Mind, until January of this year I was a dedicated film shooter.

Why? Simple because I loved my Leica glass and bodies too much. I shot both an M6 and a Hexar RF with a few standard lenses that just knocked my socks off. I loved what I got with those cameras/lenses. I didn't like the darkroom as much, but the tactile nature of the machine and print were enough to keep me silver. In 2006 I decided to get a Bronica 645 as a way to do some medium format work on the premise that, if I was going to soup, I should do it with big negatives. I loved that camera too and the results were even easier to scan/print than the 35mm stuff.

My did I stick with film for so long? The reasoning was twofold - I couldn't get the hardware that I wanted to shoot with in digital and the black & white printing space in digital wasn't up to snuff yet. The media and ink-sets were either non-existent (paper) or too rudimentary (ink) to provide a tactile print that *I* like to make.

These two things finally changed in 2006/7 with the introduction of the Leica M8 digital camera and the Epson Ultrachrome ink-sets. The M8 is a wonderful camera - and the best part is it lets me use my Leica glass. The 1.3 crop factor is pretty easy to work around and those lenses....ah...those lenses. Yes, the M8 shutter is too loud. Yes, the white balance is random. Yes, you're limited to a usable range of up to 1250 ISO. But the files are nice and its a wonderfully small, unobtrusive camera to use. No wiz-bang goofball stuff, just a shutter speed dial, an aperture dial and Aperture priority when moving fast.

The Epson r2400 is a decent printer as well and I'm generally happy with the prints I get from this unit - that is when I'm not having head clogging and random lines appear in my prints. I just sent my almost-one-year-old printer back for an exchange because I think the printer head was damaged. The new one is working great so far. Kudos to Epson for being so straight up about it.

Now to the Canon part.

I've been shooting in a couple of ballet studios for a year now - a couple of documentary projects (here and here) on dancers and the experience of growing up in the dance world as centered around a local studio. Its been a lovely experience and I've grown exponentially as an artist shooting these lovely dancers as they go about their work. And until December of this year, I shot everything with my M8. Its a lovely camera, as I mentioned, and I've gotten some spectacular results. Consider, however, that the M8 is mostly a manual photographers camera - we're talking manual focus and lovely prime lenses. I've gotten really good at focusing on these dynamic subjects and exploiting the best that Leica lenses can offer. However, the camera isn't as fast as I'd like it. The buffer holds about 8-10 images before it starts to slow down, and I hit that wall all the time as I shoot. And sometimes I needed longer lenses (performances for example) that the Leica could offer.

So I decided that it was time to try the dark side. I've actually owned DSLRs for years (Nikon D70 and a Nikon D40) but they were always the lower end consumer cameras because I kept saying to myself that I couldn't justify a large outlay of money on them as I didn't like the experience of shooting them. But that put me in a catch 22 situation - the consumer level cameras are not up to the performance or quality of the pro counterparts and so of course I wasn't going to like using them or the results I got.

So finally I decided that the time had come for some long-reach lenses for performance work (sometimes I can't stand on the stage and shoot away). And maybe I'd give auto-focus a try. So when the Canon 40D hit the market and people were raving about it, the camera interested me. So I went for it. I bought a 40D and the kit 28-135 lens. I didn't like the kit lens much - it was too slow and not wide enough so it went back. Then I meandered thru the Canon lens offerings for days - excruciating really to see the twisted logic that compromises a zoom-lens range. Picking primes is easy. Add the crazy crop factor of the 40D (1.6x is much more troublesome than the 1.3 on the M8) and it took me awhile to decide.

Finally I bought an EF-S 17-55 2.8 and a EF 70-200 F4L. I had to send both my first 40D back and my 17-55 2.8 lens for quality issues. Anyone who complains about Leica quality with the M8 forgets that all manufacturers have issues with new products and Canon has had its fair share in the last year. The former had an erratic meter and the latter wasn't focusing properly.

What do I think, after putting about 4000 exposures on the 40D?

1. I miss my Leica glass. The L glass is close, and I certainly have *not* tried every canon lens, but I get consistently better results with my M8. Granted, this is a new camera and a new way of seeing, so I'm sure I'll get better, but the Leica still has the je ne sais quois that makes my pictures look and print better. I'll probably buy a prime or two for the Canon, but versatility is part of the draw and zooms give you that.
2. Auto-Focus - I had a lot of shots that were out of focus or not-focused where I'd like. Like I said, I'm really good at manual focus, and I found the 40D doing all kinds of goofy things. The 17-55 2.8 lens went back because I suspect it had IS or back focus issues and If found my keeper rate went *way* down with that lens. The L lens was much better, so lets hope the new lens is better.
3. I like rangefinders for their size, viewfinder and simplicity. I like the DSLR for raw performance (17 RAW images before it chokes - I can hardly get it to stall on me) and some of those extras that clutter the experience but can really add to your toolset when you master them.
4. Canon has better low light ISO performance, but the faster Leica primes make up for most of that. I can use 1600 ISO on the 40d with no issues. 3200 ISO was a bit too problematic. The Lecia will do 1250 ISO quite nicely with the latest firmware updates. Yes, I need to try Canon prime, fast glass, but I lose the versatility of a zoom.
5. Battery life is excellent on the 40d. It just goes on and on. The leica is certainly acceptable in this regard as well. I can get 600 easy on a battery.
6. CR2 is a pain. And converting to DNG as part of the Lightroom import is a time-consuming process. Sidecar files? Come on... And the 40d files are variable in size (unlike the M8 DNG's) so it eats up a lot more CF card space.
7. The canon is big and heavy. And my camera bag is now overflowing with stuff. Canon lenses are freaking huge. And heavy. I pity someone carrying a larger compliment of this stuff. But overall, the camera is comfortable to use and isn't getting in my way.
8. The 40D has some cool features (user programable dial settings), Auto ISO, sensor cleaning etc.
9. I still need to learn to use Auto-Focus more effectively. There are lots of different auto-focus modes/metering modes and I'm not really comfortable with any yet. I love the simple center-weighted, patch-focused predictability of the M8.
10. The 40D's shutter is much quieter than my M8. Sigh. I miss the shutter on the M6 - that quiet snip sound it made.
11. I'll probably buy the battery grip as I find I shoot more portrait than landscape. I like that the 40D can provide that versatility. I swear the 645 format is perfect for me looking at my shots for the past year.
12. The 40D's auto white balance is no better than the M8 - completely random and annoying. If I were a jpeg shooter, this would kill me.

Tags:Canon, Leica, Tech