Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: M8 review  (Read 283999 times)

image66

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
M8 review
« Reply #100 on: November 06, 2006, 01:36:19 pm »

Something just occured to me.  Leica, by calling the new camera the "M8" has most likely indicated that there will never be a new film M.  There might be more variations of the M7, but the M8 is now the new flagship.

Could it be that Leica has acknowledged the END OF FILM by naming the new digital camera as the successor in the long-line of Leica heritage.
Logged

dlashier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 518
    • http://www.lashier.com/
M8 review
« Reply #101 on: November 06, 2006, 02:21:01 pm »

Quote
Dale,
Let's recap this 2 second method you have of getting accurate, full exposure to the right. You have the meter in 'spot' mode and camera in manual mode. You search for the brightest part of the composition, perhaps a white cloud or the sun reflecting off a white wall. Having found that brightest spot, you then increase the exposure by 3 stops, eye glued to the viewfinder, watching closely the needle at the foot of the finder and doing a bit of mental arithmetic because the exposure indicator only moves +2 stops.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83818\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree with Dale that it only takes a second or two to manual expose. Also remember that you're generally already in the ballpark and just need to tweak a bit for each shot. No mental arithmetic involved with my camera as the scale goes -3 to + 3, and +2.66 is generally the highest I want to go.

Also bear in mind that you usually don't need to meter (or even check) each shot. Unless I drastically change directions or location or a cloud passes over I frequently shoot for 10 or 20 minutes without more than an occasional casual check, and unlike auto, if you recompose to contain more clouds your exposure won't unexpectedly shift requiring an EC.

What drove me back to manual was two situations: shooting the local fishing docks where black and white boats drove AE all over the place and drove me nuts chimping and doing EC. Sunset shots where AE again was all over the map with just slight recompositions. Once I saw how much easier manual was for these "tough" situations it was only natural to abandon AE for easier stuff also. It's just easier, less effort, and more predictible, across the board. The only time it gets a little tough is with action transitioning from sun to shadow but I've learned to handle this with manual also by counting clicks. Certainly AE might be appropriate here but it's just too much trouble to shift so I generally don't bother, and these situations are rare for me.

- DL
« Last Edit: November 06, 2006, 03:41:28 pm by dlashier »
Logged

Dale_Cotton

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 588
    • http://daystarvisions.com
M8 review
« Reply #102 on: November 06, 2006, 02:43:51 pm »

Ray wrote:
Quote
Let's recap this 2 second method you have of getting accurate, full exposure to the right. You have the meter in 'spot' mode and camera in manual mode. You search for the brightest part of the composition, perhaps a white cloud or the sun reflecting off a white wall. Having found that brightest spot, you then increase the exposure by 3 stops, eye glued to the viewfinder, watching closely the needle at the foot of the finder and doing a bit of mental arithmetic because the exposure indicator only moves +2 stops.

Having confidently acquired the right shutter speed, you then recompose the scene in the viewfinder and take the shot. You can do that in 2 seconds? Wow!
Hmmm ... flattering that you remember this arcane bit of trivia ... I think ... ;)

"you then increase the exposure by 3 stops" - to forego argument from others lacking Ray's encyclopedic memory, the number of stops varies with the camera. 3 happens to be correct for my Pentax DS. The LX1 only wants half that.

"watching closely the needle ... because the exposure indicator only moves +2 stops." The DS has a -/+ 3 graph in the finder. If the finder exposure display is shorter than the needed latitude compensation, I don't know that my method is going to be too practical. (A friend has a D70, which needs 2.5 stops comp. but only displays -/+2 stops, but there are little arrows on each end of the graph that light up at 2.5 stops, so that's quasi-doable.)

As Don just wrote, 1 or 2 seconds is normally all it takes. This is assuming I've already set my f/stop for the DOF I want for the current sequence of shots. About 90% of the time it really just boils down to: point at apparent brightest part of sky, thumb shutter speed dial, recompose, shoot.

Getting back to the M8, Michael Reichmann's review suggests that the M8's metering is so accurate that one can simply choose an f/stop, then leave the camera Av priority and forget about it. Very exciting - wonder what their trick is.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
M8 review
« Reply #103 on: November 06, 2006, 03:54:04 pm »

Ray,

    my saying that "many" photographers do not have a certain speed obsession leaves it open that many others do: there are enough photographers around to have many in each camp.

Likewise, vigorous efforts to develop and improve high speed films were certainly justified, even though a great many serious amateurs and professional photographers did not need or use them.

