Did you give up SLRs for Leica?

[Elk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I´ve ordered a M9 couple of weeks ago. I´m selling my Sony Alpha 900 with glass. Reason; I´m so tired of misfocusing AF.

The way I photograph I need a fast camera with manual focus I realized. And I´m an old Leica user. In the 1960s I owned a black M3 with Super-Angulon 3,4/21, Summilux 35 with glasses, Summilux 50 and Visoflex III with Telyt 280/4,8.

Since then I´ve used many SLRs. Being a Swede I´ve also owned and used for many years a Hasselblad 500C.

Now I´m getting rid of endless menus, AF and heavy 2,8 lenses. And the fact that it´s almost impossible to shoot fast. I´ve missed so many situations due to missed focus or release lock due to camera being unable to focus! If I´m lucky I have my M9 early next Year .

Regards

[Pindy]

I´ve ordered a M9 couple of weeks ago. I´m selling my Sony Alpha 900 with glass. Reason; I´m so tired of misfocusing AF.

Now I´m getting rid of endless menus, AF and heavy 2,8 lenses. And the fact that it´s almost impossible to shoot fast. I´ve missed so many situations due to missed focus or release lock due to camera being unable to focus! If I´m lucky I have my M9 early next Year .

Regards

 

Congrats on the M9. I feel you on the menus and lock-up. I will say, though, if you'd had a D700/D3 you might not've felt so confined in the AF department, but then those are 12MP. After years of Canon SLR/DSLRs, I take consistently more in focus shots with the D700. Still, it hasn't barely been used in a month now as I'm in the honeymoon period with an M6 TTL.

[SteveYork]

I'm actually thinking about doing the opposite. I've used rangefinders for almost the last 15 years. But I've been enamored by the Leicaflex SL and SL2 I've been using on my last two trips. For some reason I seem to get better pictures.

 

I miss the low light ability of the M (no mirror slap) and the current M optics are better then the circa 70's lenses I'm limited on the R mount, but otherwise I'm preferring the slr.

 

Maybe it's a fad.

[SteveYork]

While waiting for my M9, I unexpectedly found a quick buyer for my M6. In search of a 35mm solution to bridge the gap until the M9 arrives, I picked up a... Canon A-1 SLR from 1978 (!!!) with 35/2 and 50/1.4 lenses for petty cash on eBay.

 

One cannot believe how much fun I had so far with this cute little, yet so powerful combo. One of the first cameras in history to provide full program automatic, plus Av, Tv, and manual modes! First camera ever to feature an 8-segment red LED viewfinder display! And a dozen or so other historical "firsts" in a tiny (by today's standards) package which rivals the weight and size of a compact digicam, or a 4/3-system.

 

So I actually went the opposite route - I gave up a Leica for a SLR. Temporarily, of course!

 

In a similar vein, I discovered the Leicaflex series this summer.

[sgilder]

" Did you give up SLRs for Leica?"

 

I'm trying to, if the darn UPS truck would ever show up...

[Pindy]

" Did you give up SLRs for Leica?"

 

I'm trying to, if the darn UPS truck would ever show up...

 

I hear ya!

 

I just traded a Nikon 14-24 to allow for a Summilux 35 ASPH so the playing field is equalizing.

[NZDavid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I went from RF (Oly 35RC) to SLR (OM) back to RF (Leica). I missed the size and the direct viewing. Comparing results, I found my focusing was more accurate with RF than manually focusing an SLR; also I could hold the camera steadier in lower light. Also, loved the Leica optics and the build quality, although OM was still an excellent design. Latest DSLRs hold no appeal for me -- far too bulky, plasticky, and fiddly.

[scottygraham]

This is my first post in this forum, but I am VERY interested in this thread as I am a Nikon DSLR (Presently shoot the D700) shooter thinking seriously of switching systems. I will be up front, and admit that I have never used an RF camera before, but with all the talk of the M9, I am certainly intrigued....more than intrigued....basically, I am sick of carrying my heavy DSLR kit around with me when I travel, and I travel alot.

 

I have a couple of questions that I can't seem to find answers to....

