Ex-SLR Users New To Leica

[JMacD]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Forget RF vs SLR, the issue is small lenses, great lenses.

When I bought a 2.8 24mm-70mm Canon zoom that was larger than a medium format camera and lens,i I started to get concerned over how large SLR lenses were getting.

As someone else said, the cameras can get smaller, but the lenses are huge.

Now if I am shooting studio shots where the model is paid to be photographed by a huge camera, they won't be intimidated by a lens the size of a RPG. Or if you are shooting sports, you need tele zooms. But everyone else would prefer to be photographed by a smaller less intrusive lens.

Compare the size of two Leica lenses, one a 21 mm 2.8 and a 75mm 2.5 versus the Canon 24-70. Compare the quality of the images.

Again, it is the small lenses, quality glass. Not cheap, even if you buy used, but your post was not about cost.

Frankly I am stunned that someone would move from an SLR to RF without trying it for awhile. But a friend did just that. An expensive switch, but they are very very happy.

I would say that no camera does it all, but ask yourself what gives you pleasure? I shoot the small but high quality Leica for 90% of my quality photos.

[zlatkob]

I'm not sure I agree with this theory that Leica-style shooting means you think before you shoot. You can use your brain just as much with a dSLR, or just as little with a Leica. Cartier-Bresson described his photography as an "immediate reaction" and an "intuition". He also felt that "adjustments of the camera – such as setting the aperture and the speed – should become reflexes, like changing gear in a car."

[rennsport]

I'm not sure I agree with this theory that Leica-style shooting means you think before you shoot. You can use your brain just as much with a dSLR, or just as little with a Leica. Cartier-Bresson described his photography as an "immediate reaction" and an "intuition". He also felt that "adjustments of the camera – such as setting the aperture and the speed – should become reflexes, like changing gear in a car."

 

I agreed. With prime M lenses, I'm forced to think a little more about the framing (when it is possible) than I used to with zoom lenses. Other times it's immediate reaction. This depends on one's shooting style, interests, and environment. The camera (Leica, in this case) helps by being smaller and more discrete which usually resulted in more 'natural look' of the subjects.

[zlatkob]

rennsport, those are good points, but prime lenses are not exclusive to Leica. One can shoot a dSLR with prime lenses too.

[rennsport]

rennsport, those are good points, but prime lenses are not exclusive to Leica. One can shoot a dSLR with prime lenses too.

 

Sure, I know. ;-)

[tgray]

In my mind the difference in shooting an RF compared to an SLR comes down to a couple of points (in no particular order):

- imprecise framing in the viewfinder - not systematic either like a 95% viewfinder doesn't show your whole scene. It changes with lenses and distance.

- no mirror blackout

- limited close focus - .7m at best

- parallax error

- lack of perspective preview in the viewfinder

- limited choice of telephotos - 90mm is the practical limit

- tougher to focus longer lenses, but easier to focus wides

- smaller lenses on average

- no real macro to speak of without jumping through discontinued hoops

- easy use of decades and decades of lenses by many manufacturers (Leica, Zeiss, Nikkor, Canon, Konica, Voigtlander, Kobalux, Ricoh, etc...)

- no real zooms to speak of

- overall, less flexibility than an SLR

 

You'll also have to give up 10fps, autofocus, fancy metering. high ISO performance, etc., but these features could theoretically appear on an RF. Current RF models don't have them however.

 

If those qualities don't sound too limiting or sound good to you, then shooting an RF might not be a frustrating experience. If you are one that shoots a lot of macro at 180mm and needs exact framing, you probably won't like it. Or if you need AF, high frame rates, or zooms. Basically, if you don't need the utmost flexibility and your shooting doesn't rely on the things that RFs can't provide, RFs can be very good. If that statement isn't true, RFs are horrible.

 

I guess you could say I have an 'RF friendly shooting style.' I don't shoot macro (I used to), I don't shoot long focal length lenses (they sit unused), I don't use zooms (never have), I'm not super particularly about framing (if something does or doesn't make it at the very edge of the frame, I could care less), I shoot mostly wide to medium, I don't rely on fancy metering, high fps, etc. I primarily shoot things in my everyday life, friends and family, and travel stuff. The small overall size of the system is very attractive for the latter bit as well as just hauling the camera around wherever I go.

 

If you do get an RF, and you have the money, keep a small SLR kit around. I do. It can be useful when you need the flexibility, automation, and precise viewing.

