These days it's easy to get caught up in bells and whistles when it comes to photography gear. Modern digital cameras have hundreds of features regarding things like face detection, white balance, focus tracking, video modes, image stabilization, etc. It's easy to see why a photography hobby can quickly turn into an unhealthy gear obsession; one that not only eats away at your bank account, but also distracts from why you want the darned things to begin with... that is: actually taking photos.

Not to throw rocks in a glass house, I'm totally guilty of this myself. Just poking around this site you'll see that most of the cameras I've been showcasing are not exactly the most wallet-friendly cameras around. And the size of my camera collection is more than any one person could actually need.

That said, there is one camera that I'm sure I'll never sell. It's not fancy or expensive, it doesn't have many features, and it will never go out of style because – let's face it – it was never there to begin with.

The camera I'm talking about is, of course, the Holga.

The thing that's lovely about the Holga is not that it has any impressive features, but the exact opposite, that it doesn't have any. The real beauty of the Holga lies in its simplicity.

For many people who are used to digital cameras or even – gasp!– phones, the idea of shooting with an analog camera can be somewhat intimidating. Sure you can buy an auto exposure and auto focus analog camera, but those cameras tend to be either unreliable or overpriced (these days). And even with many of these cameras there's no escaping the need to learn about apertures and shutter speeds and the like. For those who are serious about making the dive into shooting film, it's often inevitable that these concepts are learned, but there are some cameras that allow you to enjoy the joy of analog photography without needing to worry about the nitty gritty details.

Enter Holga. Here you have a camera that, on the one hand, takes medium format film (usually reserved for professional cameras) and is fully manual, and on the other hand has a plastic lens, a single shutter speed, and aperture settings named after the weather.

On paper, this sounds like total crap, right? Heck, even looking at the camera doesn't help to improve this impression. However, there's something magical that happens when you combine the huge 120 film negative with that plastic lens and the unbounded creativity of a photographer who is not bogged down by thoughts of technical exposure details. Back in the old golden days of Flickr, it was these dreamy square images that first got me hooked on analog photography.

So how simple is the Holga to use, really? Well, like with most cameras, you'll find settings for shutter speed, aperture, and focusing, but unlike most cameras, you really only have a few options when it comes to settings.

On the bottom of the camera are the shutter speed settings. Here you can select either N or B. N stands for normal while B is for bulb. On normal setting, the shutter speed is somewhere around 1/125th of a second. It's an estimate because it's controlled by a spring that may vary in tension from camera to camera.

On the bulb setting, the shutter stays open as long as you hold it open. This allows for long exposures. The real trick here is to remember to set the camera back to N after using it on B. This is not always an easy thing because the settings are on the bottom of the camera and if you forget you'll only find out when you get your film back that all your photos are a blurry mess.

Personally, I just avoid the bulb setting altogether. I find it's a lot more fun to use multiple exposures when you need to get more light into the exposure. This is another great trick of the Holga. A completely uncoupled and fully manual film advance system (aka the clicky advance knob) means that you can layer as many exposures on top of each other as your heart desires. Great for fun experiments with composition and also for getting multiple flash shots (and in multiple colors if you so desire) into one exposure.

When it comes to aperture settings, there's also only a couple of options. You can choose either sunny setting or cloudy setting. Supposedly this is the equivalent of f11 and f8 respectively. Personally, I have never even used the sunny setting and if you really want to simplify things you can do the same.

So when all is said and done, you can fully use this camera by setting the shutter to N and the aperture to cloudy and then completely forgetting about them. Then, throw in some 400iso film and you're good to go. If you go out shooting in daylight, you won't need the flash and if want to take photos at night, then do use the flash.

Then it's just to remember to set your focus, as the viewfinder does not show you what is in focus. This is just to guess your focus based on your scene. Use the focus estimates on the lens and you're good to go. Having such a large depth of focus, thanks to the small aperture lens, gives you a good amount of wiggle room here.

Of course the most important thing to remember before you go out shooting with the Holga, TAKE THE LENS CAP OFF! Or as many Holga enthusiasts say, just throw the darned lens cap away. If you forget this one critical step, it easy to go through a full 12 exposure roll of film and only find out after paying for developing costs that you got a blank roll of film. Take off the lens cap!

All in all, Holga is a camera that really just gets out of your way and allows you to focus on what's really important. Taking the photo. If you want to dive into the world of analog photography but you don't want to spend a ton of money on a pricey camera or delve into the complexities of calculating shutter speeds, apertures, or depth of field, Holga might be a great starting place for you.

Meanwhile, a seasoned photographer may find the Holga to be a welcome respite from endless camera features and gear acquisition syndrome. There's something to be said for a camera that just does one thing and does it well... or at least adequately.... most of the time.

So take Holga for a spin and you might just be surprised with the results you can get from a 120 film roll, a plastic lens, a multicolored flash, and your imagination.

Here's a few tips and tricks for how to get the most out of your Holga:

1. Don't be afraid to experiment. Take multiple exposures, turn the camera sideways and upside down, use the color flash, try bulb (but remember to set it back when you're done!). Surprise yourself!

2. Use tape if you need. The Holgas have notoriously bad quality control and some models leak light like a sieve. Get some black electrical tape or duct tape and tape up all the leaky bits. The tape just adds to the charm!

3. Try putting 35mm film into the Holga. There are plenty of guides online about how to build your own 35mm conversion kit for the Holga. This will give you fun results because the 35mm exposure will be extra wide and exposed over the sprocket holes. Fun!

If you want to see me rambling on about why Holga is one of my favorite cameras, check out my Youtube video on the topic:

How much does it matter what camera you use? The popular saying is that the best camera is the one that you have with you, but I think that some cameras are more likely to tempt you to carry them around than others. The Leica M series of rangefinder cameras are indeed very tempting. That said, the body of a camera has little to do with the quality of images you produce. Even less so when you are comparing different 35mm film camera bodies. While Leica glass is superb, Nikon, Canon, Zeiss, Voigtlander all make great lenses too. In fact, many Leica shooters don't even use Leica lenses.

