Bump!

I've come down to earth.

A couple of days' playing with CJ's M8 a few weeks back, and the technical quality of the images I came home from Scotland with lured me into changing the item on the top of my photographic wishlist.

Then in a fit of "you're a long time dead" I employed the JFDI project methodology and bought a Leica M8 of my very own.

The lovely people at Ffordes supplied me with camera at a reasonable (all things being relative) price and provided excellent customer service. I would heartily recommend them as they were heartily recommended to me.

I've found the reaction of people to the camera slightly odd.

CJ smiles - well, it sounds like he smiles when he's chatting to me on the end of the phone, or in email. He was uneasy about my swift conversion (Saul, Damascus...you get the idea) from secondhand film Leica to brand new digi. He's a little concerned I'll hate it and lose money on the deal.

One professional photographer stopped mid-way through berating me for giving photographic services for free to a community interest company and said "is that a digital Leica?"

We then had a short but stilted exchanged about the build quality of digital cameras vs film cameras but I couldn't shake the feeling that he didn't think I was worthy of the camera in some way.

A couple of other people who know of the reputation of Leicas have sighed in a wistful fashion. Tonight, one friend got very excited when I told her I had it with me...she also found it intoxicating to use.

There have been hints of "stupid amount of money to spend on a camera" and "we are not worthy" in roughly equal measures.

I particularly like the studied indifference of one pal who merely asks if I used my "new toy" for a particular excursion.

There's a brand kudos around Leica that I'm not sure I like, to be honest. It's interesting to note that the M8.2 has a snapshot mode. The implication is that some people who want to own the camera will value such a feature.

I have to say, if you're not an enthusiastic photographer...and actually quite a serious one...this is a daft camera to choose.

There is no autofocus.
The auto white balance settings are rubbish - far, far worse than my Nikon D300 (apparently an outstanding firmware fix I ought to apply improves things with WB...but it still sucks)
There is no autofocus (I'll just say it again for effect).
The metering is just about adequate but it won't win any awards.
The sensor is quite an old design (I'm told it's Kodak) and has a "mere" 10.3MP
High ISO performance is OK but hardly cutting edge.

Using a rangefinder is a distinctly strange experience if you're used to an SLR.
It's perfectly possible to shoot shedloads of pictures blissfully unaware that you've got the lens cap on (hint: Have image review set on)
It's perfectly possible to shoot loads of pictures completely out of focus because you forgot or just got it really badly wrong (beware shooting anything with repeating patterns).

Ergonomically, the camera isn't cutting edge. It largely looks like every M-series Leica. Workmanlike design with few comforts.

So why on earth would anyone who isn't interested in brand showing spend so much money on a camera that does so little and punishes so much?

For me, one look at a RAW file off the camera is enough to do it.

Whether it's the lens, or the sensor, or the rendering of the file, or a bit of all these things, the files that come out of the camera are luscious.

By way of example, I've pushed three images up to iStock to see if they get accepted. I needed to do no noise reduction on them and yet all three images got accepted.

The framing of a shot where you can see not only the picture you're going to take (ish) but also a reasonable margin around it is very different to the induced tunnel vision of an SLR. Just now I'm not sure if it's a good, bad or indifferent thing but it's a marked change that requires concentration as I shoot.

I do know that I've NOT taken a number of pictures with the M8. That is to say, I've seen something I think will make a good photograph, put the camera to my eye and then decided against it.

There's also something less intrusive about the more slender design of the camera - this reduces the barrier between the photographer and human subject.

So is it "better" than the Nikon?

No. Not universally.

My gut feeling is that I might take some of my very best pictures with the M8 but also some of my very worst.

The Nikon is a more biddable beast. If you're not in the mood to work really hard, the D300 will probably deliver a larger percentage of perfectly nice pictures. But, I'm guessing, fewer that make me go "wow".

Am I happy with my camera?

Abso-bloody-lutely, I am. From the feel in my hands, to the fantastic rendering of the out of focus areas of a picture, I love it.

Is it the right camera for you?

How would I know that? I honestly didn't think it was the right one for me when I was standing in the road in the Highlands of Scotland failing to get the damned picture in focus, and (apparently) hunching awkwardly.

Would I like the camera less if it were more mass produced? I wouldn't give a damn as long as the build quality is as good as it is with mine. More of them around, cheaper? Bring it on.

Will it make me a better photographer? No. What will make me a better photographer is using a camera (almost any camera) more and assessing the results. Using a rangefinder may improve my ability to see better pictures - but only if I get out there and use it.

So, I'd better get out and use it, hadn't I?