t have the kind of response to what I want. I want to be able to dictate what the mood is, what the pose is, but top models already know what THEY want. I never liked the hairdresser coming in or make-up people. I stopped doing fashion when the hairdresser became the star!" ´

From the same book:

"Photographs are better when there´s a deep communication level. It´s like an artist and a muse," says Penelope Tree. "When you´re working with a photographer, it´s like a dance of the seven veils. You´re revealing a side to them that you don´t reveal to anyone else. There´s a sexual aspect and there´s a trust."

Intimacy to that degree is not for public (read team) display - too darn emotional, devoid of the plastic.

Frankly, it boils down to your motivation, to the reason you work in photography. For some it´s the kicks and for others the business, a lucky few is able to combine the two.

If I may refer back to my fashion stuff for a moment - I´d remark in passing that there was always a not-so sweet irony involved. People would pick me for "page 6 of your portfolio" to quote you, but never permit me to work that way. Kind of like hiring a dog but expecting it to moo. That was a very strong motivation to get out of fashion and into calendars. Also, the money was far more elastic!

So, to conclude, I thank you for your response and whilst accepting how it works for you (very well!) it is not the only way.

Ciao - Rob C

EDIT: this was originally about Leicas - thank goodness we are allowed to expand, to wander off at pleasant little  avenues!
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Nemo on December 29, 2007, 08:01:53 am
I loved James Russell's article !!!
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: DesW on December 29, 2007, 05:25:29 pm
Quote
It was that way during Stern and Kane's time and it is the same today.

Actually I know someone  well that worked with Art Kane  and as talented as his work was, it was anything but small production, not always intimate and rarely without pressure.

a low fat, low whip lattte and maybe that happens in some instances, but not on our productions.

We work like warriors and move the room to fit the subject.  If the model plays left and the lighting is set to the right, we move the room 180, rather than force the subject into something that probably will never work. 

Crew such as this don't do it for the money, the client, or for me.   They answer to their own calling,  always at the expense of a "normal" personal life.
James Russell
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=163751\")


James,

Top article and comments--great to see and hear your words of infinite wisdom on the Forums
again--please do not leave such a gap between the postings.

I know where you are coming from-- I  worked through the "Golden Era of Fashion/advt Photography" both in Europe  and the US having been assistant to Terence Donovan/ Elliot Erwitt/Annie Leibovitz--and printed B+W for Eve Arnold/David Bailey/etc and had the privilege to work out of Helmut Newton's Studio for a time.

Love your work-keep up the inspirational incitement for the Snappers of today.

I am semi-retired at present (I teach Scuba diving in Qld Australia-my sea change!) and am currently doing the Digital Manip and Colour Mgmnt for a 600 Page BIG BOOK for a top in his field Photographer here in the US (No not fashion)-It will be the same format and style as the Peter Beard BBook--I'm sure you've seen this at Taschen?

Ha--when I reg my Photo Studio in 1968 I called it TEAM Photographers Ltd--it remains today my Trading Corp name.

Best,

Des Williams

[a href=\"http://www.deswilliams.com/]http://www.deswilliams.com/[/url]
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Rob C on December 30, 2007, 05:44:00 am
Des

Now THAT is some lovely fashion! I can see and appreciate the influences.

Rob C

Edit: having more time, thought I´d let you know what appeals to me most in your site, and what I thought in general.

1.   In the catalogue section, the crossed legs: Barry Lategan for sure, as my own models of the time all adopted that position (without complaint from me, I might add).

2. Fashion, b/w: Helmut must have influenced you quite a bit!

3. Fashion: Gypsy Chic - absolutely loved it and it is my favourite kind of atmosphere, identity, theme, ethic, call it what you like - I just love those looks.

4. Rooms: you have a great touch there too - makes me feel a little one-dimensional...

5. Influences - I also pick up on some Clive Arrowsmith and all those fantastic guys that used to star in Linea Italiana, the best fashion productions I ever had the chance of reading.

Basically, wonderful work and you deserve whatever success you have.

Ciao - Rob C
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: wilburdl on December 31, 2007, 12:35:04 am
I love Russell's work. I admire his attitude. I appreciate his words. I absolutely abhor his website. As special as your photographs are, everything about that site irks me (save for the new big photos). I don't want to suggest Livebooks, but please find something.

Great article btw.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: James R Russell on January 01, 2008, 12:21:08 pm
Quote
I love Russell's work. I admire his attitude. I appreciate his words. I absolutely abhor his website. As special as your photographs are, everything about that site irks me (save for the new big photos). I don't want to suggest Livebooks, but please find something.

Great article btw.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=164156\")


Man this is a tough crowd.

Websites....

I doubt if there are three photographers on this planet that are truly happy with their websites.

I know because I've spent enough to buy a small luxury sedan and could write a book on the trails and tribulations of working with  website designers.

Even today I have a deposit in place with who I believe is the premier website design company in the world, but have it on hold as I just cannot find one system that works for all devices, all clients, in flash and html and is easy to update.

So at the end of the day, I usually go to the simple system, which is html we do in house and can update quickly and a flash design that we use through folio link that also can be updated by the user.  I considered the folio link a temporary solution, though I've had it for the year and it works.  All our sites are reached from a redirect page from our main domain, [a href=\"http://russellrutherford.com/]http://russellrutherford.com/[/url].

