RE: [Leica] Leica and a new M? Now what's wrong with R8?

["Robert G. Stevens" <robsteve@hfx.andara.com>]

Peter:

I actually said my wife uses the EOS 1N.  I wanted to try a higher end
autofocus so I traded her Elan IIe in on a used 1n.  It is the only camera
she has to use. 
 I initially experimented using the EOS 1n with soccer a few months ago and
liked my Leica results and hit ratio better .  I have now picked it up
again to try it with football and the closer action, and use the R8 with
the 400mm 2.8 for most of the other action.  I set the 400 2.8 on the
monopod and the Eos is over my shoulder with a 300mm F4 lens.  When the
play starts to come at me, too close for the 400mm, I pick up the EOs and
shoot with it.  I did it this way for the soccer Wednesday and tomorrow I
will try it for a University football game and a Rugby game.  I will let
the list know how I make out and my conclusions.

As for the newer EOS showing more in the finder, the EOS 3 only has added
the frame counter display to the finder.  What I was trying to say maybe
not that well, was there is nothing wrong with the R8 other than the drive.
 Anybody that has expressed an opinion about it that was negative has not
done anything more than just play with it in a camera store.

My conclusion on the autofocus is it is superior for sports where the
subject is coming towards you, rather than accross the frame.  Fro example
with football, when they run directly at you, it is hard to follow focus
and get sharp pictures all the time.  The results are slightly better with
the autofocus, but since I shoot with fast lenses usually wide open, the AF
can give you a well focused shot of the players shoulder, but may not focus
on the face.  A typical example of this is kayaking shots where the camera
obviously focused on the paddlers arm and the face is out of focus.  For
sports where high speeds are concerned, such as skiing, autoracing, and
etc, manual trap focusing is the way to go regardless of the camera involved.

You mention the that it doesn't matter what is displayed in the finder,
that Program mode is the way to shoot.  When I shoot sports, I am always in
manual because of the slide film and its narrow lattitude.  If i do use
auto, it is usually in the aperature priority mode because I select the
aperture I want, usually F4 or 2.8 and then let the camera figure out the
shutter speed.  I have  started using a bit of print film over the last few
weeks for indoor sports and with its latitude, I just shoot on A.