 

(1) For the most part, I take travel photos, and really like wide angle. I travel with my D700, the 14-24mm lens, the 70-200mm, and my tripod. I recently went to Nepal with this kit....it was not a light kit to carry, but with those two lenses, I was able to capture most any shot I wanted. Most of the time, the 14-24mm was on my camera, and I would carry the 70-200mm in my small backpack, and would pull it out for portraits/people shots or landscape shots of the mountains. My question is, if I went on the same trip with a Leica M9, would I miss the the super wide 14-24mm(my favorite lens of all time) and the 70-200mm in trade for two fixed leica lenses? Which lenses would be good substitutes?

 

(2) For someone who has not used a RF before, is it difficult to adjust with framing and manual focus? A friend of mine told me that he used to shoot RF film cameras and never did get used to or good at composing through a RF. If I made the switch, will I regret giving up the easy framing and autofocus that the D700 has?

 

Selling all my Nikon stuff (can't afford to keep both systems) and forking out over 10 grand for an M9 and lens will not be an easy decision, and the last thing I want to happen is to regret doing it once it is done....anyone else in my boat?

[dsj]

you might want to try it first? how about borrowing an M6 and say a wide angle lens for a month or so before spending ten grand?

[Overgaard]

This is my first post in this forum, but I am VERY interested in this thread as I am a Nikon DSLR (Presently shoot the D700) shooter thinking seriously of switching systems. I will be up front, and admit that I have never used an RF camera before, but with all the talk of the M9, I am certainly intrigued....more than intrigued....basically, I am sick of carrying my heavy DSLR kit around with me when I travel, and I travel alot.

 

I have a couple of questions that I can't seem to find answers to....

 

(1) For the most part, I take travel photos, and really like wide angle. I travel with my D700, the 14-24mm lens, the 70-200mm, and my tripod. I recently went to Nepal with this kit....it was not a light kit to carry, but with those two lenses, I was able to capture most any shot I wanted. Most of the time, the 14-24mm was on my camera, and I would carry the 70-200mm in my small backpack, and would pull it out for portraits/people shots or landscape shots of the mountains. My question is, if I went on the same trip with a Leica M9, would I miss the the super wide 14-24mm(my favorite lens of all time) and the 70-200mm in trade for two fixed leica lenses? Which lenses would be good substitutes?

 

(2) For someone who has not used a RF before, is it difficult to adjust with framing and manual focus? A friend of mine told me that he used to shoot RF film cameras and never did get used to or good at composing through a RF. If I made the switch, will I regret giving up the easy framing and autofocus that the D700 has?

 

Selling all my Nikon stuff (can't afford to keep both systems) and forking out over 10 grand for an M9 and lens will not be an easy decision, and the last thing I want to happen is to regret doing it once it is done....anyone else in my boat?

 

I have been using the M9 for the last almost four months now and hardly use the dSLR Leica kit anymore. And I find that it's a pain to travel with a dSLR kit now that I can just take the M9 over the shoulder and a couple of lenses and a battery in a bag. Especially when airplanes are involved a well-equipped dSLR case is just not the way to travel (when cabin luggage is max 8 kg and checked-in is 20 or 23 kilo).

 

On the focusing, having used mostly manual focus on dSLR the RF focusing takes a bit getting used to. But you will get it quicker than you think. And there is a relief in using RF that your eyes doesn't get tired of looking at the screen in the dSLR. This is probably more the case with a manual focusing dSLR than an AF because with the manuel you have to look real sharp on the focusing screen to focus. But there is something about SLR viewfinders with the distance to the eye that create tired eyes. And with the RF it's just not there as you look via an acoustic device and can basically focus even if half blind (not wearing your glasses or blinded by rain or whatever).

 

You will notice that sometimes you have to change the angel to find something to focus at, so as to have something with contrast - some edges - to focus with. Somehow it becomes rather automatically focusing and recompose and I find that I have more 100% sharp images with the M9 than I had with the dSLR as I would often be unable to judge the actual focus with the dSLR after hours of shooting.