The html is important because of the I-phone and other hand held devices that don't play flash and I guess the flash is important because it's more formatted.

Still, the goal of a website is to get your photos out to the "client" easily and quickly and hopefully your message.

It's interesting, client's rarely have the time to review page after page of information and when we get the first call they usually ask questions that are answered on the website, even simple ones like, "where do you work".  On the other hand photographers that read these forums will send me detailed information from my website down to mentioning punctuation.

I guess clients have less time than photographers.

Given all of this nothing is more painful than selecting imagery for your site.  When I have a break, or I'm on a long flight I'll pull up our website and decide to rip 2/3's of it down to show a more singular vision.  Invariably, the moment I'm ready to do this I get a call from a client that is booking us because of that one photo, usually a happy smiley person running on the beach.

So I usually just drop the thought of change and go on to more important business.

Though if getting to the perfect website is hard, poll three agents, clients and photographers on the perfect portfolio.  The results of that will keep your head spinning for a few years.

James Russell
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Rob C on January 01, 2008, 02:41:18 pm
I didn´t find anything wrong with your site; in fact, it looked pretty good. My only gripe was not peronally with you, but just a sadness at the changes in the fashion industry from what used to be a model/photographer deal to a group identity one. Is all! In fact, I seem to remember pointing out that your site was designed for CLIENTS and not other snappers, that the more positive the symbolism the more confidence-inspiring it would be, which for a client is most important.

Reminds me of the Ferris Beuller´s Day Off movie, where his buddy is offended by him referring to his old car as a piece of shit, and FB responds, by way of apology, by saying it´s better than his p.o.s. because he doesn´t even have one.

I know how he felt!

Have a good 2008.

Rob C
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: James R Russell on January 05, 2008, 10:18:48 am
Quote
I didn´t find anything wrong with your site; in fact, it looked pretty good. My only gripe was not peronally with you, but just a sadness at the changes in the fashion industry from what used to be a model/photographer deal to a group identity one. Is all! In fact, I seem to remember pointing out that your site was designed for CLIENTS and not other snappers, that the more positive the symbolism the more confidence-inspiring it would be, which for a client is most important.

Reminds me of the Ferris Beuller´s Day Off movie, where his buddy is offended by him referring to his old car as a piece of shit, and FB responds, by way of apology, by saying it´s better than his p.o.s. because he doesn´t even have one.

I know how he felt!

Have a good 2008.

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164408\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Once again, if a photographer is shooting with a crew of 3 or a crew of 20, this doesn't mean that either style is less or more intimate, directed, or the photographer's role is diminished in any way.

There is a definite place for both types of production.

In fact with a large crew the photographer's role and importance is usually expanded rather than marginalized, because it takes a strong personality to direct the process.

When working with a good and familiar staff, the photographer directs the crew in the same way the model is directed and on the days the crew is large this has to be done decisively.

Nothing will take the energy away from a shoot more than a photographer that isn't sure of the direction he/she wants to go.

The process really is; think it, construct it, do it and move on and a great crew does this almost through osmosis.

I don't subscribe to the theory that the golden age of photography has passed, in fact I believe today is the "golden age" of our industry and though I've heard throughout my career about the "good old days" the "good old days" are in the past and the past is nothing more than a learning experience to build on.

With digital capture and professional crew we can effect looks and imagery in minutes, maybe hours that previously took a day.  We can quickly show a "polaroid" to all parties (or none)  to explain quickly what needs to be changed, added, or taken away and we can explain this in great visual detail.

I work with crew from around the world and usually my native tongue is not understood, (actually since I'm a Texan even "English" is not my native tongue) but it is still very easy to visually direct the shoot, with very little data lost in translation.

Working this way allows the photographer to get the base idea in the can and explore other alternatives.

The purpose of all art, commercial or personal is to move forward and adapt to changes to try to present something that is unique and grabs the viewers attention.

Crew size has little to do with this, other than to speed and ease the process.

Getting back to the original point of this thread, a camera like the Leica does add an intimacy to the process and just something about it's size and operation seems to place the thought that this is art more than just a technical exercise.

James Russell
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Russell Price on January 06, 2008, 10:53:15 am
To a working professional, I can see the need for a Leica to keep you fresh and to not fall into stagnant patterns.  I use to use a beat-up M4 in Nicaragua along with my trusty Nikon F and F2's.  

Reading James Russell's comments on the M8 is interesting and a bit perplexing.  You can't help but learn something from this experience of how this big-production ad guy found some grace by using a Leica.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Rob C on January 06, 2008, 12:19:33 pm
James -

Going by your protrait, you look a fairly youngish guy - maybe the ´golden age´ passed before you hit the big-time.

Asked to put a date on it, I would think that it seemed to exist, from a British perspective, early 60s and peaked, possibly, mid-80s.

From personal experience, the fashion part took a downhill ride after the big fuel crisis of the 70s. Prior to that, there was a hell of a lot of fashion work, much of it sponsored by fibre manufacturers  like DuPont etc. but that died almost in a single season, putting huge pressure on the clothing trade to seek out its priorities and guess what - photography, as ever, took a beating.

