Jump to content

Leica lens on non Leica digital body - why?


stevelap

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

(Please note that this is not intended to be a provocative or flaming thread, nor a critique or discussion of other cameras, I’m just curious).

 

 

The answer for R lens owners is, of course, simply that since the demise of the R8/R9+DMR Leica no longer make a digital R body, so they have no choice if they want or need a new camera.

 

But what of M lens users? If you are one of the many that use such a set-up why do you (that’s you, no one else:)) do so? Is it because of the lack of a feature or features on digital M’s, do you prefer the ergonomics of your chosen body or perhaps you simply don’t like rangefinders. Or, deep down in the deepest, darkest recesses of your soul, is it really because you can’t/daren’t/won’t spend the sort of money that buying an M9 requires.

 

Whatever the reason, what is it?

 

 

 

Me?

 

Well, in the interests of full disclosure, I haven’t operated in that way and tend to the view that Leica lenses are best used on Leica bodies. So, putting my money where my mouth is, I’ve owned and used both M8 and M9 in the past - and if Leica eventually introduce a suitable CSC or M10 I’d probably buy one or the other in a heartbeat, funds permitting - but what about you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree that Leica M lenses are best used on a M body. Some people however do want a backup, and can't afford or do not want to lug a second M body.

 

Those digital cameras that can accept M lenses (via adapters or 'natively') have 4/3 or APS-C size sensors, so there is a 'crop factor'. But a 35mm M lens on a compatible APS body can still function as a 'jury rig' to bring you into harbour, or prevent your voyage from becoming one big exercise in frustration. Also, a 90mm lens on an APS body will be the equivalent of a 135mm lens, and that may tempt some people.

 

And then there's the everlasting tinkering urge, of course.

 

LB

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No apology needed!

 

I've had a rummage.

 

Well, there's this one:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/212139-what-other-digital-bodies-take-m.html

 

...and more particularly this:

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/207123-looking-companion-camera-m9.html

 

The titles may be different, but I think it's all covering the same basic ground?

 

Ultimately, we all do it for different reasons. I am mostly a film M user but the GXR and M module is a great way to do some casual snapping with the quality of Leica and Zeiss glass. I use it with LTM, M and R lenses.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply do not like the M8/9 ergonomics. The range finder is great, that's about it.

Whenever I see a used M9 at a reasonable price, I think about it. I could afford it if I wanted it, but spending just a bit less than €4k on a camera where I know that it's shortcomings drive me crazy seems wrong to me.

 

I do not care much about crop. A 25/2 would be nice, but I can live nicely with what I have, APS or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

M8s are becoming quite affordable and well below the M9 league.

 

A bit disingenuous. My used M8 cost a good deal more than any m4/3 or NEX body. I'm not complaining, but I can still remember the days when I couldn't afford a Leica but wanted very much to experience using a Leica lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a M9 and a Ricoh GXR. I use the M9 for when I was the best image quality and the intended look of my M lenses. I use the GXR when I want a smaller camera, or don't want to take such an expensive camera with me. The GXR image quality is perfectly acceptable compared with current DSLR's, and the pixel level sharpness is super. Metering is also more DSLR-like, and I like the liveview and silent shutter options. In fact, the GXR's mechanical shutter is more quiet and discreet than the M9's.

 

When I shoot my M7, I prefer to use Leica lenses rather than Voigtlander or Zeiss. I feel like this gives me the complete 'Leica experience', from handling to output. A bit silly, but I feel like if I was shooting Zeiss or Voigtlander lenses I might as well be using my Ikon instead. The output isn't Leica, it's Zeiss or Voigtlander.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, I have a Fuji X100 which I use not only for a backup (not needed yet, knock on wood) but for informal use when a M9 seems like a bit of overkill. This does not take M lenses, but three out of four of my pictures are made with a 35mm lens, so the Fuji serves well. Image quality is not bad at all.

 

Now when I have finally dechiphered the cryptic interface ... The straightforward user interface is one of the great virtues of the M9.

 

LB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes – and focusing through them. That's the problem.

 

Current EVFs simply are not good enough for eyeball focusing. Especially not with the lens stopped down. In the late 1950's designers came to grips with this and created the automatic aperture mechanism, where you set the desired aperture, but the lens stays open for focusing, until the shutter rolls when it stops down. With any non-native lens on a EVF camera body, you're back in the early 1950's. The finder is too dark and the d.o.f. too large for manual focusing, and even if Fuji manages to produce that sensor with a built-in phase detection function, such devices (like the split-image SLR screen) won't work for apertures smaller than c. 1:5.6 because they are really rangefinders, comparing the images from the left and the right edge of the lens, respectively. I think focus peaking will also have problems, not with dark finders, but with large d.o.f. Rough focus, yes. Precise focus, no.

 

LB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes – and focusing through them. That's the problem.

 

Current EVFs simply are not good enough for eyeball focusing. Especially not with the lens stopped down.

 

Actually, I'm here to tell you that they are, thanks to focus peaking.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

+1!

I started with some leica glass temporarily on a m4/3, then finally got a M9, recently sold my M9 to replace it with a nex7 (and will add a ricoh + M module as soon as they have a built-in finder, or a leica evil if they make a good one).

The problems with the nex7 and wide lenses are not worse than the problems (colorshift) in the M9 with the same lenses!

 

With the M9 you never can frame exactly, so you loose some 10 or 20 % off the image anyway.

The lightmetering in the M9 is barely usable.

The color output is variable, from very nice to largely questionnable. Nice skintones and ugly reds, and rarely exact or realistic without cautionous PP.

Moiré can show up in landscapes (...!) if you process your raws with LR (which comes with your M9)

Dust is a problem, where my nex7 simply shakes it off.

 

The final picture quality can be marvelous, better than what i have seen in other 35 mm cameras, but rarely without lots of post processing and often you would need two shots to be sure to have the metering right.

 

With a Digilux 2 you miss the resolution, you miss the dynamic range (but you won't need as much , as it is very reliable in metering the light...)

The Digilux 2 nearly never misses a shot, and has marvelous colors not needing any post-processing.

 

I predict that eighter leica will show up with a nex7-look-alike camera with the Ricoh-M-module sensor (sony), or otherwise they will end making lenses only, and Ricoh will make the best bodies in future...

 

So i understand the ones that use Leica glass on non-leica cameras.

 

What i do not understand, is those who buy a M9 and put a non-leica lens on it...

worst of both worlds....

 

Even the swiss leica dealer who sold me the nex7, asked me: "you sold the M9, but you kept the glass i hope? You made the right decision"...

 

 

 

 

 

 

I simply do not like the M8/9 ergonomics. The range finder is great, that's about it.

Whenever I see a used M9 at a reasonable price, I think about it. I could afford it if I wanted it, but spending just a bit less than €4k on a camera where I know that it's shortcomings drive me crazy seems wrong to me.

 

I do not care much about crop. A 25/2 would be nice, but I can live nicely with what I have, APS or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...