 

As for AF, if you never had it, trying it is confusing because you can't control where the focus is as well and precise as with manual focus. I know from the face of many pro photographers, when the word "manuel focusing" is mentioned, they look frightened. But it's easy and predictable; so in many cases you will get more precise focusing with manual than with AF (because you never have to wait for the camera to focus but know exactly how long it will take to get it in focus manually. And the amount of composition possibilities, in terms of where to put the focus, as you focus, is incredible; and would never happen with automatic focus)

 

But a more important thing you're forgetting is the glass you will be getting. It's going to change the way you see the world.

[giordano]

(1) For the most part, I take travel photos, and really like wide angle. I travel with my D700, the 14-24mm lens, the 70-200mm, and my tripod. I recently went to Nepal with this kit....it was not a light kit to carry, but with those two lenses, I was able to capture most any shot I wanted. Most of the time, the 14-24mm was on my camera, and I would carry the 70-200mm in my small backpack, and would pull it out for portraits/people shots or landscape shots of the mountains. My question is, if I went on the same trip with a Leica M9, would I miss the the super wide 14-24mm(my favorite lens of all time) and the 70-200mm in trade for two fixed leica lenses? Which lenses would be good substitutes?

 

A reasonable all-prime M substitute for your current outfit would be 18, 24, 75, 135. Maybe use the 16-18-21 Wide Angle Tri-Elmar instead of the 18, or get a 90 instead of one of both of the longer lenses. Or add a 15mm (Zeiss or Voigtlander). Or take 75, 90 and 135. All in all, four to seven lenses.

 

If you want to go for a two-lens M outfit you have to be eager for big changes in your working style as well as big weight reductions or you will miss the big Nikkors. 24 and 90 make a nice travel combination and mean that you'll only need one small external viewfinder on the M9. If low-light hand-held capability is important you'll need f/1.4 or f/2 lenses and a steady hand to come close to matching the ability of the D700 with the f/2.8 zooms.

 

(2) For someone who has not used a RF before, is it difficult to adjust with framing and manual focus? A friend of mine told me that he used to shoot RF film cameras and never did get used to or good at composing through a RF. If I made the switch, will I regret giving up the easy framing and autofocus that the D700 has?

 

There are some fast-moving situations where good autofocus is clearly preferable to a rangefinder, but none of them occur in landscape photography, so you probably won't miss the Nikon AF. Framing is more of a problem: if you like to rely on very precise framing in the camera the M will give you a lot to think about as you learn how the framelines in the viewfinders relate to the lenses' actual field of view at various distances.

 

Selling all my Nikon stuff (can't afford to keep both systems) and forking out over 10 grand for an M9 and lens will not be an easy decision, and the last thing I want to happen is to regret doing it once it is done....anyone else in my boat?

 

That sounds like too much money to take chances with. Essential to try before you buy. If your dealer won't lend you an M for a weekend, see if he'll hire you one. A film M would be fine, especially if there's a one-hour minilab near you still.

[cliffp]

I had a D700, 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 and was in your situation a couple of months ago. I bought a 2nd hand M7 and 50mm summicron to try. I loved it so much I bought a 28 cron asph, 21 elmarit and 90 cron asph. I have now bought an M9.

 

In the early days I made the odd mistake forgetting to focus and generally get used to a slightly different way of working but you get used to it. I find I think a lot more about depth of field now and use hyperfocal focussing quite often. I am still a bit slow in focussing on moving people but I know I will get quicker and you can always use smaller apertures to get the subject in focus. The portraits I have taken are better than I got with my D700 because I can more easily focus on what I want. The M7 and M9 are making me more interested in people photography which indicates that I am being motivated by the results i am getting.

 

On the subject of framing, I have no problem with this whatsoever and my photos are just as well composed as before. I use a so-called frankenfinder viewfinder for my 21mm and I think it gives a fantastically bright view that encourages you to take lots of photos.

 

Although the metering system is basic centre-weighted, it gives very good results particularly if you learn a bit about the zone exposure system (of course if you get an M9 you can 'chimp' to make you have got things right). Some people say their proportion of keepers is higher with an m camera - that has been my experience.

 

I have enjoyed using my Leicas so much I am selling all my Nikon gear. I find the Leica much more enjoyable to use and the results even with scanned film are better (IMO). The images seem to have an almost 3-D quality that jump out of the screen. Initially I wanted to keep the Nikon gear but the philosophy of shooting the two systems is very different so I preferred to stick to the rangerfinder approach. Also the D700 plus any of the pro zooms is so huge, heavy and indiscreet.

