One week, and a half a dozen jobs later and these are the thoughts that I have had regarding the Leica M8. I really wanted to write a great review complete with lots of pixel-peeping pictures showing the M8 compared to the 5D, MkIIds, maybe throw in a disc camera for fun, but I don’t have time for that. Honestly, most of the difference comes down to different raw converters, you can make it look good or bad, depending. And it depends on what your expectations are. I’d say the comparison to the MkIIds is a little unfair, as there is about a 40% advantage in pure pixels, but you do see the difference in glass, that comes across in every image. But the 5D is a fair comparison, they are very similar but very different.
The Good
If Canon could make a dslr with a simple shutter dial, an aperture wheel, an iso button and and real focusing groundglass they would make a mint. Oh, wait, they are already making a mint. I feel sad that I pushed my new F1 across the table at adorama three years ago for the 10D, which, while it is a great camera of it’s day, holds little romance compared to the F1. It seems like Canon has forgotten so many things while on their way to discovering new things. Like face recognition technology, who needs that-well, if you can’t focus the camera accurately, I guess you do. I don’t understand how we can have 150 years of photo history where cameras were manually focused and have it entirely thrown out in 5 years in favour of autofocus with no recourse. And before you say it, my eyesight is good enough.
So what does the Leica do so well? The viewfinder the viewfinder the viewfinder. Repeat after me, if you can’t see it you can’t shoot it. Or actually you can because the 5D is designed not to be looked through, I swear. It does a fine job, in fact a better job if you just leave it alone to its own calculations. I rented the 85 1.2L and used it wide open, and it is impossible to manually focus accurately, unless you are right on top of that something.
There is a trend here where it seems like the technologists have looked at all the pictures already made, all the “good” ones if you will, and decided, that is what we should do, make “good” pictures, like the ones we have already seen. So if in fact, you might want to deviate from that, say, use the 85mm for something other than a headshot in natural light, give it a try, you won’t come close. Not unless you fire up the strobe and turn the autofocus on and let the camera make all the decisions. So you are back to making “good” pictures.
Oh I have not spoken about the Leica yet. You camera manufacturers should know, it was a hit with the twenty-somethings at a recent job/party I photographed for the NY times. Everyone knew about it, there was lots of geek lust in air. Could it be a certain romance lacking from other more commoditized camera offerings? I think that is part of it. I think another part is like the resurgence in Vinyl recordings. I know, I am late to the party here. But said twenty-somethings all knew the mantra-vinyl is “warmer”. Analog is alive a well it seems.
Sure, you can cram more “features” into a camera, and here I will allow, image stabilization, while it makes me sea-sick looking through the viewfinder (silly me, I should not be looking right? what is the point?) it really does work. So this is the new paradigm. Canon will show at PMA a camera with enough pixels, say 15mp, that goes to ELEVEN, er, I mean shoots at an effective ISO of 12,800, or in other words, six stops over tri-X, and at that point, who cares what the lens is, you can have a lens that only goes to 5.6 and with image stabilization and 12,800 ISO, you can basically shoot under half a candle light. So go find me a half candle. And everything else we fix in software. This is where we are headed.
Oh I still have not spoken about the Leica yet. That is because it represents something that is rapidly being lost-hell it was lost even before it began. Most photographers abandoned rangefinders in the late 60’s, except a few artists and journalists. But the bulk went over to SLR’s, and Medium Format long ago. Just a few crazies left working with Leica, some Magnum types, and of course, Doctors and Dentists.
The concept is so patently simple it is a shock to those who are not familiar with it. It goes like this: What you see is all a lie, it just depends on which lie you like to operate under. In a SLR, everything you see with shallow focus, but probably outside, everything you shoot is in focus. In a rangefinder, everything you see is in focus, but really only part of it is, the rest is out of focus, depending. So either way, you are left imagining, what will the picture look like? I find it easier to anticipate the elimination of things mentally, rather than anticipate the inclusion of things mentally, get it? But it is the same either way. Think of the rangefinder as driving a car, you see everything, left and right, and you steer it. Think of the SLR as a dream state, inside a tunnel, with everything hazy and indistinct.
Am I supposed to talk about image quality? Yes it is good enough. I bet even a good quality 10mp point and shoot can do as well on a sunny day. Everything over 6mp is good enough at average sizes. But with the M8 you can do what you could not with a film based Leica, and that is print much bigger without it falling apart. 20×24 is about the limit for 35mm film, even then, it is falling apart, becoming air so to speak. But it is nice air, no doubt. Digital is another thing entirely, and I can see 30×40 and maybe, perhaps, 40×60, obviously not that tight, but very good depending on ISO. So you essentially get two cameras, a 35mm available light machine, and a medium format on-the tripod machine, in one.
I will honestly try to post a review, I do promise. Also, an appreciation of Aperture vs. Lightroom, since I am forced to use Lightroom because Aperture does not yet (exactly ) support the M8, except via a hack. And also Raw Developer, which is very very good, and makes gorgeous black and white. Don’t get me started on Capture One…
