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

["Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk@lucent.com>]

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
>
>