I have written before about Leica rangefinder cameras - I used to have one and loved it, but for the type of photography I do it just wasn’t the right tool for the job. The M8 digital rangefinder was a lovely camera and using it was a pleasure as the handling was just sublime. Even though I have spent time getting to know my Canon cameras intimately and love using them, they just do not come close to the ‘feel’ of using a Leica M. Now, I know there is much snobbery, hype and drivel written about the M8 (and other M-series rangefinders), but if you like the way it works, can afford the purchase and ongoing costs (lenses and accessories are mighty expensive), it’s a wonderful camera system to use. The lenses are quite something and I can still marvel over some of my images taken with them. It’s difficult to describe, but they have a sparkle, a contrast and clarity that is difficult to see with almost any other lens I have ever used. Clearly it is not just the lens but the system that contributes to the look of the image and the Leica lenses are a good match for any M-series camera, film or digital. Trouble was, the digital M8 had a sensor smaller than 35mm film and, just like many DSLRs, lenses did not behave the way they should. A 50mm standard lens, for instance, performed as a 66mm lens (a 1.3x factor). The M8 was also plagued by teething troubles that took some time to clear up, is expensive and it got some poor press in its early days as a consequence. An upgraded model was released in 2008, the M8.2. This had a new shutter, different flash sync speed, a sapphire glass LCD cover and a significantly higher price tag than its predecessor. But there are many people out there, myself included, who bought an M8 or M8.2 and loved it. It had problems and workarounds, it was expensive, slow, noisy at times, ‘only’ 10 million pixels, no auto focus capability, but still people are quite fanatical about them. Many critics suggest that the passion people appear to develop over their Leica is an excuse or justification for the cost, and for some it may be. One of the greatest features of an M8 is its lack of features; it's just a camera, a sophisticated one, but remains a camera rather than a computer with a camera attachment that many DSLRs are. It remains true to the original M design and puts the photographer in control, not the camera, which in turn makes it much easier to connect with the subject. And if you like the way they work, the passion is real and the cost incidental.
I promised not to turn this website into a technical playground. Furthermore, I promised to restrict commentary to technologies that have a useful impact on the photography included in this website. Canon have just released details of a new lens that I believe will have such an impact. I have had a Canon 100mm f2.8 macro lens for some years and has seen a lot of use for close up and macro work, particularly of flowers. It has performed really well and helped me create several of my favourite pictures. It has, however, had one shortcoming and that is its lack of image stabilisation.
Until April 2009 I had never heard of him and never knowingly seen his photographs. He has been a professional photographer for only a few years and his work has obviously stirred up a good few people to think more about the pictures being created. David DuChemin's work and writing have completely resonated with me and, it would appear, a good
few more. I've mentioned him already in this blog and make no apology for mentioning him again as he quite unapologetic about discussing vision - what you see and try to capture with your camera. His words explain this so much better than I can so check his website and blog. I just love his strapline - "Gear is good. Vision is better" and wish I had thought of it.
David DuChemin's blog strapline is "Gear is good. Vision is better." His point is that whilst the cameras and all the other paraphernalia we use to create photographs are important, it is having the vision to make a picture that has much more value and will contribute so much more to the finished image. Of course, he is absolutely correct and his writing and book do a lot to explain what vision is and means for a photographer. Highly recommended.
If that sounds like a lame excuse for this piece about cameras, then you have seen through me very quickly. Whilst I completely subscribe to his view about vision, I do not subscribe to an alternative view that "the camera doesn't matter." Of course it does! If anyone says you can get just as good a picture from the Apple iPhone camera or latest Canon or Nikon DSLR they are probably talking complete nonsense, although clearly the amount of "goodness" needed depends on the final use of the picture. If it is to be used only on a social networking site like Facebook then chances are the iPhone or other phone-based camera will do the job perfectly. But when the image is to be used in publications, printed or require other critical examination (and I don't mean just anorak-clad pixel peepers) then something different is required.
Canon Inc. announced today the development of Hybrid Image Stabilizer (IS), the world’s first* optical Image Stabilizer which compensates for both angular camera shake and shift camera shake. The technology will be incorporated in an interchangeable single lens reflex (SLR) camera lens planned for commercial release before the end of 2009.
This is quite a significant development given that existing Canon IS lenses include technology first introduced in 1995. It has of course been refined significantly to sense shake more accurately and to be able to improve the level of stabilisation. This has helped us take clear, unblurred shots in lower light, use the camera handheld more often and, with the stabilisation now fitted to some of the bigger lenses, take clear pictures that just could not be taken of some sports and wildlife.
News