Because there are still stars in the photo firmament doesn´t mean squat: there always are and always will be stars, but a truer perspective is one that measures across the board - through from newspapers, fashion, advertising and stock. Stock started to bomb not long after Tony Stone Worldwide became Getty - a numbers race seemed to get underway, followed by ever more mergers and the excess photographers finding the Dear Johns come tumbling through the post. This, with Getty, Corbis and Jupiter with horns locked seems to me to be nothing but a supermarket war: cut prices until there´s a last man standing scenario, at which moment prices will rocket. And all of those stock guys will become employees or starve.

During those magical years, you could hardly go to an airport without bumping into a photographer and a couple of models going off somewhere on a shoot - the Bahamas, Greece, Sardinia, Corsica - you name it, some little group was taking the Kodachrome for a spin. Not such a lot of trips seem to be happening anymore. I don´t know anybody going off with girls to do stock these days; I don´t think any of the major newspapers employ staff photographers as they used to.

But then, these sorts of conversations can go on for ever and are all, inevitable, measured by personal experiences whch can cloud the issues more than not. However, that said, I still think that the period referred to as the Golden one has been and is long gone.

Nothing to lose sleep over...

Rob C
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: DesW on January 06, 2008, 01:02:17 pm
Quote
James -


From personal experience, the fashion part took a downhill ride after the big fuel crisis of the 70s. Prior to that, there was a hell of a lot of fashion work, much of it sponsored by fibre manufacturers  like DuPont etc. but that died almost in a single season, putting huge pressure on the clothing trade to seek out its priorities and guess what - photography, as ever, took a beating.


Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165447\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ha Rob,

Yes Indeed the Dupont de Noumers Catalogues-- Tons of knitwear mainly-- I shot one late 60's in Ireland--at  Powerscourt Castle near Dublin owned by the Slazenger family.

We had Jean Shrimpton/Celia Hammond/ Primrose Austen/Pauline Stone(Who was with to Laurence Harvey at the time,he was in Ireland shooting Of Human Bondage)

Some of the great Models of that golden Age.

Des W
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: James R Russell on January 06, 2008, 04:34:27 pm
Quote
Ha Rob,

Yes Indeed the Dupont de Noumers Catalogues-- Tons of knitwear mainly-- I shot one late 60's in Ireland--at  Powerscourt Castle near Dublin owned by the Slazenger family.

We had Jean Shrimpton/Celia Hammond/ Primrose Austen/Pauline Stone(Who was with to Laurence Harvey at the time,he was in Ireland shooting Of Human Bondage)

Some of the great Models of that golden Age.

Des W
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165460\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't personallly know this period, but to me the past is a mixed bag.  The goodness of it is learning from some very great and thoughtful photographs, but it's the past and regardless of the state of the "industry" today, the present is all we can really shape.

I actually don't even want to see MY past photos, as I am more concerned with what I am producing now, or want to produce tomorrow.

For me, I don't have a master plan, other than to make an effort to move forward and going forward in this business is like moving a building by yourself.

Everyday you push on one side , the the other side, then the center and some days, some weeks, it doesn't look like the building is moving, but if you do it right at the end of the year the building has moved down the block.

For me and my partner that is the real challenge.

James Russell
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: James R Russell on January 06, 2008, 04:38:03 pm
Quote
To a working professional, I can see the need for a Leica to keep you fresh and to not fall into stagnant patterns.  I use to use a beat-up M4 in Nicaragua along with my trusty Nikon F and F2's. 

Reading James Russell's comments on the M8 is interesting and a bit perplexing.  You can't help but learn something from this experience of how this big-production ad guy found some grace by using a Leica.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165423\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The Leica is the only camera I own that I use on every job, though never specifically for any job.

It is something that I pull out and shoot with and it always gives me a different perspective, kind of like a thought polaroid.

It's hard to explain, actually I can't explain it.

James Russell
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Russell Price on January 06, 2008, 05:04:41 pm
A lot of pro shooters wrote Leica off when the Nikon and Canon digital cameras were released.  It was camera for every type of shoot.  It is a "personal" camera.  I carry my trashed-out M4 with me everywhere I go.  Just me, the M4 and an old 35mm Summicron.  

It has been around the world with me and I have surprised myself when editing my film alongside slides produced with the Nikons or the Canon 1n's.  I could always pick out the Leica chromes.

The M8 has been harder to use.  The loss of thirty percent of the frame bothers me a bit but I am getting myself adjusted to it.  

It seems like Leica is experiencing a "rebranding" of its brand.  Pro shooters are using them again and even though the M8 is not perfect, it is a very fine camera if you understand its limits.

I have always considered the Leica more of a tool for journalism, corporate or editorial photographers.  Using it for catalog fashion or retail shoots must take some art directors by surprise.  

Given the nature of production shooting, it does not seem like the size or brand of the camera is very important anymore.  

Do you shoot it tethered?  Or do you use it to explore a subject?
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Rob C on January 06, 2008, 05:06:45 pm
Quote
Ha Rob,

Yes Indeed the Dupont de Noumers Catalogues-- Tons of knitwear mainly-- I shot one late 60's in Ireland--at  Powerscourt Castle near Dublin owned by the Slazenger family.

We had Jean Shrimpton/Celia Hammond/ Primrose Austen/Pauline Stone(Who was with to Laurence Harvey at the time,he was in Ireland shooting Of Human Bondage)

Some of the great Models of that golden Age.

