lars_bergquist Posted November 22, 2009 Share #21 Â Posted November 22, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I gave up (film) SLRs for (film) Leica M cameras. That was way back in 1996. Then I went digital by using a film scanner. That was in 1999. Finally I bought a M8 in early 2007. The last stage in this transition was my M9. Â The old man from the Age of Film Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted November 22, 2009 Share #22 Â Posted November 22, 2009 My first camera was a Nikon FM2 when I was still a student. After about a year, I sold it to my girlfriend and bought a used M4-P instead which was the only camera I used for about 15 years. I never had an SLR since and I certainly don't regret switching to rangefinders. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted November 22, 2009 Share #23  Posted November 22, 2009 you cannot -and shall not intend to- replace anything an slr does with a rf  You shall not set up rules in photography. You shall not try to impose the rules you've deliberately chosen to adhere to upon others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnkare Posted November 22, 2009 Share #24 Â Posted November 22, 2009 I have, basically. I still have a couple of Rolleiflexes, but they are TLRs . Â 135 will do my long focal lenth needs more than well. Â For kino macro shots I have thought about adapting the LTM 135 Hektor to a M42 Practica I got for free, but that has not been very high on my to-do-list; the "project" started over six months ago and I still haven't done anything about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted November 22, 2009 Share #25 Â Posted November 22, 2009 Every time I had an M, I ended up selling it. They just aren't as good or as practical as R cameras as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure M have their uses, but I can do everything that an M does with an R and a whole lot more... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 22, 2009 Share #26 Â Posted November 22, 2009 In 2000, I got fed up with the ever-increasing bulk and forced automation of SLRs and switched to RFs, first to Contax G and then to Leica M. Â On looking at the pictures in the world that really matter, capture the human condition and last beyond the moment - the ones that get collected in museums or published as books, for example - I realized that practically none of them require more than the range the Leica M or other rangefinders deliver. Â There are some niche areas that benefit from an SLR - sports action (magazine cover this week, landfill next week); wildlife; scientific documentation and astro/microphotography, and so on. I'm not in those niches. Â Part of the impetus for my switch was a workshop in 1999 with several Nat. Geo. and other pro photographers. Among them was David Alan Harvey, who had just published his "Cuba," and had been shooting nothing but Leica M for his magazine stories for a decade or so, after years of shooting Nikon SLRs. Â He talked about the changeover, and made one telling comment: "I still see lots of "180mm" shots - I just don't take them anymore." Â One can create a powerful and lasting life's work without every touching an SLR - which is what I plan to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted November 22, 2009 Share #27 Â Posted November 22, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't think you can have a general rule; much depends of personal photographic needs. My first Leica M (an M3) arrived long before my first slr camera (Pentax MX); I still have them both! In fact I use its digital younger sibling - a K20D - for macro and some portrait work, with fast primes which are superb. But, nothing surpasses the pleasure I get from using my film and digital Ms. They would always be my first choice. Â Pindy, there is no reason not to have both forms if you need them. A good modest digital slr is very reasonable compared with Leica prices! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
storybrown Posted November 22, 2009 Share #28 Â Posted November 22, 2009 I like SLRs (esp Rs) much better, but I do use my CL & Digilux 2 for lots of things & they'er rangefinderish - I like them both & intend to keep them. As I tend incrementally more toward digital season by season, I take the D2 or a handy Nikon D40 with a long zoom, but, even so, I usually have an R8 or R4sP right there. Â I'm always pleasantly surprised that the D2 consistently takes better pictures than I see thru the evf . . . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AgXlove Posted November 22, 2009 Share #29 Â Posted November 22, 2009 I still have my Nikon equipment but use it rarely; my MP and lenses get much more use than my Nikon kit these days. I won't get rid of my Nikon stuff, though - for my macro work, there is no substitute for Nikon's 200mm f/4 micro mounted on an F3 or F100. Â The truth is that with the exception of macro and long lens work (birds or sports), the Leica M system will do about everything else and will produce superior negs and/or chromes to any other 35mm (and probably 120) camera system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent1965 Posted November 23, 2009 Share #30 Â Posted November 23, 2009 There are many things I do with my Nikon F2 & the several primes I own that I cannot do with my IIIG. I'm a keen astronomical photographer so things like star trails and all the other aspects of that interest are more easily & much more successfully obtained with the Nikon. Â But - I enjoy both, for different reasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