Personally, I used about two rolls of film faster than ISO 200 in my 35mm SLR career, though my standard monochrome film was and is ISO 400 Ilford HP5. My main reason for staying at lower ISO was a mundane unwillingness to pay more for film when I saw little benefit in my photography from higher ISO. With every current DSLR handling speeds beyond ISO 200 quite well, and smaller formats generally allowing use of lower f-stops than were available (to me at least) in 35mm, the incentive is even less. Why should photographers with such habits hamper themselves with the oversized photosites needed for low noise very high ISO speeds, and the consequent need for longer focal lengths to get equal image resolution? Especially when NR processing can trade some resolution away for less high ISO speed noise, when high ISO speeds are only occasionally needed.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
M8 review
« Reply #104 on: November 06, 2006, 04:17:14 pm »

Quote
BJL, I am not completely up on autofocus, owning or considering none.  But how does the camera auto focus where I want it to focus, especially when there is nothing there to focus on?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83826\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
First note: either it works, or a vast number of very successful and skilled photographers are taking a lot of poorly images and yet no-one has noticed! Perhaps you should ask someone with more authority, like Michael, if he thinks that AF works at least a good proporton of the time.

Anyway, on to "autofocus for flat-earthers":

AF is usually achieved by either
1) Focusing on the subject at one of multiple AF points spread over the field of view, with AF point manually selectable in cases where the automatic procedure chooses the wrong one.
2) pointing an AF point at the desired subject and then activating AF at that point, usually with a partial press on the shutter (one must likewise point at an off-center subject with a manual focus camera if one wishes to use standard focusing aids.)

As Jonathan Weinke explains at his Visual Vacations website, using off-center AF points is better than re-orienting the camera towards an off-center subject to focus, because that "pointing" procedure ends up with the plane of focus slightly behind the subject. (Focus is roughly on a plane, not a sphere, so off-center subjects are in sharp focus at a greater distance from the camera than the focus distance.)

In cases where the AF algorithms fail, like lack of suitable lines for the AF detector to work with, manual focus is still available, and indicators in the cameras let you know that AF has not been achieved. My E-1 is usually in manual focus mode, but with the option to active AF by pressing the AEL button, so I have both options easily at hand. I end up using the "AF button" most of the time, but MF more often when quite close to the subject.

I will repeat, for those who seem to be trenchantly ignoring this point:

All modern automated DSLR's also offer every possible degree of manual operation.

And with Canon and Olympus lenses at least, manual over-ride of AF is quick, easy and safe. Some other lenses need to be switched to MF mode, or you risk damaging the AF motor when you turn the focus ring.


P. S. Howard, it is amusing that you worry about the cost of adding autofocus when we are discussing a $5,000 camera. Perhaps you should write to Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Sony etc. notifying them of the brilliant cost-cutting proposal of omitting AF in future models.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2006, 04:33:26 pm by BJL »
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
M8 review
« Reply #105 on: November 06, 2006, 04:23:45 pm »

Quote
Having found that brightest spot, you then increase the exposure by 3 stops, eye glued to the viewfinder, watching closely the needle at the foot of the finder and doing a bit of mental arithmetic because the exposure indicator only moves +2 stops.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83818\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
   what camera are you thinking of that only offers +/- two stops of metering range? Ah, maybe you are referring to some old manual match-needle model.

Anyway, if you can count the aperture clicks, surely one can add or subtract three stops without further reference to the meter.


Still, I would prefer to set appropriate exposure compensation (about +3), spot metering, and the AEL button. If the procedure can be describe with an algorithmic procedure like this, it can surely be automated. Manual setting is for more creative, subjective, "non-procedure driven" choices.
Logged

howiesmith

  • Guest
M8 review
« Reply #106 on: November 06, 2006, 04:29:38 pm »

Quote
Ray,

    my saying that "many" photographers do not have a certain speed obsession leaves it open that many others do: there are enough photographers around to have many in each camp.

Likewise, vigorous efforts to develop and improve high speed films were certainly justified, even though a great many serious amateurs and professional photographers did not need or use them.

Personally, I used about two rolls of film faster than ISO 200 in my 35mm SLR career, though my standard monochrome film was and is ISO 400 Ilford HP5. My main reason for staying at lower ISO was a mundane unwillingness to pay more for film when I saw little benefit in my photography from higher ISO. With every current DSLR handling speeds beyond ISO 200 quite well, and smaller formats generally allowing use of lower f-stops than were available (to me at least) in 35mm, the incentive is even less. Why should photographers with such habits hamper themselves with the oversized photosites needed for low noise very high ISO speeds, and the consequent need for longer focal lengths to get equal image resolution? Especially when NR processing can trade some resolution away for less high ISO speed noise, when high ISO speeds are only occasionally needed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83854\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well said.  I would add three things.  Somewhere down the line there may be a new technology that will replace digital as it known now.  I have no idea what it is or when it will happen, but experience has taught me that anything is seldom the "end of the line."