Des W
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165460\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey, Des!

Nice to find somebody with a good memory too!

I think it really was special in those days. I started in pro photography working in an in-house industrial unit in ´60 and it wasn´t until ´66 that I had the resources to get out of industrial and into fashion which is what I´d always wanted, and to try it on my own - never been an employee since, which in later life turned out to have been a bit of a mixed blessing: nothing to match huge retirement pensions! But then, I´d never have made an accountant or broker so it doesn´t count.

But the true point to telling about this, is that it was very much down to the times: in the early- to mid-60s one really did believe that anything was possible, that you could DO IT if you tried. And many of us did try and some got lucky and survived. But you always believed it possible.

I started with a second-hand Rollei T, an Ekakta and a humble Gnome enlarger. Okay, they were replaced after a while with a new 500C and Nikon F whilst the Gnome rested on its laurels as the Durst took charge. But existing and working as a pro in fashion and advertising on a budget was possible. I did it for long enough before life got a bit more comfortable. Hell - I even had a large gent´s umbrella painted white with a bared domestic light bulb as modelling light and a portable Braun in a shoe as flash! It damn well worked, better perhaps than some of the proprietary units that followed, except that I couldn´t fold the painted brolly and take it anywhere... made me quite good at available light fashion, though!

As I said, special times, those 60s, and I often wonder how today´s young people ever find the money to start a business - equipment is so expensive, you need so much of it and fees seem to have either stagnated or gone downhill, I´m told.

Jean Shrimpton was the second love of my life - the first one was BB who I managed to shoot in my first year on my own. Still have the negs and a couple of prints from then plus a treasured thank you note from her for some prints I sent her. Kind of tough that, shooting your perfect woman so early in a career - what can ever thrill like that again? Answer? Nothing. Sadly, the Shrimp was never to be, but I did get to shoot some nice ladies when I turned to calendars. Do you remember Nina Carter, Denise Denny, Denise Perry, Suzie G, Georgie Steer... ahhhh, those were the days. Oddly, Lichfield seemed to pick the same ones as I did - or was it the other way around? LOL.

Take care - Rob C
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Nemo on January 09, 2008, 03:35:25 pm
The M8's viewfinder, due to a mixture of factors (crop on the format, low magnification), excludes the fast teles (135mm, 90mm f/2 and 75mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1 are difficult to focus with precision and consistency) and the wide-angle lenses (only the 24mm is included in the viewfinder's framelines, but the crop translates it to a 32mm).

This is one of the biggest problems of this camera. You can use the 1,25 magnifier, but it is quite expensive.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: dseelig on January 09, 2008, 04:50:54 pm
HI I am enjoying my m8 immensly. As far as magnifiers megapearls makes one as does hk supplies both much cheaper then leicas I have had no trouble focusing my lenses wide open except for the 75 1.4 which is on its way back from germany that includes the 50 summilux and 35 summilux by the way . It does take time to adjust to a rangefinder but it is worth it. Mind you I am a working pro with a full canon system . I get intriqued by the latest and greatest nikon d3 I have the latest canons but walking around a city all day and nite and shooting people do you really want to carry all that weight . When on assigment that is something else .
Quote
The M8's viewfinder, due to a mixture of factors (crop on the format, low magnification), excludes the fast teles (135mm, 90mm f/2 and 75mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1 are difficult to focus with precision and consistency) and the wide-angle lenses (only the 24mm is included in the viewfinder's framelines, but the crop translates it to a 32mm).

This is one of the biggest problems of this camera. You can use the 1,25 magnifier, but it is quite expensive.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166185\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: James R Russell on January 10, 2008, 02:01:00 am
Quote
HI I am enjoying my m8 immensly. As far as magnifiers megapearls makes one as does hk supplies both much cheaper then leicas I have had no trouble focusing my lenses wide open except for the 75 1.4 which is on its way back from germany that includes the 50 summilux and 35 summilux by the way . It does take time to adjust to a rangefinder but it is worth it. Mind you I am a working pro with a full canon system . I get intriqued by the latest and greatest nikon d3 I have the latest canons but walking around a city all day and nite and shooting people do you really want to carry all that weight . When on assigment that is something else .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


It's not really the rangfinder that makes focus that difficult, actually in some instances it makes focus easier.

You do have to get used to focusing in the center and then moving to the compositiion.

One of the issues, beyond the crop lines is with the Leica I've had three lenses that are not calibrated to the focus properly, two 50's and the 90.

It's a lovely little camera, but Leica needs to up the QC of some of the basics and focus calibration is one area to address.

That and CA on backlit images which at times can be quite severe.

James Russell
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Rob C on January 10, 2008, 11:27:33 am
James

"That and CA on backlit images which at times can be quite severe."

I don´t have an M8 but I was wondering here about the backlit thing. My D200 sems to be okay on most things that I´ve tried with it, but I have to admit to less than happy results with it when shooting into clouds with the sun behind them.

Unlike film, where there is a gentle burning out in extreme areas, the digital response seems to be that huge parts of the brightest cloud area just block out completely - a most unattractive phenomenon indeed.

My point, really, is whether this is a digital fault where severe underexposure would save the cloud at the expense of the rest of the pic. Yes, I know about multiple shots of the same thing, to be blended together later, but I´m never on a tripod these days, I just hope for a result at least as good as on film, but perhaps that just proves something about the level of development with digital technology...