northfaceboy Posted November 23, 2009 Share #31  Posted November 23, 2009 Yes  I just sold all my canon gear. It was difficult to make the switch, leaving the 10fps, autofocus, and large array of lenses. So far I still haven't regretted my switch, hopefully it will stay this way.  Got myself a mint M6 Classic and a 35mm 'cron ASPH to begin my Leica addiction. The downside of the any Leica system, is the $$$. As a student, it is very difficult to save up money.  Can't wait to get the M9 and many lenses.  Matt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted November 23, 2009 Share #32 Â Posted November 23, 2009 Another yes here. If I can't take a picture with my M it's not worth taking as far as I'm concerned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
minhhich Posted November 23, 2009 Share #33 Â Posted November 23, 2009 I am running through the process of being doubted atm. I use my M more often atm but when it come down to live music, DSLR is still my choice, but its too heavy. My decision now is to use all prime lenses:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnkare Posted November 23, 2009 Share #34  Posted November 23, 2009 I have, basically. I still have a couple of Rolleiflexes, but they are TLRs . 135 will do my long focal lenth needs more than well.  For kino macro shots I have thought about adapting the LTM 135 Hektor to a M42 Practica I got for free, but that has not been very high on my to-do-list; the "project" started over six months ago and I still haven't done anything about it.  For me it just didn't feel wise to keep a SLR kit sitting in my closet, holding my quite limited resources of storing space and money. When I had the SLRs, the use of the long lenses (200&400) and a macro lens was so rare that it felt completely foolish for me to keep them, not to mention keeping SLR bodies only for that purpose.  I'm sometimes having trouble as it is, using my Leicas, MFs and my compact so often that the money invested in them gets used and their mecanics won't get stuck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver8 Posted November 23, 2009 Share #35 Â Posted November 23, 2009 I just was hoping a few of you had a story of no longer needing a reflex camera once you discovered the M did what you needed. Â I used a Nikon F3 from 1987-2005. In 2006, I changed to a Leica MP and haven't looked back. My biggest regret is not making the switch sooner. Â The reasons: Â 1. First and foremost, Leica lenses are wonderful. There's an advantage in having the lens closer to the film plane (or sensor). You can't deny physics! Â 2. Rangefinders and their lenses are small. I still get a kick seeing photographers carry around a big D700 with an enormous zoom lens. Forget it. Â 3. I like seeing what is outside the framelines. In regards to composition, knowing what to exclude from the frame is as important as knowing what to include. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
norsk Posted November 23, 2009 Share #36 Â Posted November 23, 2009 You can do nearly every job/picture with a SLR - but not every with a M. Â So the answer ist clear enough......... Â Greetings Heinz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jsrockit Posted November 23, 2009 Share #37 Â Posted November 23, 2009 I can't stand SLR cameras. The older mechanical ones are barable to me, but the new digital ones just don't do it for me. I like my camera to feel right. I like aperature rings on the lens, manual focus on the lens, and a shutter speed dial on the body. The simpler the better. Manufactuers have forgotten simplicity and have given us no option but to buy a "swiss army" camera. Luckily, Leica still gets it. I only use Leicas and older, non-SLR, cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnkare Posted November 23, 2009 Share #38 Â Posted November 23, 2009 You can do nearly every job/picture with a SLR - but not every with a M. Â This is also true: You can do nearly every job/picture with an M - but not with an SLR. It's just a matter of which are more insignificant to you: the pictures that are left untaken with an SLR or an M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 23, 2009 Share #39 Â Posted November 23, 2009 I have been using M and R systems side by side for decades. Horses for courses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 23, 2009 Share #40 Â Posted November 23, 2009 I will add this: IMHO current digital SLRs are just oversized cell-phones...without the phone. Â But if there was a current digital SLR equivalent to (take your pick) Nikon F/F2/F3, Canon F-1, Contax RX, Leica M9 - i.e. with a BIG viewfinder, split-image focus screen, no little AF-point doodads scattered around the finder, shutter dial, aperture rings on the lenses, lenses optimized for manual focus and handling - and, optionally: built-in motor and a pop-off prism for low-angle work...then I might become interested again. Â I expect that is what the Leica R users were hoping for in an R10. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.