Second, there are a number of photographers for whom speed is important but far less than a obsession.  

And third,  there are a number of obsessed photographers that couldn't care less for speed, or noise, or MTFs or whathaveyou.  Heck, I haven't even purchased a lens since I learned what an MTF is.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
M8 review
« Reply #107 on: November 06, 2006, 04:32:28 pm »

Quote
Something just occured to me.  Leica, by calling the new camera the "M8" has most likely indicated that there will never be a new film M.  There might be more variations of the M7, but ...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83838\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, I had the same thought. Also, I am fairly sure that in early comments, Leica referred to a "M7 digital", but perhaps that was only speculation. If so, changing to "M8" instead sounds even more like a carefully considered hint.
Logged

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2171
M8 review
« Reply #108 on: November 06, 2006, 05:06:49 pm »

Quote
All modern automated DSLR's also offer every possible degree of manual operation.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83860\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yup. That's why they're so big. I use a D2x, which is more than twice as heavy as the M8; in fact, the D2x without a battery or a lens weighs more than an M8 with a battery and a 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar mounted on it. And the D2x weighs almost 5 ounces *less* than the Canon 1DsII. I have a common Nikon zoom lens with VR and autofocus (the 80-400.) That lens **in itself** is bigger and heavier than my M8 with two lenses; the Nikon and the zoom lens is equivalent, in weight, to just about my whole Leica ensemble of six lenses and the M8 body. The top end DSLRs are not much smaller, in weight and frontal area, than the smaller versions of the old Speed Graphics. (My D2x, although I haven't bothered to measure it exactly, has roughly twice the frontal area of my M8, and is about twice as thick.)

I'm certainly not putting down the Nikon or the Canon. You can do almost anything you want, photographically, with them, and if I were limited to one camera for the rest of my life, it'd be the Nikon. It's a great camera.
 
But so's the M8. I *really* like it.

JC
« Last Edit: November 06, 2006, 05:07:40 pm by John Camp »
Logged

howiesmith

  • Guest
M8 review
« Reply #109 on: November 06, 2006, 05:07:00 pm »

BJL, I wasn't asking whether autofocus worked or not, but how does it focus where I want it to when there is nothing in the frame to focus on.  From your response, I gather it can't, at least easily and predictably.  I need to either select something at the right distance, focus and reframe, or figure out how the multi-point focus selects a "subject."

You said "it is amusing that worry about the cost of adding autofocus when we are discussing a $5,000 camera. Perhaps should write to Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Sony etc. notifying them of the brilliant cost-cutting proposal of omitting AF in future models."  

Glad you were amused.  I don't worry about these things.  Don't talk to me like I am a fool.

I didn't intend to say autofocus should be omitted to cut cost.  Any feature, like RAW, or a lens cap, costs money, and the cost is either eaten by the maker (reduced margin), passed along to the customer (increased price), or something in between.  Every feature added needs to be weighed to determine what effect it has on cost and sales.  Autofocus was merely an example.  Likewise, maybe Canon could add a whistle to each camera, so if someone asks if you have a camera with a whistle on it, you can say yes.  I suspect whistles would not increase sales (significantly), or not enough people would pay for one, or Canon does not wish to absorb that cost.  RAW would cost Canon money to add it to the G7.  Would it increase sales?  I hear yes.  Would it take sales?  Maybe yes, should someone say they won't pay for a feature they have no need for.  Does Canon want to eat that cost for the few?  Doesn't look like it.

If Canon has really screwed up and there is a ground swell for a G7 with RAW, there is always a G7.1.  Maybe a G7 with RAW just isn't worth the money to Canon.  I have no data and this is just speculation, but if all the serious ameteur photographers on LL who might buy a G7 if it had RAW, but don't because it doesn't, Canon probrbly woulfn't notice the difference.  When I was in photography school, I used what I thought was a lot of Polaroid film.  I never got a singlr call from them asking what happened that I stoppped using it.  Then again, that is probably why they are bankrupt.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2006, 06:45:40 pm by howiesmith »
Logged

jani

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1624
    • Øyet
M8 review
« Reply #110 on: November 06, 2006, 07:03:43 pm »

Quote
I didn't intend to say autofocus should be omitted to cut cost.  Any feature, like RAW, or a lens cap, costs money, and the cost is either eaten by the maker (reduced margin), passed along to the customer (increased price), or something in between.  Every feature added needs to be weighed to determine what effect it has on cost and sales.  Autofocus was merely an example.
And it was a poor example; the autofocus mechanism in Canon cameras probably costs the most money in the lenses, where the focus mechanism lies.