But really, is the Leica M8 any worse than, say, the D200 in that backlighting aspect?

When I worked as a pro I did a lot of shots with backlit hair - loved that halo effect - but am I wrong to think it would be a total no-no with digital? So far, it amuses me somewhat to realise that, with digital, I have never yet shot a woman or any other human subject!

Rob C
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: dseelig on January 10, 2008, 10:38:10 pm
Hi James
My post was not to knock you at all I hope you did not take it that way, I love rangefinders and tried the last few years to use a 5d as a light weight camera to always have on me. It did not work out well as carrying much more then a 35 1.4 got burdensome fast. The m8 for me is nice but not perfect too much noise on the upper end  of iso's I cannot use my 35 summilux at f4 bad focus there. It does take some time for people to adjust to rangefinder focus. That was not to knock you just something I have noticed over the years. I wish it was full frame as I hate not having a 35 f 1.4 lens. The summicron 28 is nice but it is not a 1.4 This is my personel camera and my light system for some newspaper work. I liked your website by the way. Enjoy shooting David
 
Quote
It's not really the rangfinder that makes focus that difficult, actually in some instances it makes focus easier.

You do have to get used to focusing in the center and then moving to the compositiion.

One of the issues, beyond the crop lines is with the Leica I've had three lenses that are not calibrated to the focus properly, two 50's and the 90.

It's a lovely little camera, but Leica needs to up the QC of some of the basics and focus calibration is one area to address.

That and CA on backlit images which at times can be quite severe.

James Russell
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166267\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: James R Russell on January 11, 2008, 01:39:33 am
Quote
James

"That and CA on backlit images which at times can be quite severe."

I don´t have an M8 but I was wondering here about the backlit thing. My D200 sems to be okay on most things that I´ve tried with it, but I have to admit to less than happy results with it when shooting into clouds with the sun behind them.

Unlike film, where there is a gentle burning out in extreme areas, the digital response seems to be that huge parts of the brightest cloud area just block out completely - a most unattractive phenomenon indeed.

My point, really, is whether this is a digital fault where severe underexposure would save the cloud at the expense of the rest of the pic. Yes, I know about multiple shots of the same thing, to be blended together later, but I´m never on a tripod these days, I just hope for a result at least as good as on film, but perhaps that just proves something about the level of development with digital technology...

But really, is the Leica M8 any worse than, say, the D200 in that backlighting aspect?

When I worked as a pro I did a lot of shots with backlit hair - loved that halo effect - but am I wrong to think it would be a total no-no with digital? So far, it amuses me somewhat to realise that, with digital, I have never yet shot a woman or any other human subject!

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166333\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Unlike different film, film cameras and lenses, I find digital capture to be very scene specific.

Not in standard, front, side, softlight situations, but difficult or trick lighting like backlight, intentional flare, deep shade, or the tougest, underexposure, they all react differently, some great some not so.

In other words some cameras work well in some scenarios, some don't.  Not that anybody could, would or should do this, but I'm positive you could test the different digital cameras in all of these situations and then select the one best for the lighting at hand.

I've owned Kodak, Fuji, Canons (all of them) Nikon (most of them), Phase (two of them), Leaf (one of them) and the Leica and I am positive that you could pick the camera as much for the lighting style as you could detail, ergonomics, lenses, etc.

Once again nobody will do this and I surely don't advocate carrying 9 camera systems, but at this stage I carry 3 (four if you count the Leica).  I think I probably have taken this too far, but then again there are times that some cameras are just completely right for a specific look and in the Leica's case sometimes they may not be right but it is a pleasent surprise.

James Russell
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Rob C on January 11, 2008, 05:43:13 am
James

Thanks for your response - I guess that the digital way is inevitably - but unfortunately, going to be much as you describe it: variable, camera to camera, and thus not really ideal to all purposes (within the format´s capabilities, I mean!).

Oh well - perhaps one should look on it as being more choice, rather than a restriction; yeah, right, I hear the voices in my head telling me!

Take care - Rob C
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Russell Price on January 11, 2008, 05:32:56 pm
Quote
Unlike different film, film cameras and lenses, I find digital capture to be very scene specific.

Not in standard, front, side, softlight situations, but difficult or trick lighting like backlight, intentional flare, deep shade, or the tougest, underexposure, they all react differently, some great some not so.

In other words some cameras work well in some scenarios, some don't.  Not that anybody could, would or should do this, but I'm positive you could test the different digital cameras in all of these situations and then select the one best for the lighting at hand.

I've owned Kodak, Fuji, Canons (all of them) Nikon (most of them), Phase (two of them), Leaf (one of them) and the Leica and I am positive that you could pick the camera as much for the lighting style as you could detail, ergonomics, lenses, etc.

Once again nobody will do this and I surely don't advocate carrying 9 camera systems, but at this stage I carry 3 (four if you count the Leica).  I think I probably have taken this too far, but then again there are times that some cameras are just completely right for a specific look and in the Leica's case sometimes they may not be right but it is a pleasent surprise.