So what makes someone pay $1000+++ for a Leica film camera over say a $100-200 Nikon or Canon camera? For some it's the prestige or excitement of collecting the most premium possible cameras. For me, I guess it comes down to the shooting experience. I enjoy the rangefinder shooting experience. It suits my style of photography. I like that you can see the space around the frame of what you're photographing. I focus more comfortably with a rangefinder than an SLR for the focal lengths I use the most (25mm, 35mm, 50mm). And let's not forget the satisfying sound of that Leica cloth shutter. The Leica badge, besides being a status symbol (to the frustration of many Leica shooters), is also a sign of quality. When you buy a Leica camera you know that the level of care and craftsmanship put into the producion of your instrument is above and beyond what went into production of mass market SLRs made in Japanese factories. Okay, that last part is arguable, but it's undeniable that you feel something when picking up a Leica camera that just isn't there with other brands. At least that's how it is for me. And while that doesn't automatically make them the best cameras, it's something. It's also nice to shoot with a camera produced by a company that has steadfastly continued to produce film cameras well into the digital age, despite the exorbitant prices to purchase them new.

But now, let's take a step back. Assuming we're on the same page rangefinders and Leicas for a minute. If you're in the market for a Leica rangefinder camera you're faced with a number of options, most of them starting with the letter M, but it's not always easy to tell what the differences are and why you should buy one Leica M as opposed to another one.

When I first decided to get a Leica rangefinder, I landed on the Leica M4-P. Initially it was a matter of convenience, somebody was selling one locally for a reasonable price. I did a bit of research but ultimately purchased it rather quickly as things tend to sell fast when they are a decent price. This was the camera that got me into Leica cameras and can really be blamed for my subsequent purchase of 4 other Leicas as well as a set of lenses for the Leica M mount. So far I have no regrets.

The Leica M4-P falls somewhere between the Leica M4 and the Leica M6 in that it's styled similarly to the more modern Leicas with the two part film advance, the 'quick load' film loading system (that I actually find to be slower than the older system), the same framelines as the M6, the .72 viewfinder that has become the most standard for the Leica M6 onward, etc.
I shot the Leica M4-P for about a year and was quite satisfied with it, but at the same time I couldn't help but wonder if this other, almost mystical M6 that everybody always talked about was really the ultimate Leica rangefinder while mine was just a second rate knock off made in Canada. Initially, I resisted the temptation of the GAS (gear acquisition syndrome) and went on happily shooting the M4-P, but when I saw a minty Leica M6 Titanium pop up in my feed of local cameras for sale for a quite reasonable price, I couldn't resist and bought it.

Now while Leica M cameras are nice, they are pricey enough that I can't exactly justify having 3 (already owning an M3 as well as the M4-P and then M6) so I committed myself to selling one. The M3 I bought on a whim as and I'm keeping as a project camera as it was purchased for about $200, but is in need of some repair.
That leaves the M4-P and the M6. One would stay and one would be sold. The good thing about these cameras is that they hold their value quite well, at least as long as film is still readily available.

So now that I had both cameras in my possession, it was time to figure out what the differences really were so I could inevitably choose which one to part ways with.

The biggest and most noticable difference between the Leica M6 and the M4-P is the simple fact that the M6 has a light meter while the Leica M4-P doesn't.

When push comes to shove, there are really very few actual differences between the M4-P and the M6 and of these, almost all are strictly aesthetic. It's also worth mentioning that the M6 has been produced in various types from 1984 to 2002. The one I have seems to have been produced in 1992 according to the serial number, so other versions of the M6 could have some slight differences as well.

The biggest and most noticable difference between the Leica M6 and the M4-P is the simple fact that the M6 has a light meter while the Leica M4-P doesn't. This is literally the one single practical difference between these two cameras and in Leica terms that means the difference in price from about $650-850 for a used M4-P to about $1000-1500 for a used M6. If you really want an M6 but can only afford an M4-P or you want an M6 because everyone talks about it but you don't need or want a built in light meter, getting an M4-P is a perfectly fine solution.

There are, of course, other minor differences. For starters, the Leica M4-P has a vulcanite (ebonite) grip which is basically very hard grippy rubber and seems like it would be difficult to replace, but has held up quite well on my camera. The Leica M6 has many different editions but it seems that the vanilla M6 has a leather or leatherette covering. The Leica M6 Titanium that I have has a kind of patterned leather which I've seen referred to as buffalo, emu, or ostrich from various sources, but I think that only refers to the pattern. It's nice with the leather, but I stressed less about getting the vulcanite dirty or scuffed.

Other differences:

• The ISO selector on the M6 is used for telling the light meter which film you have. On the M4-P you have a picture of a film selector. Not sure why there's a picture really, maybe so you can remember what film speeds exist and wonder which one is in your camera? Both ISO selectors are cheaper looking and feeling than the one on the M3, but that's another story.

• The M4-P includes a flash sync port for both electronic flashes (X) and flashbulbs (M), while the M6 has dropped the flash bulb port. I doubt anybody missed that one (not like the headphone jacks on smartphones).

• The shutter speed dial on the M4-P is metal and a bit stiff to turn, pretty much the same dial as on the M3, whereas the shutter speed selector on the M6 is plasicky and easier to turn. It looks just like a smaller version of the one found on the digital M cameras. Note: this may vary based on M6 production year. Also, the M6 TTL (latest M6 Model) eventually got a bigger shutter selecter just like the one on the digital M cameras.

• The viewfinder on the M6 is flush to the body, while the one on the M4-P is a bit inset. The viewfinders themselves don't seem to be much different, if at all. I have the .72 version of the M6 which matches the one in the M4-P, although I find that the rangefinder patch actually tends to flare out more on the M6 for some reason.

