250swb Posted June 4, 2010 Share #21 Posted June 4, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...you mean like this...? This is the Canon I mentioned earlier. Regards, Bill Thats the sort of thing Bill. The narrative of the photograph can be heightened by the qualities of the lens used, so a busy or harsh bokeh might heighten a sense of disquiet or alienation, and a smooth creamy bokeh heighten the sense of nostaligia or calm. As we know modern Leica lenses generally only have creamy bokeh, so we have to look elsewhere at other manufacturers or older lenses. Nice pic. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 4, 2010 Posted June 4, 2010 Hi 250swb, Take a look here Just curious. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
earleygallery Posted June 8, 2010 Share #22 Posted June 8, 2010 I think the OP is a little confused between people who use Leica lenses on digital bodies and the various LTM/M lens options. If the question is why use a Canon SLR lens on an M body then yes I agree it seems it would be easier to buy a cheap Canon body instead. I use non-Leica lenses on my lllf, M2 and R3 (Voigtlanders on the LTM/M and Tamrons on the R). Why? Because are excellent lenses in their own right. Because of available funds and other spending priorities. Because I can. Because I like the results. Because I like the handling of my Leica bodies - I don't see why I should buy a Voigtlander Bessa for example to use my Voigtlander lenses when I've got a perfectly good Leica! If money were no object I'd certainly buy more Leica stuff, but I wouldn't sell what I currently have. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 8, 2010 Share #23 Posted June 8, 2010 Not really. The M9 certainly produces better results than a cheap Canon body, and what is the problem with putting a lens that does not really needs RF coupling and is not available in M mount on the camera. Like for instance a shift lens or a fisheye? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted June 8, 2010 Share #24 Posted June 8, 2010 Good point Jaap - I was mostly thinking of film cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted June 8, 2010 Share #25 Posted June 8, 2010 "I'm not so sure about the benifits of a leica body of any type without leica glass attached to it." I think this is your key logical error - for me, using Leica is ALL about the body, and the glass is secondary. I wanted an M-mount rangefinder (Canon need not apply), an RF that could handle 35 and 135 in one body (Voigtlander need not apply), a meter, and now digital (no serious competition at all). As it happens, I do use all Leica glass. None of it is contemporary or expensive (except for a 75 Summicron, for which there is no alternative that meets my needs). Most of it was acquired before Voigtlander or Zeiss offered alternatives, and not much more expensive - used - than old Nikon or Canon lenses of the specs I needed (if even available - 35 f/2, 21 f/2.8, 135 f/4). But I didn't buy an M4-2, M6, M8, M9 because of Leica glass. I bought them because they were compact, low-impact, aggresively manual cameras in an era of blimpo plasticams whose manual controls were compromised in favor of automation. The lens performance (if any) is just the gravy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwelland Posted June 9, 2010 Share #26 Posted June 9, 2010 If you like the look of the images produced by a non-Leica lens then what's the problem? It's all about the final result so who cares whether it's Leica, CV, Zeiss, Canon or whoever's lenses if they get you what you like. The Leica body choice is a different matter though. Rock solid with superb ergonomics work for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve70 Posted June 23, 2010 Share #27 Posted June 23, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I can think of a reason, let's say you have a multitude of older Nikon or Canon lenses and wanted to play around with them. I have a Leica M adapter that lets me use manual focus Ai and non-Ai Nikkor lenses, such as the 50mm f1,2 or a 20mm f4. They are fun to play with and cheep, since you already have them! I have used these lenses quite successfully with my M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chris M Posted June 23, 2010 Share #28 Posted June 23, 2010 I think the OP is a little confused between people who use Leica lenses on digital bodies and the various LTM/M lens options. If the question is why use a Canon SLR lens on an M body then yes I agree it seems it would be easier to buy a cheap Canon body instead. Thank you, someone finally got the point I've been trying to make all along, why would someone spend so much money on a M8 or M9 Body (ONLY) too use an adaptor with canon lens, thats an aweful amount of cash to spend on a Digital M9 camera body if it can't be accompanied by its own brands premium leica glass, would you think so, I'm speaking about someone starting out. cm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted June 23, 2010 Share #29 Posted June 23, 2010 There's a current thread elsewhere on the forum from someone considering buying an M6 and an adaptor to use some Nikon SLR lenses on it. I have advised him to buy an M2 and a CV35 instead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chris M Posted June 23, 2010 Share #30 Posted June 23, 2010 I have advised him to buy an M2 and a CV35 instead. See, thats something we all here can understand Andy, he's not having to drop $3000.00-$7000.00 for an M8 or M9 body I'm glsd your with me on this one. cm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted June 23, 2010 Share #31 Posted June 23, 2010 Personally, I don't see the point of buying an M9 and putting Nikon SLR lenses on the front, but I wouldn't deny anyone their personal choice of doing so, if that's what they want. Why should I care what they do with their stuff? They can use it a a pinhole camera for all I care. IMHO, people should just let other people get on with their lives. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted June 23, 2010 Share #32 Posted June 23, 2010 [ ... ] IMHO, people should just let other people get on with their lives. +1 The old man from the Age of the Nikon Rangefinders Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted June 23, 2010 Share #33 Posted June 23, 2010 Hmm, seems the reason is pretty clear: Because you can. Up to the individual whether the results satisfy or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chris M Posted June 23, 2010 Share #34 Posted June 23, 2010 As my posts states, I'm just curious, and this is a forum isn't it? cm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yanidel Posted June 23, 2010 Share #35 Posted June 23, 2010 I guess some people prefer have a well built and reliable body than an expensive lens that is only marginally better than it peers. How many of us can attribute a great picture purely to the lens used? While a 35mm cron asph is technically better than a Canon 35/2, in good hands, the Canon will produce better shots. Yet an unreliable body can mean no great shot at all if it fails at the worse moment. And there is disposable income which is the reason why these questions make no sense. If a lens represents 5% of a monthly salary vs 100%, the value to one of marginally better lens will never be the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chris M Posted June 23, 2010 Share #36 Posted June 23, 2010 I guess some people prefer have a well built and reliable body than an expensive lens that is only marginally better than it peers. How many of us can attribute a great picture purely to the lens used? While a 35mm cron asph is technically better than a Canon 35/2, in good hands, the Canon will produce better shots. Yet an unreliable body can mean no great shot at all if it fails at the worse moment. And there is disposable income which is the reason why these questions make no sense. If a lens represents 5% of a monthly salary vs 100%, the value to one of marginally better lens will never be the same. I disagree, I'm a life long Leica user, 40 + years, and as much as I love leica and the M8's I use too own, I'm finding that they are not nearly as reliable as the film bodied M's and they come at a much higher price point. Even the veteran shooters Here on this forum will say that they need 2 M8's or M9's with them if being used as a primary camera for a shoot, or they carry another brand and use the M9 as a back up or secondary camera. The jury is still out on the M9 IMHO, there still are some thing to work out to be a simply trusted as an (ONLY) camera . Like anything new for the first time, it generally demands allot of cash to own and is not always perfect. Hopefully Leica will come down in price as technology cheapens. cm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 23, 2010 Share #37 Posted June 23, 2010 Most professionals I met used to carry at least two film bodies as well. I cannot say that digital cameras are less reliable. I often go to Africa in harsh conditions. In the past I used to carry three R bodies. Sometimes I would emerge with just one of them working, more or less. That has never happened to me yet with Leica digital. The only time a digital camera broke it was the R9 part of the DMR shedding its exposure metering cell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted June 23, 2010 Share #38 Posted June 23, 2010 If I: ... had more money than sense ... I would probably chop them all in for a current Summilux Ahh, Bill, does that mean that every one of us who happens to own a current Summilux 50 asph. has more sense than money? What I am really concerned about, however, is what that means for those of us who own a Summilux 50 asph AND some other 50 mm glass ... . Regards, Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chris M Posted June 23, 2010 Share #39 Posted June 23, 2010 Most professionals I met used to carry at least two film bodies as well. I often go to Africa in harsh conditions. In the past I used to carry three R bodies. Sometimes I would emerge with just one of them working, more or less. That has never happened to me yet with Leica digital. The only time a digital camera broke it was the R9 part of the DMR shedding its exposure metering cell. I cannot say that digital cameras are less reliable. Hi Jaap, I'm just saying you should know from being a veteran member here on this forum and a (digital M user) since they came out, that "most other brands" in the price range of the M8's and M9's are far better suited for harsher climates and banging around ie; "more dependable" and " more rugged " than the Niche market rangefinders of the leica M8's and M9's, and I understand that you have had several issues with both M8s' and M9's that you have had and currently own that you have posted about on this forum, that those certain issues were not up to "your ideal out comes" adjustments with in the leica standards, not to mention quality controll on the new cameras, I'd certainly consider that in part, unreliable at times, IMHO. So with that, and the funky nuances with the M9's ability too just not write to a SD card? for no aparant reason and intermitantly, well I'd consider that a unreliable risk to factor into a professional shoot. So the idea of carrying one M9 body too a pro shoot worth thousands of dollars with a back up something should always be practiced. I know you were heavely invested in Leica M8's and M9's now, and are biased to the Leica brand, but you should know more than most here that leica has not hit the total sweet spot yet, however they are almost there:) I too am biased too all Leica products and will continue to support leica till the day I die;) I assume just like you? Ps. I always look to your posts for solid advice and answers, however I agree too disagree;) on this subject. cm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted June 23, 2010 Share #40 Posted June 23, 2010 The problem that the user with the SD card issue had is atypical and by no means common. Let's not blow this out of proportion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.