James Russell
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166446\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't understand the need for so many systems.  Is it part of the "bigger is better" attitude to impress clients or is their a genuine need for it?  Is it hard to keep track of all those cases?  What happens if an assistant hands you a Nikon when you wanted the Canon?  What does your client think?  One minute you are shooting with a Canon, the next with a Phase back on god knows what kind of camera, then you are shooting with the Leica than a Nikon.  If a client was astute enough to know and understand different formats, would they not question the need for you to have so many different types of cameras.

Seems like overkill to me.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: zlatko-b on January 11, 2008, 11:01:39 pm
Quote
I don't understand the need for so many systems.  Is it part of the "bigger is better" attitude to impress clients or is their a genuine need for it?
I think James already explained this a few posts up ...

"In other words some cameras work well in some scenarios, some don't."

"I think I probably have taken this too far, but then again there are times that some cameras are just completely right for a specific look ..."
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: pss on January 12, 2008, 01:19:36 am
i am enjoying the m8 more and more...and i use it for jobs as well...funny thing...people actually comment on the camera, but leica still carries a certain credibility and "the AD's wife" is more likely to own a nikon/canon then a leica.....

i have only owned mine for a couple of months but i am super happy and i am excited to dive a little deeper into one of the great advantages of the leica: the lenses....and i don't just mean the latest, most expensive ones, but the older, funky ones with character.....a 30 year old lens might completely flare out when shooting into the sun, but might have incredible DR because of the general lack of contrast...ever wonder why your grandma's pics have that range of tones...even bright sunlight at noon?

there are some incredibly crisp and contrasty lenses available but there are just as many low contrast, creamier lenses.....like using different brushes to paint....
DPs talk about filmstock but they really go on and on about their lenses.....

there is an old canon 0.95/50 available which has a look that simply cannot be recreated in postproduction.....
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Russell Price on January 12, 2008, 06:45:52 am
Quote
I think James already explained this a few posts up ...

"In other words some cameras work well in some scenarios, some don't."

"I think I probably have taken this too far, but then again there are times that some cameras are just completely right for a specific look ..."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166642\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Ok, well, Mr. Russell is the Master, so I guess, well, ok, he knows best.  I just think that a little less gear, may make a shoot easier to handle.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Rob C on January 12, 2008, 01:05:32 pm
Quote
Ok, well, Mr. Russell is the Master, so I guess, well, ok, he knows best.  I just think that a little less gear, may make a shoot easier to handle.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166683\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Russell

I think along similar lines too, but then I was usually a unit of 1 and that sort of controlled a lot of the limits of what went along with me on a shoot.

Some might see that as disadvantage - I chose and choose to see it from the opposite perspective: it concentrated the mind.

I don´t think it makes a lot of difference anymore. The route to the print or whatever the final showing of the work is going to be has become ever more complex and complicated. I don´t have the energy to bore you again with my feelings about photography now and then, so there´s not a lot more I can add without going over the same old ground for the umpteenth time.

I remember reading Sante D´Orazio somewhere saying that if he saw too many lights being set up that he always took it as a bad sign...

Rob C
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: djgarcia on January 12, 2008, 01:22:51 pm
I too believe in simplicity, and stick to one not-so-humble system for my very humble non-professional needs. But how's that saying go - Walk a mile in my shoes? I'll refrain comment on James Russel's gear until I walk a mile in his shoes ...

And that other saying - The right tool for the right job. If you have many different types of jobs you may require different types of tools. Nothing worse than trying to hammer in a nail with a screwdriver. OK, I can think of many worse things, but you get the point .

And I thank him for taking his valuable time to give us his perspectives.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: John Sheehy on January 12, 2008, 01:45:06 pm
Quote
a 30 year old lens might completely flare out when shooting into the sun, but might have incredible DR because of the general lack of contrast...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166659\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That is an illusion.  You can not increase the DR of a RAW digital capture with low contrast in the optical path.  You get an inferior image, with more noise, than if you had simply under-exposed and added the gray blanket after the fact.  A capture where blacks are gray puts the blackpoint up into a range with higher shot noise, and it's hard to subtract the gray blanket evenly across the image, anyway.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: pss on January 12, 2008, 03:01:37 pm
Quote
That is an illusion.  You can not increase the DR of a RAW digital capture with low contrast in the optical path.  You get an inferior image, with more noise, than if you had simply under-exposed and added the gray blanket after the fact.  A capture where blacks are gray puts the blackpoint up into a range with higher shot noise, and it's hard to subtract the gray blanket evenly across the image, anyway.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166758\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

you are probably right and it is an illusion....and honestly after way too much time spent on technical details and pixelpeeping i am really happy to enjoy "illusions" again and technical imperfections and mistakes....in the end it is the image that counts....
i am looking at a b&w photo of my grandparents from 1960...time seems to be around 2pm...serious "racoon eyes" but the sky still holds detail and the shadows are nice and open....without highlight/shadow recovery....of course i have no clue how it was developed or printed and i am sure it wasn't shot with a leica but there is definitely less contrast (i probably should not call it more DR)....

i am not sure why james should have to explain why and how much equipment has wants to bring to a job....he gets hired to produce a certain look and that's what he delivers....just because terry richardson shoots campains with a throw away p&s does not mean anyone else can do the same...or can't....the results count...
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: hankg on January 12, 2008, 04:06:49 pm
Quote
Ok, well, Mr. Russell is the Master, so I guess, well, ok, he knows best.  I just think that a little less gear, may make a shoot easier to handle.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166683\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Judging from his work he (James Russel) certainly seems to know what's best for him. He's not telling you how you should work just sharing his experience, which I find pretty interesting. There are as many methods and preferences as there are successful photographers. I'm always curious to see how others work and why.

Better if like James you shared your work experience, perhaps how you handle your shoots? rather then just making snide remarks.

One more point for those needing lens calibration for Leica lenses. As a rule every lens I buy used I send to Don Goldberg at DAG camera for focus calibration. Unfortunately you might want to consider it for new Leica lenses as well as they are not always properly calibrated and not everyone has been getting good results with Leica service.

Of course you should make sure your M8 finder is properly calibrated first.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Russell Price on January 12, 2008, 06:02:09 pm
Quote
Judging from his work he (James Russel) certainly seems to know what's best for him. He's not telling you how you should work just sharing his experience, which I find pretty interesting. There are as many methods and preferences as there are successful photographers. I'm always curious to see how others work and why.

Better if like James you shared your work experience, perhaps how you handle your shoots? rather then just making snide remarks.

One more point for those needing lens calibration for Leica lenses. As a rule every lens I buy used I send to Don Goldberg at DAG camera for focus calibration. Unfortunately you might want to consider it for new Leica lenses as well as they are not always properly calibrated and not everyone has been getting good results with Leica service.

Of course you should make sure your M8 finder is properly calibrated first.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166786\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hank

That was not a snide remark.  I was bowing to Mr. Russell.  Sorry if it came across that way.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: John Sheehy on January 12, 2008, 07:04:03 pm
Quote
you are probably right and it is an illusion....and honestly after way too much time spent on technical details and pixelpeeping i am really happy to enjoy "illusions" again and technical imperfections and mistakes....in the end it is the image that counts....

You get the best image, technically, when you understand the technology you're using.

Quote
i am looking at a b&w photo of my grandparents from 1960...time seems to be around 2pm...

Oh yeah,  play the old grandparents sympathy card.  Please don't throw your family under my bus.  

Quote
i am not sure why james should have to explain why and how much equipment has wants to bring to a job....he gets hired to produce a certain look and that's what he delivers....just because terry richardson shoots campains with a throw away p&s does not mean anyone else can do the same...or can't....the results count...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166775\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I was addressing only your proposition that lowering contrast during capture could capture more DR; I didn't even notice the rest of the context, but your proposition is self-contained, and misgiven.  I gleefully purchased a Tiffen ultra-contrast filter a couple of years ago, thinking it would help with DR, but after examining RAW images with and without, I realized what was really happening.  A certain percentage of light remained as a sharp, focused image, and the rest of it was scattered evenly across the frame.  The amount of relevant signal turned out to be an under-exposure, with extra shot noise.  What to do?  Get a DSLR or digital back with low read noise at low ISO, and under-expose by a couple stops, if you must use auto-exposure and can't be bothered to calculate the highlights.  Who's to say that a camera that is labeled ISO 100 and has 3.5 stops of headroom above middle gray really isn't ISO 400 with 5.5 stops of headroom?  Or ISO 50 with 2.5 stops of headroom?  The results are what matters, and with a low noise camera, you can get away with "under-exposing" low ISOs if you need the highlight gamble-room.  If you want that low-contrast look, just load into photoshop, open Levels, move the output blackpoint up to taste.   You'll have a better image than if you used a low-contrast lens.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: James R Russell on January 13, 2008, 02:01:27 am
Quote
I don't understand the need for so many systems.  Is it part of the "bigger is better" attitude to impress clients or is their a genuine need for it?  Is it hard to keep track of all those cases?  What happens if an assistant hands you a Nikon when you wanted the Canon?  What does your client think?  One minute you are shooting with a Canon, the next with a Phase back on god knows what kind of camera, then you are shooting with the Leica than a Nikon.  If a client was astute enough to know and understand different formats, would they not question the need for you to have so many different types of cameras.

Seems like overkill to me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166594\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Obviously we do try to impress clients, but then again the studio, the portfolio, the resume,  the dinner reservations all play into it.  Impression  is sometimes as valid as reality and whether any of us admit it or not (not just talking photography), we all to some extent make an effort to impress, because if didn't Armani, BMW, or even Banana Republic would not be in business.

At the end of the day it's the final photograph that matters and though we would like to all believe it's ONLY the photograph that matters, in business and life the results are not the only element in making an impression.

Given all of this, I don't really drag three camera systems around to make an impression, I just have them as specific tools for specific functions.

Right now I'm deep in heavy production in Europe and today will be quite intense, running two sets on a high profile subject that may give us 6 hours of set time, or much less.  It may be beneficial to have the images on a 24" monitor or may lead to interference.  The subject may run or jump or just be static and given these variables, our Phase, our Canons and our Nikons will all be used, if  to provide different looks as much as their ability to capture high/low iso, or just work under certain lighting.

In other words regardless of what is thrown at us, we should have it covered.  Actually we better have it covered and when you have 4,000 lbs of grip and lighting, a few hundred pounds of cameras really doesn't get in the way, or become a burden.

It's a funny business and we are what we shoot, but more importantly we better get the shot.