[Guest WPalank]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just curious why you say my shooting style is not very Leica like....

 

Scotty,

I think what she means is that you post-process your images in the computer. As you know, I'm good with that.

 

To me, the Leica shooter is not afraid to approach total strangers and shoot away which you seem to have no problem doing. Congratulations!

[scottygraham]

Scotty,

I think what she means is that you post-process your images in the computer. As you know, I'm good with that.

 

To me, the Leica shooter is not afraid to approach total strangers and shoot away which you seem to have no problem doing. Congratulations!

 

Ha! Yes, I enjoy post-processing my images in Photoshop...I enjoy that almost as much as taking photos....that makes me "not very Leica like" ?

 

Good to hear from you William....

[Jamie Roberts]

Ha! Yes, I enjoy post-processing my images in Photoshop...I enjoy that almost as much as taking photos....that makes me "not very Leica like" ?

 

Good to hear from you William....

 

Yeah that comment confused me too I think a lot of your shots would be aided by the M; though I'm not sure about the fish shots

[Guest ccmsosse]

Hi there

I am new to RF and Leica since 12/2009 - until then I was shooting my Olympus OM 40 and E500, E520

I did not regret selling my stuff to get the M9 and lenses

I love the M9 - thinking about the shot yet being able to "fire" away.

The shots are soo good that little CS4 work is needed

Is there a Leica way? I k=have no clue, but I am hooked

I love it enough and am having so much fun, that I got a new - old stock M6 and have a MP on order too

Now I can do film and digital, yet am content with the small foot print of these cams.

 

Will you love it - I can't see how you couln't ...

[Peter Lea]

A couple of amendments to Tgray's excellent comments. First, a 135mm lens is perfectly usable on a full frame RF, particularly with a bit of practice, although it's not a low-light option. That's long enough to take a head portrait. Second, the M9 works fine up to about 1600 ISO, and you can shoot handheld at 1/30th or even 1/15th of a second. Add an F1.4 lens, and you have a very useful low-light capability - adequate for most church interiors, for instance. I find the range covered by Leica lenses - 16mm to 135mm - satisfactory for most of my needs, and a body with four or five lenses weighs much less than my Canon and three zooms. If I'm carrying the Canon outfit, by the end of a day out, I'm too tired to drag the camera out and take a picture! Peter

[rhom]

Hi Scotty,

 

Been away for a few days and just read this thread. Hope that you won't mind that a M8 owner steps into this discussion.

 

I've been a Nikon & Canon SLR shooter for 40 years, most recently dSLRs, using a 5D and my current D700. Almost all pro glass. Never shot a RF until 6 months ago. Photography is fun and is my hobby.

 

Coming from SLRs to my M8 has been very easy. I had plenty of experience manually focusing SLR lenses so focusing with a Leica RF was very easy for me. I love that all is in focus at all depths of field as well as seeing beyond the framelines. Regarding low light, however, IMHO a D700 with fast lens will focus faster and more accurately in these situations, this isn't even a contest.

 

What I really like is the simplicity of the M8/9. Simple menus, simple controls, and a much bigger dose of "me" being required to obtain good results. I love the M8 meter and routinely get a higher percentage of first-shot perfect exposures than before. Easy to know what the meter is reading and to make appropriate EC adjustments based upon experience. Yes, the same can be done on a SLR, but like I said, I'm getting better results and enjoying it more.

 

Like others have mentioned, might be a good idea to try a less expensive RF than to buy a M9 first. But then again, you have to have confidence to do most anything worthwhile. I jumped right in and love my M8. Kept the D700, too, and use it for situations where it is the best tool.

 

From your comments, you will love a M9. No worries, you'll adjust just fine.

 

 

Best Wishes on your decision.

 

Rick

[melissah]

it looks like your doing alot of HDR or imaging.

im pretty sure the dlux4 have this function built in.

if that is your direction ill be interested to see how you create you images in leica.

at the same time sometimes a camera does dictate the kinds of images we shoot.

for instance if you have several kinds of shots we like to take, hi speed low light people...

then obviously you need 2 systems.

 

if you are interested in what (i think ) people mean by leica shot, this thread might be interesting to you.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/109952-your-most-leica-shot.html

after looking at all the images i think thta might answer your question.

keep us posted!

[scottygraham]

Just an update...

 

I am now on the waiting list (Cathay Photo in Singapore) for the M9. I hope to have that sweet camera in my hands soon, and I look forward to joining the "Leica Family" of shooters.