Also, discussing cost of autofocus/manual focus when discussing Leica is ... bizarre.

As for the point of autofocus focusing where you want or not; why worry? If it doesn't, use manual focus! If it does, be happy!

It's a cheap feature today, as opposed to what it was in the eighties.
Logged
Jan

howiesmith

  • Guest
M8 review
« Reply #111 on: November 06, 2006, 07:33:57 pm »

Quote
And it was a poor example; the autofocus mechanism in Canon cameras probably costs the most money in the lenses, where the focus mechanism lies.

Also, discussing cost of autofocus/manual focus when discussing Leica is ... bizarre.

As for the point of autofocus focusing where you want or not; why worry? If it doesn't, use manual focus! If it does, be happy!

It's a cheap feature today, as opposed to what it was in the eighties.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83894\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I apologize for the poor example.  However, I only brought it up in a general way, not in particular to Leica.

I am a bit confused though now.  I thought some folks said earlier that autofocus was a good deal because the viewfinder on many cameras was so small, it is difficult to see when an image is critically focused.  Then I hear to not worry (which I don't), if the image is out of focus, it is easily seen (where, how and when)and fixed by switching to manual.  Doesn't seem consistent to me, but maybe I am just wrong about the small viewfinder thing.
Logged

macgyver

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 510
M8 review
« Reply #112 on: November 06, 2006, 08:31:31 pm »

The bottom line has to be the fact that autofocus will help you get photos that you might not have been able to get otherwise, in certain situations.
Logged

howiesmith

  • Guest
M8 review
« Reply #113 on: November 06, 2006, 08:59:05 pm »

Quote
The bottom line has to be the fact that autofocus will help you get photos that you might not have been able to get otherwise, in certain situations.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83909\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Is it possibe, " in certain situations," that the opposite is true?  Just possible?

Maybe manual focus " in certain situations," could help get a shot otherwise lost.  Maybe?  Just maybe?  Bottom line for me is, no body, and I do mean nobody. gets all the shots all the time.  Even if you use auto-everything and bracket for cheap insurance, the moment may pass unrecorded, or out of focus or under exposed.

I suppose prior to auto everything digital Sports Illustrated or Time magazines never had a cover.  A fashion shoot just couldn't be done.  A portrait studio was DOA.  There was never a street photographer.  Landscape photography was invented with the all purpose digital camera.

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

macgyver

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 510
M8 review
« Reply #114 on: November 06, 2006, 10:20:37 pm »

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


Sure it is, I've gotten low light shots that no af system (or at least not mine) could touch.  And yeah, I dont get all shots all the time.  More often I know that the reverse is true, I get a minority of shots the minority of time.  My comment lies more in the fact that if it wasn't a usefull and helpful feature then it probably wouldn't be included.  Of course, as I was typing that last sentance the "direct print button" and "facial recognition" came to mind, so maybe I am totally wrong.

For me, personally, I am a fan.  I am not very good at focusing manually, but, then again, I dont have to do it much, if I did I would be far better.

Hope that better explains what I said.  Does it?
Logged

Stephen Best

  • Guest
M8 review
« Reply #115 on: November 06, 2006, 10:21:18 pm »

Quote
As Jonathan Weinke explains at his Visual Vacations website, using off-center AF points is better than re-orienting the camera towards an off-center subject to focus, because that "pointing" procedure ends up with the plane of focus slightly behind the subject. (Focus is roughly on a plane, not a sphere, so off-center subjects are in sharp focus at a greater distance from the camera than the focus distance.)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is the article you're referring to?

[a href=\"http://www.visual-vacations.com/Photography/focus-recompose_sucks.htm]http://www.visual-vacations.com/Photograph...mpose_sucks.htm[/url]

Maybe Jonathan can explain but these figures look suspect. To get a difference of 2.676 inches over this distance, you're looking at an inclusive angle of about 15 degrees. Assuming focus points at the 1/4 and 3/4 mark in the viewfinder, this equates to a total 60 degree angle of view and hence a 35mm lens on a full frame camera. The depth of field for this distance at say f/2 is about 17 inches.

