I’ve always liked to use rangefinder cameras, particularly when photographing people and events. Of course they had their drawbacks, particularly some of the cheaper Soviet Leica copies I started with in the early 70s, where viewfinders sometimes seemed to bear little relation to the image.
But once I’d bought my Leica M2 things were fine, and then I added a Minolta CLE, perhaps my favourite ‘Leica’ of all. Eventually I was moved by the need for a slightly more modern design, and along came Konica with a design that actually had auto exposure that worked.
Of course I also needed SLRs for their extra flexibility and the ability to use longer lenses. Although in extremis I’d use the excellent 90mm f2.8, Leica’s forte was at 35mm and below, with my favourite (but often maligned) Summilux 35 f1.4 a superb tool in low light, and Voigtlander providing some excellent and cheap super wide angles.
Then came digital, and for various reasons I had to switch to using an SLR system, Nikon or Canon. At the time the Nikon D100 had just arrived and seemed the best of the reasonably affordable cameras – though it’s poky dim viewfinder was a real pain. Later came the D200 – the first digital I liked using – and now the improved D300, but all along I’d been hoping for a digital rangefinder I could warm to and use.
Epson were the first, and it wasn’t bad, but I felt sure that Leica would come up with something better, and waited for the M8. Eventually it came, got some good write-ups – though there were a few minor problems noted, and after a while someone noticed its problems with IR and we had the filter fiasco, but the problem didn’t seem insurmountable.
So finally, feeling a little rich after a few good months I bought one in Spring 2007. Ten days later I lost the contract that had provided more than 50% of my income for the past few years.
It was a bad start, but I was actually more worried by the problems I was having with the M8, particularly since none of my lenses were coded so the camera could recognise them. I made the mistake of using the M8 on a job and then spent hours in Photoshop selecting parts of the image and removing the purple.
In time I worked out how to get usable results from the camera most of the time. I’ve taken a few decent pictures with it, mainly with the Summilux, which, according to Leica is not compatible with the camera. Using the free ‘Cornerfix‘ I can even get reasonable colour with the Voigtlander 21mm (with the IR filter in place.)
I’ve not yet come to like using the M8. Compared to the Minolta/Konica cameras it seems an imprecise and blunt instrument, unreliable and with inaccurate framing. Colour balance and exposure control are hit and miss, and processing the RAW files is a real pain compared to those from the Nikon. It seems hardly usable above ISO 640 due to noise, although to be fair the results at ISO 320 can be exceptionally sharp and detailed certainly a little superior to the D200 in that respectg.
I have other problems with the camera, even using it for my relatively undemanding needs. It is good not to have to carry a camera bag when I take it out – a spare lens tucked in a pocket and the camera – at least when not in use – hanging around my neck are all I need, but more often I’m deciding to pick up the bag with the Nikon gear when I have to choose, even if it can be a pain to carry it around all day.
What prompted me to write this was reading the warts and all thoughts of a photojournalist trying to work in Iraq with an M8, Michael Kamber’s Leica M8 Field Test, Iraq.
This is an honest and detailed account of his experiences with the camera – and illustrated by the results. On the opening page he says it is “a detailed look at my experiences with the M8, most of which have been negative. Please keep in mind that there are many other photographers who like the M8.”
You can also see Kamber‘s work on his web site, and on the Digital Journalist site
I’d love to find out how to really like my M8, but it’s proving rather hard work.