• They have different threading for the shutter release cable or soft release button. No idea why, but now I have to buy another soft release button.

Other than that, there are only cosmetic differences that can be seen in the photos and probably make no differences except to the most extreme of Leicanauts.

Similarities:

• 99% of the body design.
• The shutters are the same cloth shutter with the same speeds of 1 second up to 1/1000 of a second plus bulb.
• The viewfinders are pretty much the same (the M4-P only lacking lightmeter readout).
• They both use the more modern 'quick load' film spooling system.
• Both cameras have the two part elbowed film advance lever.
• And most importantly of all: they both take the same lenses and essentially take the same photos as long as you don't totally mess up shooting without a built in meter.

Conclusion:

In the end, I decided to keep the Leica M6 and I'll be selling the M4-P. The main reason for my decision was the same reason I bought the M6 in the first place, while I don't mind shooting without a meter in almost every situation, there are just those certain occasions while shooting in difficult lighting that I don't want to have to think too hard over my settings or risk getting the wrong exposure. For me it was worth the price of the upgrade for the built-in meter.

The M4-P is a great camera that really embodies everything I have come to appreciate about the Leica brand. It sits in a nice place in the Leica lineup, finding a balance between the oldest M3 and the newer M6. For someone looking to get into rangefinder photography or to get a Leica for the first time, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the M4-P. In fact, of all the Leica camera's I've tried, I think I would recommend it the most to a new Leica shooter, basically over the M6 because of the price (and it can be relatively easily sold and to upgrade later), and over the M3 because of the wider viewfinder with support for 35mm lenses. In the year or so that I had the M4-P, it was easily my most used 35mm film camera. I'm hoping the same will be true of the M6 in the years to come.

You can also see a slightly rambling version in video format on my Youtube: Here.

Introduction

I came to the Leica T for rather unconventional reasons. For many, the T system is an introduction to the Leica brand or perhaps an upgrade from the Leica X series with the perk of interchangeable lenses. For me, though, it was a way to test out the chops of a Leica CMOS sensor. After shooting the Leica M8.2 for a while I wondered what my eventual upgrade plan would be. The M9 is the only fullframe digital M that has the Kodak CCD sensor (which the M8 has in a crop format). Alternatively, there's the M type 240 which sports a 24MP CMOS sensor and sells for almost the same price as an M9. Yes there's also the new Leica M10, and maybe by the time I do eventually upgrade I'll be able to even think about affording it. In the meantime, it's not really on my radar.

[This camera is thin like a Leica M on a diet.]

The M9 has an 18 megapixel sensor, which for most intents and purposes is quite fine. I know with the M9 I'll get the same look and quality that I get on the M8 only fullframe. It sounds perfect on paper, but the M9 unfortunately suffered from an issue with the sensor that caused it to corrode in certain conditions. The issue has been acknowledged by Leica and they offered a free sensor replacement program for some time, which they unfortuately have now discontinued in Q3 2017. All M9s with sensors replaced after 2015 as far as I know have gotten a sensor that is cured of any possibility of corrosion, however any of the M9s with sensors older than that could potentially be ticking timebombs. Leica has never released statistics over how widespread the problem was on the originals. But me, being a cautious kind of guy, I have a hard time shelling out almost $2k for a camera that may need a $1k sensor replacement at any moment. On the other hand, there are plenty of used M9s available with the 'cured' sensor, however these models fetch prices almost the same as those of the newer, beefier M240. Sure the M9 and its CCD sensor has a respectable cult following, but the CMOS sensor of the M240 has its perks as well. Better low light capabilities, more megapixels, and video functionality, are the ones that stand out to me. And I've always been rather skeptical of the CCD vs CMOS debate as I'm convinced the color rendition and other debateable qualities have a lot to do with the image processing software built into the camera firmware. This is why Canon has a look, Nikon has a look, and Sony has a look, despite all using Sony CMOS sensors.

[RAW image converted to jpeg. Unedited.]

Enter the Leica T. I picked up this camera never intending to make it my main camera system by any means. Instead, it was a test bunny. I would pair it with my M-mount glass (Leica, Voigtlander, Zeiss) and see how these lenses rendered on a CMOS sensor in a Leica camera. The reason I picked the T was because after a mediocre reception and eventually the announcement of the TL2, used Leica T bodies began selling for very low prices and I managed to scoop one up for about $540 in the local classifieds. By comparison, Sony a6000's with a kit lens sell for about the same prices in the very same classifieds. It was an opportunity I didn't feel like passing up.

So, with that out of the way, on to the review!

Review

Build Quality / Ergonomics

I guess most people interested in the Leica T have seen some form of the commercial where they are grinding down the single block of aluminum into what will become the body of a new T. If not, it's on Youtube. In any case, the design is what really caught the media and general public's attention. It's slick, smooth, gorgeous and designed by Audi Design. Clearly, Leica wanted to make a statement with their foray into APS-C cameras and with it's release the Leica T most definitely made waves.

So how does all that marketing mumbo jumbo translate into actual real world usage?

Holding the camera, you can tell right away you're holding a luxury item. The brushed aluminum body is smooth but not slippery. The grip is pronounced, but not obtrusive. Everything feels like it is just where it should be and (apart from the pop-out flash and the memory card door) feels very high quality.

To use the camera feels very natural and it seems to fit perfectly in my hands. The screen is large and generally easy to see in daylight and although a tilting screen would have been nice, the lack of a hinge only adds to the camera's solid feel.

Overall, it is a very pleasing photographic tool to hold and feels very suited to bring along on daily excursions or urban adventures.
If I have to gripe about something regarding the ergonomics of this camera, it's the lack of a thumbrest, which thanks to the huge screen leads to your thumb sometimes accidentally resting on and activating the touchscreen, but if I'm being honest, I've never been a fan of touchscreens on cameras, finding them to be more of an annoyance than a perk.