 

As for the "Leica-Like Style" discussed in this thread, I don't know if I will fit in or not....I will bring my own style to the table...some might like it, some might not, but I sure look forward to trying new things with the Leica and meeting the challenges of shooting an RF with prime lenses.

 

Now for the REAL challenge....which two lenses to buy with my M9 (I can only afford two at this time)....this will be a tough one....

[Laica]

Interesting thread indeed.

I bought my Leica M9 together with the Summilux 50 end 2009. Been taking pictures with it since.

I have mixed feelings about it though.

Mainly because of the electronics.

I truly love the Summilux lens, the image rendered, the smoothness and compactness is just great.

What I don't like is the lousy battery capacity. Is it so difficult to make a good battery ?

The LCD screen is outdated. Although good for reviewing I think for an euro 5000 plus camera it should have a better screen.

High ISO performance is just average. I don't go above ISO 800 for my color work.

If you put the camera automatic to sleep say after 2 minutes, the camera takes too long to start up. I missed a shot on several occasions because of it.

If I don't put the camera in this mode, it drains the battery quickly even without shooting at all.

I think the Leica lenses are worth the money but the M9 is overpriced.

Is it just me or do you folks have other experiences with the M9 ?

[diogenis]

Buy the new sumilux 35mm Scotty. Maybe the single one lens you will ever need. Since you are on the waiting list for an M9, it would be cool to start grand with

[Guest ccmsosse]

Interesting thread indeed.

I bought my Leica M9 together with the Summilux 50 end 2009. Been taking pictures with it since.

I have mixed feelings about it though.

Mainly because of the electronics.

I truly love the Summilux lens, the image rendered, the smoothness and compactness is just great.

What I don't like is the lousy battery capacity. Is it so difficult to make a good battery ?

The LCD screen is outdated. Although good for reviewing I think for an euro 5000 plus camera it should have a better screen.

High ISO performance is just average. I don't go above ISO 800 for my color work.

If you put the camera automatic to sleep say after 2 minutes, the camera takes too long to start up. I missed a shot on several occasions because of it.

If I don't put the camera in this mode, it drains the battery quickly even without shooting at all.

I think the Leica lenses are worth the money but the M9 is overpriced.

Is it just me or do you folks have other experiences with the M9 ?

 

I love the M9 - it is not a fast camera and lack of auto focus may attest to that - I have not had issues with batter drain or not getting s shot due to the camera performance. I missed shots 'cause I wasn't fast enough - my worng doing, not Leicas. I try to anticipate, but that doesn't always work. The M9 has forced me to "think" about the image and slow down ... enough that I now also own a M6.

I am happy and don't miss my E500 or E520 at all.

Cheers

[Laica]

I love the M9 - it is not a fast camera and lack of auto focus may attest to that - I have not had issues with batter drain or not getting s shot due to the camera performance. I missed shots 'cause I wasn't fast enough - my worng doing, not Leicas. I try to anticipate, but that doesn't always work. The M9 has forced me to "think" about the image and slow down ... enough that I now also own a M6.

I am happy and don't miss my E500 or E520 at all.

Cheers

 

I love the RF kind of photography myself, that's not the point.

I just think Leica could have done a better job on the battery and LCD screen.

[lars_bergquist]

Just an update...

 

I am now on the waiting list (Cathay Photo in Singapore) for the M9. I hope to have that sweet camera in my hands soon, and I look forward to joining the "Leica Family" of shooters.

[ ... ]

Now for the REAL challenge....which two lenses to buy with my M9 (I can only afford two at this time)....this will be a tough one....

 

I am not you. But if I was you ... I would buy one 35mm Summicron ASPH, and one 90mm Summarit. You will only very seldom, or ever, need more speed, unless you are going to specialise in Coal Hole Photography (and coal holes are obsolete). The two focal lengths are the wings, so to speak, of the old Holy Trinity, being, I presume, the Father and the Son, 50mm playing the part of the Holy Ghost. 95 percent of all jobs in general photography can be done with 35+90mm, and few of the remaining five percent are very interesting.

 

But again, I am not you.

 

The old man who still remembers his first look through a pentaprism

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[kkochheiser]

Lars, I've been thinking about the 90 or 75 Summarit. How have your results been with the 90? It's easy for me to get caught up in it not being an APO or ASPH lens but I wonder how much difference that would really make to me. I know that I'm the only one who can answer that but I'd like to hear more about your experience.

 

Kent