Jump to content

M-E vs other / advice


pascalg

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello everyone

new to this forum, I don't own any Leica gear... yet.

I'm interested in a "basic" combination : M-E + Summarit 35mm, but I know Sony will release a Nex FF at the end of this year

I know that, with the Leica combo, I wouldn't have AF, nor IS, and that Sony would have them, of course, and, as far as lenses are concerned, works with Zeiss;

AF & IS are not mandatory, but I'm a happy 4/3 consumer (E5 + some nice lenses), and used to "easy going" photography, despite the heavy gear - what I'm looking for is a solid light gear, with FF and beautiful IQ to backup my Oly stuff, especially in holidays

can anyone tell me if, despite these "faults" compared to Nex (no AF no IS), the Leica IQ would satisfy me? I mean : if Leica got something "special", not only electronics, but photographic (if that makes any sense, compared to an other camera...) in other words : is it worth (aesthetically) the extra money (and prices are really different : estimated coming Nex : $3000 + $1500 lens : not quite the price of the M-E body...)

 

If someone would be kind enough to advise me, I'd be very thankful, and apologise in advance : not new to photography, but "new" to Leica : never used, never seen any "real" printed photo, etc

 

thank you all anyway, for passing by

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone

new to this forum, I don't own any Leica gear... yet.

I'm interested in a "basic" combination : M-E + Summarit 35mm, but I know Sony will release a Nex FF at the end of this year

I know that, with the Leica combo, I wouldn't have AF, nor IS, and that Sony would have them, of course, and, as far as lenses are concerned, works with Zeiss;

AF & IS are not mandatory, but I'm a happy 4/3 consumer (E5 + some nice lenses), and used to "easy going" photography, despite the heavy gear - what I'm looking for is a solid light gear, with FF and beautiful IQ to backup my Oly stuff, especially in holidays

can anyone tell me if, despite these "faults" compared to Nex (no AF no IS), the Leica IQ would satisfy me? I mean : if Leica got something "special", not only electronics, but photographic (if that makes any sense, compared to an other camera...) in other words : is it worth (aesthetically) the extra money (and prices are really different : estimated coming Nex : $3000 + $1500 lens : not quite the price of the M-E body...)

 

If someone would be kind enough to advise me, I'd be very thankful, and apologise in advance : not new to photography, but "new" to Leica : never used, never seen any "real" printed photo, etc

 

thank you all anyway, for passing by

 

Leica is all about workflow, build quality and ultimate IQ.

 

I would play with one or hire one.

If you like to set aperture, focus and shutter speed for every shot you will love Leica M.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much!

 

My main concern is IQ : I want something... different (tired of electronics coldness)

Will try and look at images on the web

Thanks of the advice of hiring... why not?

 

have a nice day,

 

If you are looking for something radically different from a Nikon or Canon say you might be disappointed.

Leica lenses are sharp at f1.4 or lower making full DOF play possible.

Their draw is also nice however the main draw for me is the size of the camera, jewel like quality and sharpness/acuity.

 

However much of this is available cheaper from others.

For example,

The Canon 50mm f1.2 with a 6D is beautiful and unique draw for example. However the lens is only slightly sharp in the middle at f1.2, gets less sharp for a few stops and starts to become really sharp at f4. Similarly the Nikon D800E with the 35mm f1.4 lens has a beautiful draw but is not usable sharp until f2.8. Both of these options are more flexible and functional then Leica M.

 

There are many other such options. Most people fall in live with the Leica way of doing things and can not go back. Some people hate it and rush back to AF Hitech style.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much!

 

My main concern is IQ : I want something... different (tired of electronics coldness)

Will try and look at images on the web

Thanks of the advice of hiring... why not?

 

have a nice day,

 

If you are looking for something radically different from a Nikon or Canon say you might be disappointed.

Leica lenses are sharp at f1.4 or lower making full DOF play possible.

Their draw is also nice however the main draw for me is the size of the camera, jewel like quality and sharpness/acuity.

 

However much of this is available cheaper from others.

For example,

The Canon 50mm f1.2 with a 6D is beautiful and unique draw for example. However the lens is only slightly sharp in the middle at f1.2, gets less sharp for a few stops and starts to become really sharp at f4. Similarly the Nikon D800E with the 35mm f1.4 lens has a beautiful draw but is not usable sharp until f2.8. Both of these options are more flexible and functional then Leica M.

 

There are many other such options. Most people fall in love with the Leica way of doing things and can not go back. Some people hate it and rush back to AF Hitech style.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you very much!

 

My main concern is IQ : I want something... different (tired of electronics coldness)

Will try and look at images on the web

Thanks of the advice of hiring... why not?

 

have a nice day,

 

If you are looking for something radically different from a Nikon or Canon say you might be disappointed.

Leica lenses are sharp at f1.4 or lower making full DOF play possible.

Their draw is also nice however the main draw for me is the size of the camera, jewel like quality and sharpness/acuity.

 

However much of this is available cheaper from others.

For example,

The Canon 50mm f1.2 with a 6D is beautiful and unique draw for example. However the lens is only slightly sharp in the middle at f1.2, gets less sharp for a few stops and starts to become really sharp at f4. Similarly the Nikon D800E with the 35mm f1.4 lens has a beautiful draw but is not usable sharp until f2.8. Both of these options are more flexible and functional then Leica M.

 

There are many other such options. Most people fall in love with the Leica way of doing things and can not go back. Some people hate it and rush back to AF Hitech style.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone

new to this forum, I don't own any Leica gear... yet.

I'm interested in a "basic" combination : M-E + Summarit 35mm, ...

Pascal, welcome to the forum! My advice would be to visit a main Leica dealer, such as the one in Mayfair London or its equivalent nearer your home, and ask for a demonstration. It is possible to borrow one for a short period and then process your own images. That would be ideal. But a dealer needs to meet you first. Some operate open days when they are set up to help newcomers to Leica like yourself. Let us know how you get on.

 

I forgot to mention that I think your choice is excellent. The M-E is a pedigree camera with proven ability as it based on the recent M9 which I use nowadays. The Summarit lenses are also excellent and represent real value for money. You would not be disappointed. If you go fro that combination, consider adding the 75mm Summarit lens in due course. Those two lenses can cover a lot of shooting situations; are light in weight and perform to the highest standards.

Edited by wda
Added new paragraph
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some AF Leica lenses available secondhand (and occasionally new) for your E-5 e.g. the Leica D 25/1.4 Summilux, Leica D Vario Elmar 14-150 f3.5/5.6, and Leica D Vario Elmarit 28-50 f2.8/3.5. These were a joint design by Leica and Panasonic and are superb autofocus lenses. I use all three on my E-5 - and also use manual focus Leica R lenses via a Leica R to 4/3 adaptor.

 

Buying a few R lenses for your E-5 could be an option worth considering if you are seeking the Leica IQ. The Leica Telyt R lenses perform very well with my E-5 i.e. the 350mm and 400mm as does the regular 2x Extender-R - the latter particularly so because the 4/3 format uses only the centre of the lens - thus the images are edge sharp. Cheaper single cam and twin cam R lenses could be a very cost effective solution for entry level Leica optics when used on your E-5 ... I bought a single cam 50mm Summicron R lens recently from a UK dealer for £100.

 

These photos were taken with my E-5 and Leica Telyt R lenses and the 2x convertor http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/architecture/245631-peterborough-cathedral-west-front.html

 

Best wishes

 

dunk

Edited by dkpeterborough
Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have said, what make Leica special:

  • the lenses are usable wide open (but are manual, no stabilization, etc)
  • the lenses (and to a lesser extent the bodies) are compact, but you still get full frame
  • rangefinder focusing (which can be a minus as it requires correct calibration, and part of the view can be obscured with certain lenses / hoods)

Compared to the NEX, the differences are more subtle: the NEX has better tech, such as

  • sensor
  • rear screen
  • autofocus/focus assistance (even face recognition has saved me on a number of occasions, particularly in low light)
  • higher frame rate
  • etc

But the Leica lenses don't always play well with the NEX at the edges, so if you want less post-processing fuss and better edges, Leica lenses work better on Leica bodies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica is small, but not light weight.

 

If there is no local dealer, drive to one or use lens rentals.com or borrow before buying. I would become very proficient in Photoshop or Lightroom before buying a Leica with a preference toward Photoshop. The images do not come out of the camera the way you see them. They all tend to digital looking, Leica less so. But it is camera electronics and you can make Photoshop do it for you with presets so there is no work.

 

Manual focus in not a skill you can master in a day. Certainly you can get basics in 15 minutes.