Few clients care if I'm holding a Nikon, a Canon or a Contax, but they do care if the final image is what they want and they also care if it will reproduce to the size they need.

I wish one camera would do it all, probably medium format because I'm most comfortable with that system, but what I wish is not that important, what works is.  

Now would I like to shoot everything with just one camera?. . . maybe, uh sure, that would be easy, could be  fun . . . defiantly less stressful, but I haven't ever heard a client concern themselves on what is easy for me and when I think about it, they shouldn't.

As far as stress, well if stress, lack of sleep  and the resulting adrenaline rush wasn't something that I thrived on, then I picked the wrong business.

This is not a convenient business and you know when your career is moving forward because your always uncomfortable. If I'm rested and relaxed I'd better start calling agents and clients to fill up my schedule.  

Sure there are photographers like TR that use one single camera and lens and maybe that's part of their style, or charisma, or maybe they just like that camera.  ˇhat is something you would have to ask them, but I doubt seriously if one single camera makes anyone more or less creative, though certain cameas can stop you from working as much as allow you to go further.

Then again I'm not the final judge of my work.  there are many people up the food chain that make that ultimate call.

James Russell
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: James R on January 17, 2008, 02:09:30 pm
Quote
I don't understand the need for so many systems....

Seems like overkill to me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=166594\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think your questions is actually, "Why doesn't he shoot like me?"  Sometimes understanding comes from not understanding.   Appreciate  James Russell's work for its artistry.  Don't dwell on the "things" used in its creation.   Isn't this how you want your work viewed?  

The paradox of understanding is that there is often no answer--no right or wrong, too little or too much.  Things just are.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Rob C on January 18, 2008, 05:32:29 am
Quote
I think your questions is actually, "Why doesn't he shoot like me?"  Sometimes understanding comes from not understanding.   Appreciate  James Russell's work for its artistry.  Don't dwell on the "things" used in its creation.   Isn't this how you want your work viewed? 

The paradox of understanding is that there is often no answer--no right or wrong, too little or too much.  Things just are.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167828\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There truly is no argument with what you have written; further, on pondering my one-man-and-his-model (not dog, as you thought this was going to end) to the group ethic, it could well be that I have been doing exactly what you have just described: putting my own way into a generalised scenario which, of course, is a flawed approach to anything.

Looking at the work of some of my own contemporaries, it is fairly obvious that they too were group workers - I can only assume, with the benefits of hindsight, that I simply ignored their oeuvre because it was unlike mine, resulting in a memory blindness.

That said, insofar as to the previously alluded to era of photography known as the Golden one, I still believe that it did exist and has long passed. And that, I am sure, is not just a personal view extrapolated.

Rob C
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: James R on January 18, 2008, 11:14:20 am
Quote
There truly is no argument with what you have written; further, on pondering my one-man-and-his-model (not dog, as you thought this was going to end) to the group ethic, it could well be that I have been doing exactly what you have just described: putting my own way into a generalised scenario which, of course, is a flawed approach to anything.

Looking at the work of some of my own contemporaries, it is fairly obvious that they too were group workers - I can only assume, with the benefits of hindsight, that I simply ignored their oeuvre because it was unlike mine, resulting in a memory blindness.

That said, insofar as to the previously alluded to era of photography known as the Golden one, I still believe that it did exist and has long passed. And that, I am sure, is not just a personal view extrapolated.

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167930\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The "Golden Age" of TV, Rock and Roll, photography, and movies are but ancient history to the young.  My grandchildren might look back at today as the "Golden Age" of photography.  This view could be from a world were the camera, as we know it, is obsolete.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Camdavidson on February 03, 2008, 07:13:12 am
LEICA (http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/m8/) has announced an "upgrade" program for the M8.  For $1800 U.S. (1200 Euro) you buy a certificate that holds your place in line for the upgrade.

You send your camera to Solms for one month.  Leica will replace the shutter with a newly designed unit that is said to more like a traditional M shutter (no vibration, low noise level) ----- but you loose your top end of 1/8000th  and flash sync falls from 250th to 1/180th of a second (edit -it is  1/180 not 1/180th as typed)  .  Additionally, the rear LCD glass is replaced with a sapphire glass cover and Leica extends your warranty by two years.

$1800 to fix an item that has been a cause of concern to many pro shooters about the M8.  The current shutter is fairly loud - much louder than a traditional M film camera and it does carry what feels like a bit of vibration from the motor winding the shutter.

I don't know if I will up upgrade my bodies.  The new firmware helps a bit with the AWB color balance.

http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/m8/ (http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/m8/)
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: hankg on February 03, 2008, 08:10:00 am
Quote
----- but you loose your top end of 1/8000th  and flash sync falls from 250th to 1/80th of a second.

Flash sync on the upgrade is 1/180 not 1/80. As a lot of radio transmitters will only sync up to 1/125 with focal plane shutters it's not much of a loss for the few that use strobes with the M.
Title: Leica M8 Revisted
Post by: Camdavidson on February 03, 2008, 09:31:50 am
Quote
Flash sync on the upgrade is 1/180 not 1/80. As a lot of radio transmitters will only sync up to 1/125 with focal plane shutters it's not much of a loss for the few that use strobes with the M.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171960\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Hank, thanks for pointing out my typo.  You are correct, it is 180th of a second.