[Leica] R v M? Arrrrrrrrgh!

[Derek Zeanah <derek@thedkgallery.com>]

I'm a wedding photographer.  I had convinced myself that I wanted a Leica M after handling a number of cameras at the local rental shop.  Reasons are all of the common ones: quiet, easy-to-focus, fast lenses.  I shot a test roll and came up with another reason: the 35mm Summilux is _awesome_.  I reserved it for a wedding last Saturday.

They double-booked it.  They offered half-off on Leica R rental in compensation, so I rented the works: R7 and R8, 16mm fisheye, 28-70 vario-elmarit, 80mm Summilux, 70-180mm Vario-APO-Elmarit.  My conclusions have totally thrown me off.

The R8 is, IMHO, the most intuitive and rationally laid-out SLR camera I have ever used.  When I buy into another SLR system, this will probably be it.  Also the 16mm fisheye is _incredible_!  This lens works _really_ well with my style of photography, and I used it a whole lot more than I ever thought I would.  Better -- I found myself framing some incredible shots, then realizing I was within 6" of people's faces with the thing.  THEY NEVER EVEN FLINCHED!  Awesome!

So now I'm at the point where I need to reserve future gear rentals and start to _really_ train on the gear I decide to use.  I know I'll end up using a Leica body, 75/80 Summilux, 35mm Summicron.  With those lenses the M is it.  But now I want the fisheye too.  Disadvantages to the R8 seem to be noise (I see the noise bothering people during the quiet part of wedding ceremonies but Fong and Reggie get away with using Canon AF; I'm probably just uptight), weight, and mirror-slap.  Advantages seem to be automation, faster reloading, and better use of flash (which I _will_ use sometimes regardless).

Any comments on the tradeoffs?  Someone please tell me that the mirror on the R8 is dampened so well that _you_ can shoot at 1/15s with the 80mm (handheld) and have a reasonable chance of capturing an in-focus photo.  Or tell me that you can shoot the M at 2 stops slower shutter speeds and get sharper photos than with the R.  Or that there _is_ a fisheye comparable to the 16mm available in M mount.  Or something.  I'm looking to reserve the gear I'm going to use for the rest of the year tomorrow, and I'm having a hard time making up my mind.

Any wedding photogs in here that use Leicas on the job?

(And yes, I do shoot with the H'blads for formals -- I just prefer 35mm for candids.)

Oh year: perceptions on the other lenses:

70-180mm F2.8.  Awesome lens, awesome price, awesomely heavy.  I _like_ it, but I don't know that I'll ever rent it again -- at least not until I take that Africa trip.  It was kind of frightening to know that if someone walked off with the R7/70-180mm monopod combo that I (more likely Allstate) would be dinged for ten-thousand-dollars from the rental shop. It's hard for me to justify it at that price.  But that said, it was nice to be able to frame shots from 50' away.  No-one was aware of the camera.
28-70 f3.5-4.5.  Probably a great lens, but I never could force myself to use it.  I was pushing film and shooting almost wide-open, and the lens was just too slow.  I simply couldn't be sure of focus with the thing.  That said, I've always preferred primes.
80mm f1.4.  Love this, though my partners thought that this was harder to focus than the Canon 85 1.2 and Nikon MF 85 1.4 (both of which we were also renting.  Don't ask about the # of photogs -- it's a long story and involves some long standing friendships, the dissolution of one company, the incorporation of another, and my wife.)  I thought it was just fine, felt good, and the integral lens-shade was a nice touch (though it seemed a little short).

TIA.  Sorry for the long post.

- -----------------------------------------
Derek Zeanah, Photographer
         The DK Gallery

http://www.thedkgallery.com
Atlanta, GA   404.233.1230
- -----------------------------------------