Here's the calculators I used:

http://www.pagetutor.com/trigcalc/trig.html
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials...th-of-field.htm

I would have thought manual focus to be more appropriate for the two examples given, especially at these near wide-open apertures.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2006, 03:47:58 am by Stephen Best »
Logged

howiesmith

  • Guest
M8 review
« Reply #116 on: November 06, 2006, 10:39:28 pm »

Quote
My comment lies more in the fact that if it wasn't a usefull and helpful feature then it probably wouldn't be included.  Of course, as I was typing that last sentance the "direct print button" and "facial recognition" came to mind, so maybe I am totally wrong.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83921\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think I understand you.  And you seem to understand that "facts" are not always facts.

How about black camera bodies and gray L lenses?  Are they useful, helpful or neceaasry?  I knew a guy who bought a black Nikon and put elctrical tape over the white letters "NIKON."  I'm not so sure that made him a better photographer.
Logged

macgyver

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 510
M8 review
« Reply #117 on: November 06, 2006, 11:12:11 pm »

Quote
How about black camera bodies and gray L lenses?  Are they useful, helpful or neceaasry?  I knew a guy who bought a black Nikon and put elctrical tape over the white letters "NIKON."  I'm not so sure that made him a better photographer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83924\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not all that sure where you are going with that but....

I know there are certain venues (think in terms of the sporting world) who do not like band names being displayed.  They wont let you use your big red canon monopod pads, nikon straps, etc.  I know photographers who cover the logo of their camera with gaff tape just to avoid such an incident.  Some folks just prefer to not be a slave to brand promotion.  As for the black camera body...well, I must admit that given the choice I would go black over silver.  I figure, among other things, that silver looks cheaper and if I am trying to market myself to a client it might be better to err on the side of more professional looking.  That being said, I mostly just think it looks prettier.  

Can you explain what you meant some?

Also, how did we get into all this from the M8 review again?
Logged

howiesmith

  • Guest
M8 review
« Reply #118 on: November 06, 2006, 11:40:29 pm »

Quote
I'm not all that sure where you are going with that but....

Can you explain what you meant some?

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

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

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

So what is more valuable?  A sideline pass or a black camera or feeling like a pro?  I knew a swimmer who shaved his body before big races.  Said it made him feel faster.  I guess if he felt faster, he might have been.  If you feel like a pro, are you?
Logged

Ken Tanaka

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 134
    • http://www.KenTanaka.com
M8 review
« Reply #119 on: November 06, 2006, 11:45:02 pm »

Quote
I am not sure to follow you Ken. In my experience, eye contact is what makes a close PJ photo work or not. If the subject accepts your presence as a photographer, he won't care about the camera you use, it can be a compact digital, and M8 or a D2x. Speed matters to catch a moment that works, but a D2x/30D can be just as fast as a M8 and will offer more DOF if there is no time to focus.

If discretion matters, then you probably don't want the subject to notice you and being close is probably not compatible with this in the first place.

The confusion comes from HCB's work that is seen as a unified entity while it is in fact composed of different types of images. He used a M6 for all, but the first street images he took were those that motivated his usage of the Mx. Those were images where he didn't want to be noticed by the subject. The M6 is the best camera to steal an image from close range, but there is no philosophical reason why one would always have to be close if the image is to be stolen.

Being close is IMHO motivated by the willingness to establish a relationship with the subject, and once this is done the tool doesn't matter much IMHO. A M8 would indeed be less intimidating than a 30D, but does it really matter?

I am not trying to run down the Mx (6,7 or 8) at all since I am convinced that they are very good cameras that can be very useful, but I just don't see the rationale you are proposing matching my experience shooting people in the street.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83766\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Bernard,
Indeed, the ability to capture candid and intimate human images relies at least as heavily on the photographer's technique, demeanor, and the specific situation as it does on the type of camera.  Perhaps more so.  It's difficult to generalize.  There are some people who seem to become Casper the Friendly Ghost in such situations, able to remarkably walk directly up to subjects and seemingly become invisible as they click away.  These folks could probably get away with a view camera.

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

I agree with you that the golden key to capturing a body of intimate documentary images is to first develop a rapport with your subjects.  Once you have established mutual trust you could shoot unselfconscious candids with nearly any camera.  But not being a journalist on assignment I am more typically observing and recording behavior of people I've not met and will not likely see again.  I think that this is typical of most others' "street" photography, too.  So, in this context, the M has proven itself to be a handy tool for me.

Honestly, though, the "ultimate street cameras" might actually be the digital p&s, the phone camera (ugh), and disposable film cameras.  These are so ubiquitously used that they draw virtually no attention and all are even more silent than a Leica.
Logged
- Ken Tanaka -
 www.KenTanaka.com
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10   Go Up