 

Leica images are different, but a considerable portion is camera electronics. I have done home exercises to make Nikon images look like Leica and it is not that hard. Where Leica excels is size, small lenses, wide aperture lenses that are better than any others at wide apertures. Stopped down, they tend to equalize.

 

My favorite lenses are the 50 2.8 collapsible, 50 1.4, 75 2.0, 90 4.0 macro and a 35 2.0 version 4.

 

If you want a small light camera or quality snaps, a Nikon D7100 + 35 1.8 is quite nice. 35 is normal for crop sensor. The advantage to full frame come in low light capability and the ability to use wider apertures for subject isolation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Using a Leica rangefinder is a preference unlike using any other camera. They are very expensive and very unique. And not for everyone. I used a Leica M6 for 20 years before I bought my M-E. By that point my Leica was a preference. But I could just as easily make the same quality images with almost any camera from a Hasselbald, a Nikon, Canon etc.

 

So I would say if you know rangefinder photography is what you are after and you appreciate quality/fine built machines and are willing to work extra hard to make the photographs you like, a Leica will be a wonderful tool for you.

 

If you prefer modern ease and speed (autofocus, mulit metering modes, multi-frame shooting etc.) you maybe disappointed with Leica.

 

For me the M-E is the prefect extension of the M cameras that came before. I love it. ANy of their lenses are awesome. You just can't go wrong with them.

 

I think even renting one for the weekend will not give you a proper perspective. Rangefinders take a while to get used to. I'd say after 6 months of use you will have informed an opinion. They hold their value so you can always sell it down the road.

 

My last piece of advice: most people who get interested in Leica debate for years on getting one. In my opinion that is valuable photography wasted. Once you want a Leica, most people find the means to buy one. And most folks never go back. If you think you want one and think a rangefinder might make your work better, get one now. Don't wait.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

I like to shoot wide open (Oly lenses are not bad, for that)

...

If you mean current four third Oly lenses, none of them can give you less DoF than a FF lens at f/4 so you will be more than happy with a Summarit (f/2.5) or a Summicron (f/2) let alone a Summilux (f/1.4) or a Noctilux (f/0.95). Your accountant could pull a longer face though. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never use photoshop only Lightroom. What does Photoshop have that Lightroom doesn't for raw processing ?

 

Same engine, ie nothing, for raw processing.

 

Photoshop has some advanced creative controls, layers, masking, HDR, blending photos, perspective controls, the list is really endless. Photogs can do anything in LR they could do in a darkroom except for really advanced workers who make masks and bleach and do other fancy tricks, and each edition gets better.

 

Download a PS CC and work the trial 30 days. Start with ADobe TV to see what is possible. Julianne Kost and Russell Brown have the best tutorials.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an M9 owner IMHO...

 

1. A 35mm sensor does not always mean better. Great images come from sensors of all shapes and sizes. A 35mm sensor is useful for thin DOF IF you buy the right lenses. The DOF difference between a Olympus m4/3 17mm 1.8 and a leica Summarit f2.5 is one stop at best. Not a huge deal 99% of the time.

2. If you're happy with your E5 then you'll be delighted with almost anything currently available. The new Olympus E-M1 is out next month and has a significant leap in image quality over what you have and can use your lenses as normal with an MMF3 adaptor. The native m43 lenses are very good indeed.

3. If you only want one lens (35mm) you'll be better off with a Sony RX1r.

 

And 4. Personally, I think buying a digital Leica based on image quality alone is a poor decision and a bad move. There are many cameras with better sensors (especially at higher ISOs) that are cheaper and mostly as portable. Even the APSC Fuji's are close enough to be used where you might use an M-E. That's not saying the M's are bad. They aren't. But an M is a camera you need to get along with. It'll push you a bit more but the user experience can be more rewarding.

 

You buy a Leica because of the usability. The rangefinder offers advantages that are totally unmatched in any other system. The M series changes the way you approach image capture, rather than the misconception that it changes the images captured themselves. A Leica says something about you and how you approach an image. Except for the Noctilux, which is unique, everything else is available somewhere else. Yes it'll look different but that doesn't mean better or worse. The simplicity of the camera. the manual focus. The rangefinder. The lack of options. All these things force you into a thin user segment. If you're a photographer who thrives in that zone, there's nothing else like it and small differences in the look of a sensor/lens/image/noise wont matter.

 

Rent or borrow an M series. You'll know pretty quickly if it's for you. If it is, you'll then spend at least a year getting it to sing. After that it's easy.

 

Gordon

  • Like 4
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...