Long time M user considering a DSLR. Opinions on the user experience?

[f2bthere]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You might want to consider the Fuji XPro1. There are a number of outstanding lenses in the system and the image quality is quite good. Perhaps the most important reason to consider this specific camera is that it has an optical viewfinder with frame lines like the Leica does but gives you the autofocus you want in a lightweight package.

 

I have a Leica film camera, but for digital I have gone to Fuji. The size is right. The weight is less. Some of the lenses are amazing (I am very happy with the Zeiss 50mm f2.8 Macro and the Fuji 35mm f1.4).

 

Even the Kit 18-55mm zoom lens is quite good for a kit zoom lens and it is fun to see the frame lines change size in an optical viewfinder (I don't own the zoom).

 

For me, the DSLRs just seem too big and bulky at this point. There are few great lenses in the Canon and Nikon systems, but a camera you leave at home because it's too heavy is a waste. I sold all my DSLR lenses when I got the Fuji. I kept my Leica for film.

[250swb]

There are some gigantic 'discounts' on the X-Pro 1 at the moment, like a body and two free lenses, plus cashback, for less than the price of the body alone six months ago. This makes a very tempting introduction to Fuji as the lenses can form the basis of a new system. But it means only one thing, the X-Pro 2 is coming out early next year.

 

 

Steve

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[zlatkob]

The X-Pro1 was a disappointment for me, especially as I paid full price ($1700 + lens) for it when it first came out. It didn't seem to have a build quality commensurate with the price (then). It also felt sluggish, and focusing with the optical viewfinder felt somewhat sloppy. But it still had a lot of appeal, being nicely sized and having the cool hybrid viewfinder. Before the first firmware update, the lenses would make a frequent chattering noise, which made it seem like a very unfinished product back then. I remember people saying that the chattering noise was not so bad and that they could easily ignore it. I couldn't, and returned it. It's a more refined camera now after a series of firmware updates, but still not as refined as the newer X-T1. The X-T1 would likely be my first choice in Fuji's current lineup.

[jankap]

Thanks. How do you find carrying a heavy body and zoom as compared to an M and some lenses? I keep trying to convince myself that the actual weight difference isn't that big. It's just that only one prime is on the camera at a time with the Leica, as opposed to a zoom, which is looks so huge to me but is effectively several lenses.

 

So far I'm not convinced by the non-Leica mirrorless cameras I have seen, including even the A7.

 

I agree with the weight and volume arguments. The weight is not so different, I think.

What don´t you like with the non-Leica mirrorless cameras? Is it the viewfinder? I work with a LCD screen with 900k pixels and a Hoodman loupe and I am happy. The Sonys have 2 M pixels. So far my next would be a FF Nex.

Jan

[TomB_tx]

So far I'm not convinced by the non-Leica mirrorless cameras I have seen, including even the A7.

I wasn't "convinced" by the A7 either, but couldn't find a dSLR I could stand, or one that could use all my older film SLR lenses in FF (Leica R, Pentax, Canon) So I bought an A7 body anyway, with "bargain" adapters for all my old lenses

I have been very pleasantly surprised, and find it easier to manual focus with the EVF than with my old film SLRs in dim light, where I shoot mostly. I don't use focus aids, but judging the sharpness of the EVF works well. I am very near sighted with strong astigmatism and always wear progressive bifocals, but still don't quite get 20-20. Yet I can still nail focus with the A7 better than any autofocus camera I've tried.

As my eyesight gets worse I may have to go to autofocus, but so far prefer old manual focus lenses.

All my old SLR lenses give good results on the A7, even the tiny Pentax-M 20mm f4. And I do sometimes use my M-mount RF lenses on it (down to 35mm), with generally good results for my use.

I tend to use it in aperture-preferred spot mode, like I did the R4 Leica. On film I didn't realize mt\y R lenses were so good.

[jankap]

+1

Jan

[Simey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It's not very good at f/1.4, but it's very good at f/2.8 and smaller. Stopped down (f/4, f/5.6, etc.) it's pretty excellent (like most lenses). So it depends on how you use it. Wide open, it just doesn't have the sharpness of the great f/1.4 lenses. The AF motor is not that good either, and their are many reports of it breaking early, although I've never had it break. Manual focus feel is poor. But it's lightweight, inexpensive, not too big (unlike the giant Sigma 50 Art or Zeiss Otus) and can be very handy.

 

The problem is that it's a very old design in Canon's system, was designed as a lower-priced lens, and is now long overdue for an update. A new 50/1.4 is probably the lens I would most like Canon to produce, although I'd be happy with an excellent 50/1.8 or 50/2.0. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon introduced a much better updated version in the next year. They've introduced excellent new versions of the 24, 28, and 35, and new lenses like the 40, so other updated primes are likely coming: 20, 50, 85, etc. Good luck!

 

That's too bad. How is the 1.2 optically? I looked at it in the store and it seemed reasonably manageable for such a large aperture lens.

 

I am beginning to think that a kit that would make sense for me would be a 6D body, 24-70 f4, 70-200 f4 and 50 1.2.

 

I think the 70-200 and 24-70 2.8 versions are too large and heavy for me, much as the larger apertures might otherwise be attractive. There is no point in a walkabout lens that I won't want to walk around with. The slower apertures would be compensated at least at 50mm with a really fast prime.

 

And of course, I still have my Leica M-E. But on that I need to decide what to do re: Leica's recent announcement as I just checked and it has a couple of the corrosion spots on the sensor (though quite small at the moment).

[zlatkob]

That's too bad. How is the 1.2 optically? I looked at it in the store and it seemed reasonably manageable for such a large aperture lens.

 

I am beginning to think that a kit that would make sense for me would be a 6D body, 24-70 f4, 70-200 f4 and 50 1.2.

 

I think the 70-200 and 24-70 2.8 versions are too large and heavy for me, much as the larger apertures might otherwise be attractive. There is no point in a walkabout lens that I won't want to walk around with. The slower apertures would be compensated at least at 50mm with a really fast prime.

 

And of course, I still have my Leica M-E. But on that I need to decide what to do re: Leica's recent announcement as I just checked and it has a couple of the corrosion spots on the sensor (though quite small at the moment).

 

About the Canon 50/1.2 ... I'll start with the bad. First, it's not super sharp at 1.2 but sharpens nicely as you stop down a bit. Second, it doesn't have a floating element and suffers from some focus shift if you photograph very near subjects at around f/2.8. Also, be aware that you should not carry it by its lens hood (a bad idea for any larger lens). And finally, focusing at 1.2 is a challenge for an autofocus system as it is for the eye. The standard focus screens don't even show the depth of field at 1.2, but rather approximate 2.8. Canon sells a focus screen that shows true depth of field, but it is noticeably darker.

 

Now for the good. The 50/1.2 has a beautiful way of drawing that makes up for its faults. It is a low light lens, but more importantly it is a beauty lens. It was designed for portraiture. Not to soften the subject, but to draw in a very pleasant way, with great bokeh. Its real strength is how it looks stopped down in the typical portrait range, say, from f/2 to f/4.

 

I think the 50/1.2 is fabulous. It's very big by Leica standards, but not as big as a 2.8 zoom. It is as near as Canon currently produces to a Noctilux. (They used to make a 50/1.0, but it was gigantic and very soft at 1.0 and twice as expensive.)

 

It's a good idea to do autofocus micro-adjustment to be sure the 50/1.2 focuses accurately on the 6D. This will match the lens to the body. I use Reikan Focal software to automate this somewhat, but it can be done manually too.

 

If you like a 35, the new 35/2 IS makes a great walkabout lens. Lighter & smaller than the 50/1.2. With the high ISO ability of the 6D, an f/2 lens may be enough for low light.

[Simey]

About the Canon 50/1.2 ... I'll start with the bad. First, it's not super sharp at 1.2 but sharpens nicely as you stop down a bit. Second, it doesn't have a floating element and suffers from some focus shift if you photograph very near subjects at around f/2.8. Also, be aware that you should not carry it by its lens hood (a bad idea for any larger lens). And finally, focusing at 1.2 is a challenge for an autofocus system as it is for the eye. The standard focus screens don't even show the depth of field at 1.2, but rather approximate 2.8. Canon sells a focus screen that shows true depth of field, but it is noticeably darker.

 

Now for the good. The 50/1.2 has a beautiful way of drawing that makes up for its faults. It is a low light lens, but more importantly it is a beauty lens. It was designed for portraiture. Not to soften the subject, but to draw in a very pleasant way, with great bokeh. Its real strength is how it looks stopped down in the typical portrait range, say, from f/2 to f/4.

 

I think the 50/1.2 is fabulous. It's very big by Leica standards, but not as big as a 2.8 zoom. It is as near as Canon currently produces to a Noctilux. (They used to make a 50/1.0, but it was gigantic and very soft at 1.0 and twice as expensive.)

 

It's a good idea to do autofocus micro-adjustment to be sure the 50/1.2 focuses accurately on the 6D. This will match the lens to the body. I use Reikan Focal software to automate this somewhat, but it can be done manually too.

 

If you like a 35, the new 35/2 IS makes a great walkabout lens. Lighter & smaller than the 50/1.2. With the high ISO ability of the 6D, an f/2 lens may be enough for low light.

 

This is very helpful, thanks! Another poster suggested looking at the 35 f2 (IS I assume) and I will. I'm not a huge wide angle shooter but I do carry a 35 Summicron asph currently and use it, but not as much as I use a 50 or longer. I'm pondering whether a mid range zoom is really right for me or whether I should go with prime wide and standard, and then the 70-200 F4. Of course, I could always add the 24-70 later if I feel the need.

 

One more question on the 50 1.2 and 6D. I have seen a couple of reviews suggesting that this isn't a good combination because of the small number of AF sensors. What do you think? I like the 6D over the 5D MkIII because of its slightly lighter weight and slightly smaller size. But also I've been assuming I will be able to use the center sensor and focus lock rather like focussing and recomposing a rangefinder. Fiddling with a button to select sensors seems like something I would not like to have to do.

[zlatkob]

This is very helpful, thanks! Another poster suggested looking at the 35 f2 (IS I assume) and I will. I'm not a huge wide angle shooter but I do carry a 35 Summicron asph currently and use it, but not as much as I use a 50 or longer. I'm pondering whether a mid range zoom is really right for me or whether I should go with prime wide and standard, and then the 70-200 F4. Of course, I could always add the 24-70 later if I feel the need.

 

One more question on the 50 1.2 and 6D. I have seen a couple of reviews suggesting that this isn't a good combination because of the small number of AF sensors. What do you think? I like the 6D over the 5D MkIII because of its slightly lighter weight and slightly smaller size. But also I've been assuming I will be able to use the center sensor and focus lock rather like focussing and recomposing a rangefinder. Fiddling with a button to select sensors seems like something I would not like to have to do.

 

I find that a mid-range zoom is excellent for work (time pressure, etc.), but for personal shooting it's a bit much to carry. The 35/2 would go nicely with the 70-200/4. If you like to have a 50, then 28 (or 35), 50 and 70-200/4 would be nice and not too heavy. The new 28/2.8 IS is excellent and small, although the 35/2 IS is better for low light.

 

The 50/1.2 and the 6D are an excellent combination, in my opinion. It's true that there is a relatively small number of AF sensors, but coming from Leica it is a large number. When you're used to focusing with a central rangefinder patch, you can carry that skill over to focusing with the central AF point, which is the strongest on the 6D anyway. The center point on the 6D is cross-type and has great low-light ability.

 

Yes, you can use the center AF sensor and focus lock, rather like focussing and recomposing a rangefinder. I do not separate the focus from the shutter button; some recommend that, but I don't like having to press the AF-ON button for every shot. However, I do enable AF-ON button focus as an option. I don't always use it, but this way I can use my thumb to lock focus any time and recompose if needed. The AF-ON button is perfectly placed for the thumb.

 

I do not like to fiddle with the 6D's 8-way button to select an AF point; I'm guessing you won't like it either. I do use it sometimes, but it's a bit awkward and imprecise. It will feel very fiddly for a Leica user. Choosing an AF point is ergonomically easier on the 5D3 as it has a separate & more precise joystick for that, and it is better placed. If you shoot a lot at widest aperture on fast prime, then the 5D3 would be better as focus & recompose doesn't work too well with ultra-shallow depth of field. The 5D3 lets you more easily choose among the AF points, and most of the AF points are cross-type.

 

I agree about the smaller size and weight of the 6D being an advantage over the 5D3. You can easily feel the difference. I would much rather carry a 6D. I shoot with both, but it's often a pleasure to put away the 5D3 and pick up the lighter 6D.

Edited December 12, 2014 by zlatkob

[tobey bilek]

With DSLR, size increases, not weight .

 

AF is quite good and fast on the better cameras, D750. There is no way way I can focus a Digital Leica cameras as fast . Set the back button to focus. Set shutter to fire not in focus

 

Nikon lenses are not quite as good as Leica, but acceptable. If you want to use 1.4 all the time , stay with Leica. At 4.0, differences are minimal.

 

24/120 4.0 is a credible lens and can do most pics. Primes are better, but there is always a trade off.

[bocaburger]

I've been using Leica rangefinders for over 45 years, and I wasn't exactly a toddler when I started yet despite being very nearsighted, astigmatism and needing bifocals to read, so far I have no problem focusing. I wear my progressive lenses, don't use a diopter.

 

Like yourself my main thrust is travel. I used various SLRs over the years up to and including Canon 5D's which I still own. I sold my L lenses due to them being, as you said, monsters, and now have only a few decent prosumer zooms and some primes. Even those are more than I want to carry around.

 

I have a Nex6 w/M-adapter as backup for my M240. I picked up a couple used zooms but found the AF horribly slow and apt to hunt compared to my 5D, so I sent them back. Plus like Jeff I don't really care for EVFs.

 

If I were going to choose an alternate camera for travel, it would be the DLux4, or more specifically, it's Panny clone the FZ200. My wife has one and it is very nice for an EVF camera. 25-400 constant f/2.8 zoom with IS, AF is fast and responsive, camera is light and compact. But as I said, I don't have a problem focusing the M. The first thing I would do if I were you would be to get an eye exam and make sure your glasses Rx is up to date. That made a big difference for me when I thought my eyesight was getting too bad for the rangefinder.

[Simey]

Thank you for all the comments, opinions and advice. I really appreciate it. As an update, I bought the Canon 6D with the 50mm 1.2 and a 70-200 f4. So far I am really liking the camera.

 

To give you some idea how weird it feels for me to say that, this is (other than a Hasselblad) my first SLR since 1986 - and that was a Nikon F. The 70-200 is my first zoom. Back in the 80s I was quite dismayed by the direction cameras were obviously heading and I remember being particularly dismissive of the Canon T90. So I think it is fair to say I have evolved.

 

Having said that, I think that there will still be a place for Leica for me, and as a matter of fact I am tucking my M-E in the bag now with a Summicron 35mm asph attached. I did not buy a wide angle for the Canon. On some lighter trips I think I will travel with the Leica only, but maybe with just a 50mm.

 

Speaking of 50mm, so far I am loving the Canon 50mm 1.2. Since this is a Leica site I promise not to post Canon-taken pictures after this, but here is a test shot. (Sorry for the cat subject, he was handy).

 

IMG_0120 by mrsyettigoosecreature, on Flickr

 

And here is a shot with the 70-200:

 

IMG_0146 - Version 3 by mrsyettigoosecreature, on Flickr