 

Like a previous poster. I recommend trying one. I would buy a 2nd hand M7 and your preferred main lens. If you buy carefully you will get your money back when you sell.

 

Good luck!

[GreyCoupe]

How quickly we forget--for many years, moving to Leica didn't mean giving up SLRs. I moved to Leica to go to SLRs and in my R8 had a terrific camera. I collected expensive lenses, some of the best on the planet, and then was stunned to learn that the promised digital camera would not be forthcoming.

 

The ultimate contradiction of backward/forward compatibility, wouldn't you say?

[scottygraham]

Thanks guys, for the advice...I came to the right place to ask these questions. GreyCoupe, Believe me, if I could afford to have both systems (DSLR and The Leica M9) I would go that route, clearly the best way to go....however, with the price tag of Leica glass and the M9, I would have to sell all my current equipment (including all my underwater stuff) to dive into Leica...my wife would have my neck otherwise...ha ha...

 

CliffP, how does your 21 elmarit compare to the 14-24mm? That is the one lens I think I would miss the most if I move to the RF...

 

I will look into renting an M7 if I can....look forward to joining the "Leica Crowd" some day soon...

 

By the way, I also shoot a great deal of HDR (meaning I take 3-5 exposures on selected subjects)...how does the auto-bracketing work on the M9? Problems?

[cliffp]

Re: Comparisons between the 14-24 and the 21 Elmarit.

 

I haven't made a scientific or even rigorous comparison between the two lenses so I can only report on my subjective impressions. I was very impressed, even blown away by the quality of the 14-24 and I was worried that I might be disappointed with the 21 Elmarit (I can hear laughter from the experienced Leica users!). Although I have only taken one film using the 21 (using Fuji Superia 200 iso), the results were amazing. Everything about the images was great, resolution, colour, contrast. I was so pleased with the results I have advertised my 14-24 on Ebay. The only downside is being restricted to one focal length (cf 14-24) and needing an external VF. To me these are not deal breakers. You could always get a WATE - personally I prefer fast lenses - f2.8 isn't particularly fast but you can still get some selective focus.

[proenca]

To Pindy, which I believe its the original poster : Yes I did gave up SLR but then returned.

 

Here's my story :

 

I was a long time SLR user and then moved up digitally, my first dSLR was a Fuji S2 PRO, bought new, costed me a fortune but had one fantastic sensor. Body was weak and AF was shabby, but the sensor was brilliant ( kinda almost Leica way of doing things. eheheh )

 

After that I moved up to a D100, then D1x, ... I always loved bokeh so I wanted full frame, there wasnt a full frame Nikon in the horizon for the years to come ( digitally ) so I traded up my D1x + 70-200 VR + 200 Macro + 28-70 AFS and few other lenses for a Canon system. ( 1Ds ) at the usuall finantial colossal loss when changing systems...

 

Although I quickly learned how to tame the 1Ds in terms of noise ( its a somewhat noisy sensor and it bites but shadow noise in the 1Ds just rips your head off ... ) and started to collect L glass.

 

Problem is that the camera was getting in the way : it was heavy. Compensate that and start migrating my zooms to primes : 24 1.4 L , 35 1.4 L and so on.

 

But still.. the darn thing was heavy.

 

Please note : this was in 2004-2005 or so... Nikon D2x , used bodies, started to hit the market and they were with the same mp count of the 1Ds but they had much better batteries and quite a loss in weight.

 

So again, I sold my Canon gear ( L prime lenses hold their value pretty well so the loss was almost non existent ) and got me a D2x and a couple of lens.

 

But still the weight was there - although less.

 

So I went to one of my favorite stores ( Aperture UK ) to see some gear and have a chat and coffee with the guys there and was telling them how lovely but big and heavy my Nikon system was.

 

Now Richard, from Aperture smilled and came have a coffee with me, holding a Leica M7 and showed it to me.

 

I started to say that film wasnt my thing but I was quite intrigued by two things : the rangefinder concept its enormous viewfinder and not blocked when you press the shutter and the weight.