[Shot with 35mm Summarit. Missed the focus slightly.]

User Experience

Where things start to fall apart for me is the experience of actually shooting photos with the Leica T.

BIG DISCLAIMER: In case you skipped the introduction, I only tested the Leica T using adapted Leica M mount lenses. I have no idea if my gripes with this camera exist or are relevant when shooting with the native Leica T (S mount?) lenses.

Using manual focus lenses on digital cameras has seen a huge surge in popularity in recent years as mirrorless cameras have made it possible to use rangefinder lenses (which tend to be a fair bit more compact than their SLR counterparts) with relatively small adapters. With that in mind, I expected that the Leica T would be the perfect APS-C mirroroless camera to adapt my growing collection of M-mount glass to.

I was expecting the lack of focus peaking to cause difficulties getting the correct focus, but actually that turned out not to be a problem at all. When focusing, there is almost a crisp shimmer type effect when something is in focus. It's a bit subtle, but it helps. The screen itself is large and sharp and focusing manually is possible with relative ease. Overall, I think I nailed focus 70-80% of the time, which is about the same as when I use focus peaking on the Sony Alpha cameras. And like the Sony Alphas, the Leica T offers a focus magnification feature which can be easily programmed to one of the two function wheels.

[Nailing the shallow focus. 35mm Summarit.]

[Shallow focus in low light. 35mm Voigtlander Nokton Classic.]

The camera sports a large touchscreen that looks as big as an iPhone 5 screen. The menu system that comes along with the touchscreen is like a breath of fresh air to those coming from Sony, Canon (and probably others) labyrinthian menus built into menus. The Leica T has one quick menu where you can add all your favorite menu options, and then one deeper menu with all the rest of the options. Neither menu is cluttered, in fact, seeing how few options are really needed to be in a menu I wonder how other brands can manage to pack to many options in without really feeling like they provide any additional functionality. The screen and the menu are both a win for me, which is even more surprising because I normally find touchscreens on cameras to be a gimmick and more of an annoyance than a feature.

[The T has a giant screen.]

Unfortunately, things started to fall apart for me when I went out and started taking photos with the Leica T and my manual focus glass. The main issue ended up being linked to a funcion called auto-review. This is the feature that will automatically play back the image you just took for a set period of time before going back to the live view mode. This is a common feature on most every camera and not something I've ever really though about until the Leica T. Here's the thing, when using manual focus lenses on the Leica T, no matter what option you choose for the auto-review setting (even none) the camera will always display the photo you just took for usually about 3 seconds, but sometimes up to 5+ seconds. Most digital cameras have this feature on by default and it's usually not irritating in the least because when you press the shutter button halfway down on every other digital camera I've ever used it will go immediately back into shooting mode. With the Leica T half pressing the shutter during the auto-review does nothing. In fact, in my tests it seems to prolong the duration of the review image being displayed. If you fully depress the shutter button a few times during the auto-review it will eventually take another photo, but this is not ideal as you'll be unable to focus with the screen stuck reviewing the last photo. I don't consider myself a speed shooter by any means, but while taking test photos I consistently felt myself getting frustrated by the extended shutter blackout between each photo. Any attempt to photograph a moving subject quickly became a test of patience as I was confined to shooting about 1 shot per every 3ish seconds.

Doing some quick googling to see if there was a way around this (or even a new firmware update) everything I found pointed to this being a bug in the manual focusing functionality. From what I read, even manually focusing the Leica T lenses suffers the same issue. Apparently it is the autofocus system that tells the camera to return to live view mode. Granted, this camera is clearly not geared toward the legacy lens users, but instead meant to appeal to a newer and younger generation of potential Leica shooters, raised on smartphones who expect to tap-to-focus instead of twisting some lens barrel. But I have to admit, when I saw the Leica M to T adapter being sold, I had higher hopes for the camera as a manual focus shooter.

If this is something you can live with, or if you have no intention of manually focusing with the Leica T, then it is by all means a great and very functional camera. However for me, and I would guess most users who intend to shoot with their Leica M glass, this irritation is enough to be a deal breaker. And considering the age of the camera and the newer models Leica has to focus on, I doubt this will be addressed in any future firmware releases.

Image Quality

As I mentioned earlier, one of my main reasons for being interested in the Leica T was as a means to test the chops of a Leica camera with a CMOS sensor. In this regard, the T was a great performer.

[Shot with Zeiss 25mm f2.8.]

As with the Leica M8, I wasn't incredibly impressed with the JPEG performance, finding the normal colors to be a bit bland and the vivid color profile to be a bit too much. However, the RAW files produced by the Leica T are pretty fantastic.

[Shot on Normal jpeg color profile.]

[RAW shot converted to jpeg. Unedited.]

[Shot on Vivid color profile.]

[RAW image converted to jpeg. Unedited.]

Of course, colors can be edited, but less editing required the better, in my book. And if you do intend to post process, it's always better to have a more pleasant starting point.

Compared to the M8, the colors feel a bit more vivid on the T, while the cripness and pleasing tones are on par. The ISO performance of the T is noticeably better than the M8, as was to be expected for a camera released 6 years later. It seems that ISO 3200 in the T provides a similar amount of grain as ISO 1200 on the M8. That said, the Leica T is still behind most other brands when it comes to ISO performance.

[ISO 800 displays pleasant grain in my opinion.]

[ISO 6400 shows pretty extreme grain. It seems Leica has chosen to allow grain and retain detail instead of applying heavy noise reduction and smearing detail as many other manufacturers do.]

Still, photos shot from ISO 100 up to 1600 are very usable. The photos taken at 100 - 200 being incredibly crisp and sharp thanks to the lack of built in Anti-Aliasing filter.

[Shot on Minolta 40mm Rokkor.]

While the price of the Leica T new should force it to be compared to cameras like the Sony A7 and A7ii which would give it pretty stiff competition, the amount that the the Leica T sells for used these days put it in a category closer to the Sony A6000 or the Canon EOS M6. These cameras are great in their own regard, but the Leica T does to my eye provide a more pleasant image straight out of the camera at ISOs under 1600.

[Shot on 35mm Summarit. RAW image converted to jpeg. Unedited.]

Conclusion

The Leica T is a very interesting and beautiful camera that seems like it was made with a very specific purpose. Unfortunately for this review, that purpose is not taking photos with manual focus Leica glass. While the camera sports a wonderful design, a splendidly simple and customizeable menu, and takes really quite nice photos, its use for this reviewer is crippled by a single achilles heel of a flaw which could (but probably won't) be fixed with a firmware update.

That said, after using the Leica T, I do feel more confident in the ability of the Leica M 240 to be a suitiable replacement one day for my Leica M8.2. While I'm not in a hurry to give up my M8, I at least don't feel like I have to cling to the old CCD cameras like a fanatic when the time does come for an upgrade.

Below is my video review where I go through much of what I touched upon in this post. You can also see examples of the Auto-Review bug in action. Cheers!

This holiday season, I spent a week visiting my family in New England, which somehow ended up being colder than Norway! Luckily I was fortunate enough to be able to spend the next week in Los Angeles. Staying mostly in Venice Beach and Santa Monica, it was hard not to catch some of the laid back California vibes while enjoying the 25 Celsius and sunny weather in January. For the trip I brought the Contax T2 as my main shooter. The day before flying back to Norway I decided to do a quick video around the Santa Monica boardwalk putting the little workhorse through the paces.

The following video is one roll of film, shot start to finish in Santa Monica with the Contax T2. The film used was your average drugstore Fuji Superia 200 speed (24 exposures). The only rule was to photograph anything that caught my eye and not hold back.

Here are all the photos viewed larger. I had them developed and scanned at Oslo Foto and didn't apply any further post processing.

Took the Leica M8.2 on a trip to Lisbon, Portugal and got to do some street shooting.

Here's the photos featured in the video:

When I was just getting started in photography around age 13 or 14, I had a point and shoot camera (produced by Gateway if you can imagine) because it was the only camera I could afford. At the time I had the distinct feeling that real photographers only used huge cameras and the bigger your camera the more credibility you'd have. But now that I'm older and can afford the bigger and fancier cameras I realize that the cameras I enjoy shooting with the most are the ones small enough to carry around all day without being miserable. Many professional photographers in the 90's and early 00's felt the same way, so camera companies began producing small pocketable film cameras with high quality lenses capable of rivaling the image quality of huge pro film SLRs of the day. Most of the more modern film point and shoots include features like exposure compensation, built-in flash, and surprisingly accurate autofocus. The more advanced ones even include different shooting modes allowing you to adjust metering and focusing styles.

While the top point and shoot digital cameras available today have sensors up to APS-C size, the top point and shoots of the 90's and early 00's are all full frame (being film and all). And while you can easily spend upwards of $500 on a popular point and shoot like the Contax T2, it's also possible to get less sought after cameras for $5-30 which still are capable of some great results.

There's a reason why a medium like film which is technologically obsolete compared to today's modern cameras, is still being used by professionals and enthusiasts alike. Images shot on film not only have a unique look, but they also have an organic physical texture due to the nature of the light sensitive crystals that produce the picture. Films both high and low quality produce some very pleasant color tones that are both flattering for portraits and punchy in landscape and urban photos. I find that shooting film is an easy way to acheive desirable results with the least amount of post processing required. In most cases, I don't need to do any editing at all beyond basic cropping and removing dust (if I have scanned the film at home). Even casual photos hanging out with friends which would just be throw away photos if taken on a digital point and shoot or cellphone camera, can look surprisingly awesome and even artistic when shot on film.

In fact, the popularity of the point and shoot film look can be traced back to professional photographers like Terry Richardson who notoriously showed up to professional shoots with nothing but his trusty Yashica T4 (causing the prices of those cameras to skyrocket on eBay). He made his name shooting in the amateur point and shoot style with direct flash that has been endlessly copied to the point that it's just normal now. Think American Apparel ads. And there's a reason why this works so well with film. The way film creates an exposure is the opposite of digital in that the more light that reaches the film during the exposure the more detail the images gets, so it's easier to pull detail from overexposed film than when it's underexposed (the opposite is true in digital photography). And also, cellphone cameras and most digital point and shoots with their tiny sensors have a hard time capturing detail in highlights and shadow. Having a bigger sensor or film increases the amount of highlight and shadow detail you can capture-- also called latitude.

These days, when many people talk about the importance of sensor size, it's almost funny to think you can get the 'full frame' quality in a $5 point and shoot camera that your grandma was about to throw away. While the gearhead enthusiasts are queueing up to get the latest and greatest mirrorless cameras each year, shooting film allows you to relax and keep using the same camera that was awesome 10, 20, 30, or more years ago. Though, admittedly, once you start shooting film, it can be addicting to buy more and more film cameras too. More on that in another post.

Here are my top 5 film point and shoot cameras. There are tons more that give awesome results, but these are the ones that are currently on my shelf. I'll eventually write individual posts with more detail on each one.

Contax T2

Ricoh GR1s

Olympus Epic Stylus (MjuII)

Olympus XA-2

Rollei 35

Bonus: Lomo LC-A

Do you have a favorite point and shoot film camera? Let me know in the comments!

Introduction

We live in an amazing time. The technology that we have grown accustomed to having in our pockets and using on a daily basis is light years ahead of the greatest supercomputers that were around when the Leica M6 was released. And while the Leica M6 is still a great camera today because it relies on chemistry rather than computing power to produce its imagery, it can be difficult to argue for the relevance of old digital cameras due to the sheer speed at which digital imaging technology is advancing. At the same time, one must ask, is it really necessary for Sony to release a new APS-C mirrorless body every single year with only minor improvements over the previous model? The excitement of being on the cutting edge of digital imaging is bittersweet, because it comes with the knowledge that in six months time, there will be something at least slightly greater to tempt you to open your wallet yet again. While today's digital cameras can outpace those of the early aughts in every regard, should photographers be any less satisfied with the photos they took during that time? Every digital photo shot by professionals 10 years ago was created using a camera that is technologically less capable than what most advanced amateurs shoot with today. However the professional mediums have changed very little. Magazines are still printed the same size. The internet, which is certainly the most popular way to distribute images, is usually where images are displayed at their lowest resolution anyway. In other words, the satisfaction you feel towards your gear is largely a game of comparisons. It was with this mindset that I found myself becoming interested in the luxury cameras of the past.

[Shot with Voigtlander 35mm Nokton f1.4. Color and contrast adjusted in Lightroom]

The camera I'm going to review today--the Leica M8.2--was released in 2008, nearly 10 years ago. It is only a minor improvement over the M8 from 2006, and uses the same sensor and processor. If it was a film camera, that would make it relatively young, but in digital terms, it is a dinosaur. 2008 is the same year that Canon released the 5D mark2 and Panasonic released the G1. At the time of release, the Leica M8.2 retailed for $5,995. These days it or its M8 brother can be had on the used market for around $1,000. That puts it in the price range of advanced amateur cameras like APS-C DSLRs or last generation full frame DSLRs like the Canon 6D or the mirrorless full frame Sony A7. While it definitely has trouble keeping up with those cameras in terms of features, megapixels, and ISO performance, it surprisingly holds its own in terms of image quality and user experience. Let's take a closer look.

Features

Plain and simple, there are none. To some, like me, this is actually a feature. The Leica M8.2 does one thing and one thing only, it takes photos (and it takes photos well). That's it. Nothing else. Because of this, there are no extraneous buttons, dials, knobs, etc. There are only the controls required to take photos and set your settings. There are two menus: a shooting menu and a settings menu. Both are easy to navigate with no confusing options and no pages to scroll through. There are physical controls for shutter speed and aperture (on the lens), and a screen and a few buttons on the back. You have aperture priority mode and manual mode. Focus is always manual. That's it, and that's awesome.

Aesthetics and User Experience

This is the main reason I initially became interested in the Leica M range of cameras. My Sony A7ii left me feeling disconnected from my photography. The process of shooting with the A7 is either too automated or too frustrating when attempting manual controls. I was tired of the infinite menus, the missed autofocus, the imprecise focus peaking, and the awful battery life.

Enter the Leica M8.2. As far as shooting experience goes, this camera was just what the doctor ordered. It's as close to shooting film as I can imagine a digital shooting experience could ever be. It is essentially, a Leica M film camera with a digital sensor slapped in where the film should go and a screen glued on the back. This concept of digitizing a film camera was one of my dreams when I first began shooting film in 2007 with my old Zorki 4. The allure of this style still appeals to me today.

Viewfinder

The viewfinder on the M8.2 is one of my favorite things about it. It's brighter and more clear than the viewfinder on my M4-P or any of my film SLRs. The frame lines are also very bright and for those who are not used to the Leica or rangefinder style of shooting, you'll be pleasantly surprised with how easy it is to achieve accurate manual focus every time. The viewfinder also displays the shutter speed in red digital clock style. Very retro!

[iPhone photo through the viewfinder doesn't do it justice, but gives some idea of how it looks.]

Body

The body is a bit chunkier than the film Leica Ms. I always forget this when shooting the M8.2, but as soon as I pick up the M4-P, I immediately notice the difference. The M4-P feels like the same camera after a diet. However when you look at the digital cameras it was competing with when it was released, it was easily the thinnest and lightest of the bunch. Even today, it's about the same size and weight as my A7ii.

The black M8.2 has a dark Leica logo which is a plus and the gets the nice brassing look as the paint wears, just like the old film bodies. The reason for that being it's actually made of brass. No plastic bits here.

On the downside, the body can be a bit slippery without an added grip. The one I use is a thumbs up grip that came along when I got the camera, and it's great as long as you don't need to use a flash (it occupies the hotshoe). You can also get a full-on hand grip, but unfortunately the prices of Leica accessories even for old cameras is still a bit high for what you get.

Another odd note, the SD card and battery are only accessible by removing the bottom plate. This is made to imitate the bottom plate of film Leicas, but on a digital camera it feels a bit odd to have to do this. It doesn't bother me, but feels unnecessary.

Shutter

Normally not something I would write about or even think about, however, Leica film cameras are renowned for their nearly silent cloth shutters. Street photographers often flock to Leica M cameras for the ability to shoot without being noticed. This feature is gone from the digital Leicas.
Having poured over numerous reviews of the Leica M8 and M8.2, the shutter was something that came up as a regular point of complaint. In fact, the shutter is one of the main differences between the M8 and the M8.2. I can't speak for the M8 as I haven't had the chance to use one, but I actually find the shutter sound on the M8.2 to be very pleasant. Similar, in a way, to point and shoot film cameras of the 90's. Click - whirr! But still, maybe not everyone's cup of tea.

[Shot with Voigtlander 35mm Nokton f1.4. RAW converted to black and white in Lightroom]

Overall User Experience

Overall the Leica M8.2 is a pleasure to hold and to use. It won't weigh you down and is designed to totally get out of your way and let you shoot. The simplicity that draws fans to Leica film cameras is retained in the digital realm and in some ways is even improved upon. Coming from modern DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras, shooting a Leica M8.2 is almost like meditation.

If you are the type of photographer who often shoots with manual focus and manual settings and are frustrated by how difficult most digital cameras make it to do this, the Leica M8.2 was created for you.
If you are the type of photographer who puts your camera into P-mode and never sets another thing, steer clear!

Maybe I should rename this review Leica M8 - A Digital Camera Review by a Hipster Who's Tired of Digital Cameras ;)

Image Quality

This is the aspect of the camera that is most affected by the passing years. It is what will draw some people to the camera and, at the same time, will ultimately turn many people off to it. I'll first describe my impressions of the images this camera creates. Then I will address the three main weak points of the 12 year old sensor that produces these images.

First Impression

I have been shooting the Leica M8.2 for about a month straight now as my main daily use camera. I've taken it on a couple of weekend trips as well as some walkabouts around Oslo.
From the first images I've taken with the M8.2, I was struck by the clarity, sharpness, and color rendition this camera is capable of. I'll preface the rest of this section with a note on the lenses I've shot with and settings I've chosen. The photos in this review are taken with the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 Nokton Single Coated lens, the Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 Nokton, and the Minolta M-Rokkor 40mm f2. I've shot almost exclusively in RAW which is hard to argue against as the raw images are merely 10mb each. Almost all the photos are shot at 160 ISO.

The Good

Crisp, sharp images

The Leica M8 was one of the earliest interchangeable lens cameras to omit the optical low pass filter, also called anti-aliasing filter. What this equates to in practical terms is a sharper and more crisp image at the risk that you will suffer aliasing and moire. What the anti-aliasing filter essentially does is purposely blur the image a tiny bit. More and more cameras these days are removing the AA filters because photographers tend to prefer a sharper image and don't mind risking the moire. The lack of AA filter is what separates the Canon 5DsR from the 5Ds and one of the factors separating the Sony A7r from the plain A7.
When I look at my photos taken on the Sony A7ii, they look sharp, but as soon as it put it next to photos shot on the M8.2 they suddenly look fuzzier. Especially when comparing photos taken with the same Voigtlander lens.

[Shot with Voigtlander 50mm Nokton f1.5.]

[Shot with Minolta M-Rokkor 40mm f2. RAW converted to black and white in Lightroom]

[Shot with Voigtlander 35mm Nokton f1.4. Color and contrast adjusted in Lightroom]

[Over 100% crop!]

Color Rendition

The Kodak CCD sensors that are found in the Leica M8, M8.2, and M9 are renowned for their pleasing colors. Many photographers liken the colors from the Leica M8/M9 to being the closest to film that digital has gotten. What this means to someone like me in today's world is less time required in Photoshop or Lightroom to get an image how I want it. For me this is a huge plus and a step towards bringing the digital shooting experience closer to the film shooting experience, although I admit I still don't find the untouched images as pleasant as film and am often tempted to do some tweaking in post. The Leica look is pleasing, but to my eyes, still looks like digital when taken straight from the camera. Still, the amount I have to tweak is less than I'm used to to create a look I'm happy with. Of course, all of this comes down to personal preferences and every major brand has fans of their individual color profiles.

The CCD sensors were a hit with many Leica fans and there was even a point where Leica shooters, disappointed with the CMOS sensors of the newer Leica M typ240 (despite its much improved high ISO performance), created a petition to Leica to return to CCD sensors. Leica, of course, did not do that and thus the rather unique CCD look is part of what helps these older Leica Ms remain relevant today. This all comes with a huge caveat for the M8 and M8.2 however, in the form of IR sensitivity. This I'll discuss a bit further down.

Grain performance at base ISO

At ISO 160, I test you to find a speck of grain in a RAW image from the Leica M8.2. Maybe I'm only impressed by this because I usually only shoot jpgs in the situations I've been using the M8.2 so far, in other words personal stuff. I've only shot a couple jpegs with the M8.2 and it was accidental, and not as impressive as the RAW images. I have yet to put the M8.2 through its paces in an actual photo shoot where I would normally shoot RAW. Soon hopefully. In any case, some very clean imagery is possible with this camera. In fact, I was tempted to turn up the ISO to introduce a bit of grain to add character. 320 was fine, but after that it was a slippery slope. More on that later.

[Shot with Minolta M-Rokkor 40mm f2. RAW to JPEG direct conversion. Color and contrast straight out of camera.]

[ISO 640. Highlights are fine. Shadows are a bit icky.]

The Bad

10MP

There's a lot of back and forth on the net about just how many megapixels is enough. There's one well known reviewer in particular who marks down cameras that don't allow you to turn down your megapixels, for example shoot 6MP images on a 24MP sensor. Strange stuff. In my experience, having a lot of megapixels to work with is definitely a good thing. Especially when it comes to cropping and editing, more megapixels just gives you more flexibility.
When it comes to actually using the images, for what I need, 10MP can be sufficient most of the time. Going back to the main reason I bought this camera, i.e. getting a digital shooting experience to be like shooting film, 10MP is about the high end of the resolution I'll get when I have 35mm negatives scanned at the photo lab anyway. As far as the scans go, I've never though so much about being limited by this size, although it is always comforting to know that I can dig up the negative and get a better scan or print as needed. So far, the number of times I've had to do that is zero.
Besides cropping, the only real disadvantage I can see to having 10MP is if you are an art photographer or a commercial photographer where you'll need to have images that can be printed at large sizes. Maybe one day I'd be interested in printing very large, and then I'll chose a different tool for that job. But when it comes to daily shooting and portfolio building, I really don't see 10MP as being any sort of hindrance. Knowing you'll have a hard time cropping only forces you to slow down your shooting process and take your time getting the shot. However, if it came down to shooting a professional job, I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't be hesitant to choose a 10MP camera in 2017, though I've seen one Youtuber who still swears by this camera for wedding photography and gets some really fantastic results.

1.3x crop

The Leica M8.2 is NOT a fullframe camera. I'm not certain why Leica decided to put in a crop sensor on what was a $6,000 camera released the same year as the Canon 5D mark2. That just feels a bit weak to me. In any case, the CCD sensor in the M8.2 is an APS-H type, the only one I've ever heard of. This gives a crop ratio of 1.3x as opposed to the 1.6x of the APS-C sensors found in most non-fullframe DSLRs today. This point bothers me more on paper than in practice. Through a bit of trickery in the viewfinder, I find that I almost don't notice the crop factor at all. Even if I shoot a bit on the M4-P and swap the same lens to the M8.2. When shooting 35mm and 50mm focal length lenses, they come out to 45.5mm and 65mm respectively. It makes a difference for sure, but not one that has bothered me at all.

Terrible high ISO performance

While the ISO performance at the base ISO of 160 is exceptional, the same cannot be said as the ISO is cranked up. If I were to draw a graph of the performance vs ISO setting, it would look like a steep cliff. For starters, there are only five ISO options at all: 160, 320, 640, 1250, and 2500. To my eyes, ISOs 160 and 320 are absolutely fine. Better than fine, really. Then ISO 640 is usable, but not great. After that, things get ugly fast. The thing is, I really don't mind high amounts of noise in photos. It can even be pleasant when the grain pattern is nice. I remember my old Olympus Pen E-P2 was quite grainy at 800 and 1250 ISOs, but the grain was just lovely. This is not the case with the Leica M8.2. The grain that appears on the "high" ISO range is really quite awful. It takes your multi-thousand dollar camera and puts it on the same level as the junky webcam sitting atop your CRT computer monitor.

[2500 ISO straight out of camera.]

[Slightly more pleasant processed into contrasty black and white.]

My solution to this problem is simple and hearkens back to my original reason for buying this camera yet again. Treat the ISO as if it were film. When I shoot film, I use 100, 160, and 200 speed regularly. Rarely I'll shoot 400 or 800 speed film. But here's the thing, when you have a roll of 160 film in your camera and the sun goes down, you don't throw out that roll and slap in an 800 speed film. You just put on a flash or get yourself a tripod or stabilize the camera on something to take your photo. Treat the Leica M8.2 like a film camera and it will be your friend.

IR sensitivity -- lack of filter availability

One of the downfalls of the CCD sensor employed by the Leica M8 and M8.2 is that it is sensitive to infrared light. This is light that is normally invisible to the human eye and can cause a few problems with photos taken using these cameras without the proper IR cut filters. In practical terms, I find that it is most noticeable on black fabrics (especially when they are slightly reflective) and also when shooting plants and vegetation in certain light conditions. Mainly, the effect causes discoloration--black fabrics appear purple, green plants can have a tinge of magenta--but it can also affect the focus as the focal point of infrared light is different than that of visible light.

[These leaves should be green.]

[Her clothing and hair elastic are actually the same color as her camera.]

This IR sensitivity can effectively be canceled using an IR cut filter and when Leica originally sold these cameras they came with 2 free filters of the typical 39mm diameter. Unfortunately for modern photographers, there hasn't been much need for these filters ever since most cameras have switched over to CMOS sensors. Even the CCD sensor of the Leica M9 had a built in IR filter. The problem this causes for M8 shooters is that the filters have become pretty hard to come by. Especially high quality ones. I checked every photo store here in Oslo and none of them carried IR cut filters. They could be ordered in, but the prices were over $100 per filter. On ebay there are slim pickings as well so I ended up getting one cheap Chinese filter and then caved and ordered a used B+W filter from ebay for around $75. More than a slight irritation when this money could be much better spent towards lenses instead. The cheap $25 dollar no-name filter is okay in the fact that it cuts the IR light effectively, but the downside is that it also tints the image with a bluish/cyan tint, especially when used indoors.

[Without IR filter.]

[With IR filter.]

[With IR filter, black jacket looks black and green grass looks green.]

Still, most of the shots in this post are taken without the filter. There are many cases without the filter that blacks look just fine and leaves are still green. It depends on the situation and I'm not entirely sure what the determining factors are. Still, I feel like if you plan on using this camera for the long term, it's worth coughing up the cash for decent filters for your lenses.

One side note about the IR sensitivity, if you're feeling experimental, it's possible to use a high strength ND filter to block visible light and shoot infrared photography. I've seen some pretty cool posts around the internet with infrared photos taken with these cameras, so you could view this weakness as a feature if you'd like. Just remember that you'll have to zone focus as the rangefinder is only accurate for visible light.

Conclusion

There is no doubt in my mind that the Leica M8.2 has weathered the test of time. While today's cameras pack in many more megapixels and features, the M8 offers something else: an entry level view into the world of digital rangefinders. For someone looking for a more organic shooting experience akin to shooting film, there really aren't any options besides Leica. While some companies like Fujifilm come close, they are not quite there. Admittedly, I would be hesitant to use a 10MP camera in 2017 for professional work, however, I find the M8.2 to be a very pleasant camera for shooting personal work such as snapshots, street, travel, casual portraiture, and really anything where the means of distribution is over the internet. I also believe this is a great portfolio building camera, capable of providing crisp clean images with fantastic color rendition and flexible, compact RAW files. The Leica M cameras have a wide variety of truly excellent lenses both Leica branded and third party at a range of price points. These lenses are easily adapted to mirrorless cameras, giving you extra bang for your buck.

For me, the Leica M8.2 is a great camera that I plan to use a lot going forward, however it won't be the camera I choose every time. There will definitely still be occasions where I want something more pocketable, or I'll want to shoot film, or have the option to shoot video as well as stills. On those occasions, the Leica will stay home. But when I am in the mood to slow down my photography and take careful and pleasing images, or even just snapshots around town with the feeling of shooting film but not the associated costs, the M8.2 will be by my side.