Regards,

Robert



At 12:05 PM 10/29/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Robert,
>
>You answered your own question in the first paragraph.  If you use the
>EOS-1n for baby pictures that is because the autofocus can capture the
>action you can't with the R8.  Its that simple.
>If it were not true you would not have an EOS-1n.  Hey, the Leica R lenses
>may be incrementally better than the Canon glass, but if you go to a ball
>game you'll never see much other than beige lenses these days as you've
>noted.  The newer Canons have all the information in the viewfinders these
>days and I totally disagree that the EOS line is complicated.  Quite on the
>contrary, they are simple to use.  Set it to P (just like your R) and set AF
>to C for continuous sports and you need do nothing more.  If they were not
>easy to use, they would not be the choice of most pros, and many have spoke
>to the ergonomics of the EOS-1n.  Another reason for beige lenses being used
>is that as you said, the AF motor captures the image.  And with digital
>coming to the EOS and Nikon F series cameras that's just icing on the cake
>and only adds to the reason why Leica should kill it.
>
>I usually agree with your opinions, but this one is very weak and sounds
>more like justification for keeping your R8s.
>
>Peter K  
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert G. Stevens [mailto:robsteve@hfx.andara.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 11:40 AM
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us; leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica and a new M? Now what's wrong with R8?
>
>
>Mark and Bob:
>
>I have two R8's and an EOS 1N.  My wife uses the EOS for baby pictures and
>I have used it recently along with my R8 for sports pictures.  The first
>thing that comes to mind when using them alongside is how simple and
>ergonomic the R8 is.  
>
>Just look at a football game on TV and see all the EOS's on monopods and I
>will explain a big shortcomming of it.  The control panel is on the top of
>the camera. To see the exposure counter, metering mode, autoexposure mode,
>and autofocus mode, you must either lower the monopod so the display is in
>view or take a step back and tilt the monopod towards you.  In the R8 all
>these things are available in the finder and in the case of the counter, it
>is also available on the camera back at near eye level.
>
>The next short comings of the Autofocus cameras is the complexity of the
>custom functions.  Who can tell me what the custom function number is for
>leader left out after film rewind?  I have to look it up on the book.  With
>the R8, it is left out automatically and if you want the leader in, you
>just press the rewind switch on the winder a second time.  Simplicity of
>mirror lockup is another example.  It is a custom function on the EOS
>(number ?) and just a simple switch on the R8.  Try multiple exposures on
>an EOS.  You have to program how many you are going to take, while with the
>R8, you flip a switch.
>
>A final complaint is the Autofocus cameras eat batteries.  I used the EOS
>1n for three soccer games and probably ten rolls of film and the eight AA
>batteries in the motor drive are now exhaused.  My R8 has probably done
>fourty or more rolls on this set of lithium batteries.  At the local box
>store COSTCO, the CR123 batteries are about $6 in a package of two.  The
>price on the same brand of AA batteries is about the same.  Autofocus
>camera in sports use eat batteries because you are always using the AF
>motors in the lens while tracking the action.  With the R8, I am using the
>autofocus motors in my thumb to move the focus of the 400 4.8.  My thumb
>can sometimes be programmed better than the AF lenses are.  When following
>the action for example in a hockey game, your thumb (brain) remebers the
>position of the net.  If a shot is made, you can pan to the net and focus
>at the same time.  In AF, you pan to the net and then the AF hunts for
>focus in first few fractions of a second.
>
>Now for what is wrong with the R8.  The camera needs a motor drive for
>sports.  It needs to go on a diet.  I was thinking last night that they
>should offer a motorized version of the R8 stripped of the manual advance
>and associated gear. With that drag gone, it should be able to do six
>frames per second and be a little lighter.  I actually use the EOS 1n on
>the Leica 400mm APO Telyt with good results.  It is nice to have the fast
>motor.  Below is a link to a picture taken with the EOS 1n, 400mm 2.8 APO
>Telyt and 1.4 apo extender fo a 560 F4.  The image is full size, but was a
>horizontal shot where I cropped of either side to make it a vetical.  It
>seems to be in focus using manual focus and a long lens with very little
>depth of field.  It was shot wide open and on 400 speed AGFA print film.
>
>http://home.istar.ca/~robsteve/photography/images/soccer/Oct27.jpg
>
>The final complaint is the more normal focal lenth lenses should be a
>little cheaper.  I have argued before that Leica's exotic lenses are not
>much more expensive than the competition, but it is the less exotic glass
>that should be cheaper such as the zooms with an F4 aperture.  The Canon
>"L" 800-200 F4 is half the price of the Leica 80-200 F4.  When you compare
>the fast lenses like the Noctilux to the EOS F1 lens, the prices are
>similiar.  The same can be said of the APO teles to the large Teles of the
>major brands.  An 180 APO Summicron with a street price now of $3,600 is
>not much different in price to the EOS 200 1.8 at $3,675.
>
>Regards,
>
>Robert
>
>
> At 10:19 AM 10/29/99 -0700, Mark Rabiner wrote:
>>Ruralmopics@aol.com wrote:
>>><Snip> 
>>> The bigger issue seems to be the SLR. There just isn't enough to
>distinguish
>>> the Leica line from everything else. The mystique will only go so far.
>Lots
>>> of slr makers offer outstanding lenses. The photographer looking for the
>most
>>> complete/versatle/practical system combined with co-comprimise optics has
>>> lots to chose from. Leica simply does not stand out of the slr crowd
>like it
>>> does in rangefinders (yeah, I know, they were the only game in town so
>that
>>> almost doesn't count). One really must ask the question, Why in the
>world buy
>>> a Leica R -- OK for many in this group it makes sense but for most mere
>>> mortals, it doesn't.
>>> 
>>> Bob (cockroaches, Cher and Leica rangefinders will always survive)
>McEowen
>>
>>Bob! don't you think the R8 is a very unusual approach in design, size and
>>function for an SLR in today's market. 
>>I think it is just as unusual of a choice as the M and certainly stands out
>>among the Nikons and Canons. The reason starting with a fondness for
>focusing
>>yourself that excludes AF at all:
>>THE GLASS
>>Mark Rabiner
>>
>>
>
>