A second point worth noting, related to so much of the earlier discussions, is that the Leica-style rangefinder's strength lies in close, intimate photography. While you can certainly shoot a landscape with an M it really shines when shooting human scenes at close range under existing light. Its small size and nearly silent shutter impose a far less intimidating presence than even the smallest slr. Watching a truly skilled M photographer shoot is mesmerizing. The lens is often zone focused and the camera only comes to the eye for a second or two, if at all, to establish composition. Close-range intimate photography of strangers is something that very few amateur photographers are comfortable doing. Most prefer to remain unseen 100' away, hence the large market for long-range zoom lenses.
So the point I'm leading to is that those who cannot imagine the value of a Leica M camera are probably not doing the type of intimate human work for which it's so well suited.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Now that's the sort of sensible comment I appreciate, Ken . The mystique mumbo jumbo doesn't work on me. A camera is just a tool and any competent photographer should always try to use the best tool for the job. If a photographer finds that a Leica rangefinder camera
really is a better tool for capturing close-range, intimate shots, then
that's the reason for getting one. I imagine that this would have been one of the reasons Henri Cartier-Bresson had for choosing the Leica.
Any small, lightweight, unobtrusive, silent camera would be better for such work provided it is of sufficient quality. However, I get the impression that some posters in this thread are thinking of switching to the M8 for use as a general purpose camera, but maybe I misunderstood them. Perhaps they are really saying that they are now more interested in street photography and need a Leica for this purpose.
Here are a few pros and cons I found on dpreview:
Fewer moving parts (no mirror or diaphragm) means slower shutter speeds possible (-2 EV). More compact, discrete and quieter than an SLR. Shorter shutter lag Lenses are considerably smaller than an equivalent SLR lens. No auto-focus makes them less suitable for action shots (or at least doing so requires a lot more skill). Many users claim rangefinder focusing is faster than using a focusing screen Rangefinder.
You are not looking through the lens itself and do not have a focusing screen hence it is more difficult to get a sense of depth-of-field.
Framelines indicate the field of view of different lenses.
Because there is no mirror you have no mirror black-out.
Brighter than any SLR viewfinder, and not affected by lens maximum aperture
Not as accurate as an SLR viewfinder, especially with longer lenses (or close subjects)
Longer minimum focus distances compared to an SLR. Virtually no telephoto lenses beyond 135mm. Very wide angle or telephoto lenses require an accessory viewfinder, meaning focus and framing are separated.
I should add to that the long start-up time from off, mentioned in Michael's review, which could cause one to miss a few of those intimate shots.
Your right, the M8 will not be on my Christmas wish list. Perhaps that's because I don't consider my talent as a street photographer so great that a Leica would make much difference. I'm afraid I have not developed to that stratospheric level of outgrowing the capabilities of my current 5D, 20D and lenses. The 20D with a choice of 10-22 zoom and 50/1.8 prime seems a pretty light and compact combination to me when such qualities are required.