 

Good lord, a M7 + 35 F2 was L-I-G-H-T.

 

Richard smiled again and said : hey, why dont you take it for the weekend ( this was a Friday afternoon ) . I agreed and left my D2x there.

 

On Monday morning I went there and said to him - ok lets talk about trade-in's. He had a loud laugh.

 

And I traded all my SLR gear for a Leica M7 brand new, Leica 35 F2.0 ASPH and Leica 90 F2 ASPH.

 

So then I have stuck with Leica and bought and sold a few lenses : upgraded my lens to 1.4, then this and that...

 

On Jan 2007 I went to Singapure and bought a M8 ( I was travelling in Asia ) and was everything fine.

 

Since then I always missed doing two things that are the weak spots of the RF system : Macro and Tele.

 

I tried the Visoflex system but found it too clunky and some stuff is hard to find , etc etc.

 

So I was wondering how I could do it... and well, at a decent cost.

 

a Leica 90mm Macro lens, although wonderfull, implies the cost of the Macro Googles to become a half effective macro setup.

 

I went on searching and found, for half of the price of a Leica 90 Macro, a Nikon D2h together with a 105 AF Macro.

 

So for 300 pounds or so , I got a full working macro setup that if I add another 600 pounds ( 80-200 AFS ), I have a very fast tele as well, which suits my occasional sport / macro / etc needs, all for the price of a Leica 90 Macro.

 

Yes, they are two setups, but I only take the D2h when I need it, so its ok.

 

The M8 + MP ( changed the M7 ) are my main cameras and for a reason.

 

D2h is only used very specifically.

 

So can the RF does everything ? No. What it does, does it fantastically but it cant cover Macro or Tele without serious drawbacks and limitations.

 

Do I like my D2h ? I do. Its 4mp files are very rich and full of detail and are better than most 6-8mp cameras that I've seen. colour is fantastically and its pretty much covers my needs. I do Macro and Tele every rare that its perfectly fine.

 

So bottom line is : its easy to trade up the SLR and get in love with Leica small cameras. But if you like macro and/or tele, to do the job right , you need a SLR. So you might want to downscale the SLR if you use it rarely but both systems can live happily together. No need to use one or the other only. You can use both and both have a place.

[tobey bilek]

In early 1980`s I gave up a Pentax system with 4 cameras and 15 lenses for Leica M. Then added R system maybe around 1990.

 

Then came digital. A Cannon A610 P&S, Nikon D200, Nikon D40, then a D700 full frame which is the way to go for me.

 

I was in the camera shop yesterday and saw Nikon furnished advertising print from a D700.

It had the tones, gradiation, & sharpness of a 8x10 contact print. I am just getting digital printing, but I can tell you the prints are way better than film. It betters what I can get from 4x5 view camera easily.

 

Leica R lenses with Leitax mounts are outstanding on Nikons.

 

 

I wish Leica had an affordable digital solution.

[rcoles]

That is the plan, with the exception of limited macro and telephoto subjects. I have sold most of my Nikon system, keeping one DX body and a 70-200 2.8 lens with a 1.4 extender and a 77mm Canon 500D close-up lens that works great on the 70-200.

Everything else I hope to cover with my M9 and a couple of lenses (the 35 f/2 and a 90 or 75).

Bob

[Bartie]

I haven`t given up my slr for the M9,I use them both for different types of photography.One thing I don`t miss with the M9 is carrying the huge weight of a Canon ds2 and lenses around.

 

Andy

[holmes]

I still have 3 or 4 EOS 3s and a couple of EOS 1N RS. These I use when I'm trying to make a buck in the editorial field. Forgot my Canon EOS 40D (digital) if the potential client(s) specify digital only JEPGs. I give them what they want, and then hopefully I get the job. Frankly I personally much prefer film: chromes, color negatives or good black and white. The digital printers are a long way from matching ink when it comes to B&W. Before I retired spent 7 1/2 years on computers. I realize their necessity, but I was taught that the final shot is the first shot. Image enhancement, manipulation, gimmicky filters, computer editing software. I have it all, but I personally don't use it.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear