[Leica] R8 convert (long)

[apbc <apbc@public1.sta.net.cn>]

Just thought I would ad my thoughts after having used an R8 for just a 
few weeks.

I have been an M user for more than 15 years of hard professional work 
primarily in the Far East but in punishing locales from Siberia in 
mid-winter to Indonesian rain forests. I work for demanding clients from 
Coca-Cola to Newsweek and shoot primarily colour transparency though also 
a lot of black and white for my personal projects.

I have been stepping slowly and carefully into the R system in addition 
to EOS which IMHO is the pro standard 35mm system and likely to only get 
more firmly entrenched there. OTOH I find the pleasure in using Leicas M 
and R gives me back something I continue to find lacking in the EOS 
system: they are simpler, offer a better tactile experience especially 
the lenses and on the whole do not do things faster than you can think 
nor adopt automation beyond mortal comprehension. The AF and AE facility 
of EOS cameras is far beyond anything Leica is capable of anytime in the 
near future but both aspects encourage laziness in the photographer if 
only because the cameras are designed with MF and manual exposure control 
as  occasional overrides rather than the normal operating mode. In other 
words they can focus very quickly and accurately and set the exposure 
pretty consistently but at the same time you cannot wholly trust an AE 
system that is not linear and you do not know what it is measuring (i.e. 
in matrix mode) in that it has unpredicatble biasing. Having said that it 
is very useful in certain situations, invaluable in a few. 

The main operational advantage of AF in general photography is that it 
can make slow or even relatively hard to focus fast zoom lenses workable 
in most lighting situations. Also as Bill Pierce remarked in his well 
considered piece on Digital Journalist about EOS, they finally make 
focussing fast (or even slow) wideangles on SLRs just about as accurate 
and predictable as Ms. Having said all this going to Rs might seem 
retrograde but I only use a 28 on my Rs and keep my Ms for other wides.

So what do I like about the R8? Firstly it fits my hand very well (I have 
slightly larger than average hands), the focusing screen is good (though 
not as good as my Maxwell-treated R6 screen) and easy to focus in the 
central field. With the winder it is a comfortable handful and not too 
heavy or large, compared to the EOS1 or 3 which have a considerably 
larger profile (when fitted with the boosters - which I prefer for 
balance reasons). The metering selector switch is conveniently placed 
next to the speed dial which has a very good positive yet not too firm 
feel. The idiosyncracies of the other controls are not so endearing: the 
depth of field preview is stiff (though much better than earlier Rs), the 
ISO/frame No LCD display seems awkward and tacky and for no good reason 
is only on when the meter is on. The contoured grip on the back is very 
comfortable and firm.

In use it is straightforward and the metering in particular is very 
accurate: much better than my various EOSs and the only camera (besides 
my R6) with a really trustworthy (IME) spot meter.

A few words about the R6: I love the size of the body, hate the grip for 
the motor drive (R4 version) which seems to be an ergonomic failure: 
impossible to reach the speed dial with one's hand strapped into the 
highly uncomfortable plastic protrusion which is ugly, clumsy and 
inconvenient so I do not use it. It is hard to rewind film with a flash 
attached to the R6 shoe and the fact that it uses a different an 
incompatible TTL system to the R8 is a pain. I actually prefer the 
slightly larger screen image of the R6 to the R8's but then I have 20/20 
vision and do not wear glasses. I usually use my left eye for viewing 
though or I would most likely remove the motor for most of my shooting.

Well the main reason for my move to Rs is the lenses: I have a 28, 60 and 
80-200 all current types and all wonderful in colour or black and white. 
They are sharp and most particularly have great contrast in low light 
situations but the main thing for me is the rich colour that they offer 
which makes for more consistency when using my Ms at the same time.

So why not quit EOS and go the whole hog? Well the obvious problem of 
expense is certainly one reason: however you cut it buying and 
maintaining Leicas is more expensive than Canon. The main reason for me 
is that the service of Leicas in this part of the world, despite the 
considerable sales they have in say Hong Kong or Japan, is dreadful: slow 
and usually at least twice the price of Germany or USA. One M lens I had 
took 6 months to fix. For Canon there is a network of excellent service 
stations in at least half a dozen cities in mainland China and for 
example I had a shift lens cleaned (internal elements had been 
contaminated after exposure to chemicals at a refinery), relubed and 
broken parts replaced in Beijing in 12 hours for less than USD30. I am 
sure an equivalent problem with a Leica lens would involve a trip to Hong 
Kong a wait of 2-6 months and a service charge of 10-20 times greater 
magnitude. 

A few years ago a senior manager from Solms told me that Leica planned to 
start its 3rd full service repair station (after Solms and New Jersey) in 
Hong Kong. Not only has this not happened but they do not even seem to 
have a trained M repair person there and most optical servicing beyond 
CLA is just sent to Solms. This is pretty poor: even Linhof have a proper 
repair service in Hong Kong and they are much smaller than Leica.

The other problem is that stock levels are very low and it is hard to get 
even basic accessories: for example filters, lens hoods are IME special 
order items in many cases. Pretty bad and just unworkable for a busy pro.

Anyhow I love using the Rs and live in hope that Leica will get its act 
together: it is not just about product but also service...


Bests froim rainy Shanghai

Adrian