p.3 #2 · Are range-finders still best for low-light?
I think in some ways it's great to be passionate about the gear you use as if you feel an affinity with it, and undertand it fully then you will be able to use it to its full extent and thus allow your picture taking abilities to work to their full extent without being held back by your equipment.
Above this though is using the right type of equipment for different shooting situations.
There are some where dslr is best and some where 54 film is what is needed and in between that, for me, medium format film and within that the slr option or the rangefinder option. Or some situations where you need two or three different systems with you at the same time.
For the (35mm) digital cameras there is a place for both the 5d and the M8 with each offering great advantages over the other. With the M8 unfortunately at present there is no other option so if you want a rangefinder for your shooting and wish to shoot digital that is what it needs to be..wether the leica m8 is any better than a zeiss or nikon or contax digital rangefinder we just can't tell right now (or ever perhaps) but if I ever thought a rangefinder would suit my needs more than my 5d (which on many occasions I do) I would get the leica...not because of the red dot but because its a rangefinder...unfortunately I can't afford it right now!
Anyway...enjoy shooting.
Marc
Jun 05, 2007 at 05:45 PM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.3 #3 · Are range-finders still best for low-light?
> However, I am more likely to carry the Leica because I can get my entire kit in a bag smaller than my Canon and 24-70L will fit in to.
That's exactly how I feel when I look at my 5D and 200 f1.8 next to the M8. The M8 is _so_ much smaller and lighter. It's incredible how they do it. You would be crazy to take the Canon ;-)
Perhaps it's the Canon 24-70 that's causing your size/weight problem. Maybe you should think about a Leica R 35mm, or a cheap Zeiss, Olympus, Nikon or Canon one.
If the M8 supported zooming, which it doesn't, I am sure Leica could match the 24-70 with an 18 to 55 f1.4 zoom. You could slip it into a trouser pocket and nobody would notice. I say f1.4 because the M has a two stop iso disadvantage. It makes more sense to compare a 5D with a 35mm f2.8 to an M8 with a 28mm f1.4. But Leica don't make a 28 f1.4. Nikon did but it only works on the Canons, not the M's. The best you can do at HCB's _only_ focal length is 28 f2, which gives the Canon either a 3 stop low-light advantage with a 35 f1.4, or size weight equivalence and a one stop advantage (with a nice 35 f2.8, take your pick from Canon/Nikon/Zeiss/Leica/Olympus/Pentax etc). To match the focal lengths of the 24-70 f2.8 on a Leica you could start with the new Tri-elmar, but it's only f4: hopeless for low-light with the poor high-iso performance. So the best you can do to match the Canon standard zoom in low light is to bring a 21 f2.8 (-2), 28 f2 (-1), 35 f1.4 (0), and 50 f1.4 (0). How do those two alternatives compare for size and weight now? And think of the COST!!! We haven't even mentioned image stabilisation.
The fact is that the M8 is a poor choice for low light. The 1.3 crop factor makes the absence of 28mm or 24mm f1.4 a problem. The 35 f1.4 equates to a 45mm, and the 50 f1.0 equates to a 65mm, which is not an advantage for general photography. And with the Canons you have the choice: EITHER equivalent size/weight and a small speed advantage, OR a huge 3 stop advantage. AND/OR image stabilisation. Decide on the night. At a fraction of the cost.
p.3 #4 · Are range-finders still best for low-light?
Ok - let me re-phrase that. The M8 kit with multiple lenses fits in a bag that only my 1Ds2 and 50/1.8 will fit in to. There. I don't want a 5D and never have, so there is little point telling me that the 5D is smaller than the 1Ds2. Canon vs Canon. Personal preference? Yes! BTW - I have used a 5D for quite a while, and dislike it. Other poeple are entitled to a different point of view.
As far as the M8 having a so called 2 stop disadvantage, it all depends on what you are after. I much prefer the B&W shots from the M8 at high ISO than the B&W shots from the Canon at high ISO. Personal choice? Yes! I happen to like B&W.
The M8 is much easier to focus in low light than the Canon is, at least in my opionion. You may have a different opinion, and that's fine, fortunately we live in a country that still (mostly) allows different opinions.
All these things prove is that there is no single answer to any given problem or question.
Is it the 'Red Dot' that makes me say these things? No. Am I a cult member of the Leica club? No. I am merely looking at the same things, but from a slightly different point of view.
I choose not to come up with all the reasons why the 5D is not the right tool for the job 'I' want to do, but there are others seem intensly focused on telling every one else why the M8 is not the right tool.
I am not 'for' the M8 and 'against' the 5D. Far from it. Both cameras do an excellent job. I just happen to chose one over the other . If you think that makes me a red dot cult memeber, what does that make a 5D owner? A 5D cult member?
Let's face it, if you have both tools available (or even more) you can pick the right tool for the right job. If all you have is a single tool, then that's fine, but the 5D is not the holy grail of photography, regardless of what Brainiac or others choose to say. Oh, and BTW - neither is the M8! There are no holy grails in this stuff, only personal perference and no amount of too and frow of personal opinions, for or against any brand or model will change that.
Let's change the way we phrase stuff in future. Instead of saying 'Model A' has a stop disadvantage (which is being critical of a Model A), why not say that 'Model B' has a 2 stop advantage (which is praise for one without directly criticising the other)?
The whole reason people get defensive is because of criticism of one item, rather than being complimentary about another.
Edited by DaveEP on Jun 06, 2007 at 11:48 AM GMT
Jun 06, 2007 at 05:31 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.3 #5 · Are range-finders still best for low-light?
> ...The 5D is not the holy grail of photography, regardless of what Brainiac or others choose to say. Oh, and BTW - neither is the M8!
I thoroughly agree, regardless of what I choose to say ;-)
Please note that all my efforts to compare the two prominent low-light SLR and rangefinder options have referred to specific system features and usage, not personal preference or feelings.
p.3 #6 · Are range-finders still best for low-light?
....and one more thing to think about....
If the tool that produces the best "technical result" is not the one that fits your hand and method of working, is it actually the right/best tool for the job?
