Preparing for the M

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Paul,

 

I think the majority of us here just don't want to carry two cameras. On a trip to Africa over the last two weeks, it was a total pain to have to do this. The new M would have been very much easier. The amplification of the EVF-2 is usually good enough to overcome having to focus at full aperture and then stop down. I have been using it on an Olympus EP-2 with a Vario-Elmar 80-200 and a Telyt 560-V. Whereas it is close to impossible to focus the Telyt accurately on a Visoflex at anything other than f5.6, it was easy to focus it at f11 on the EVF-2 and with the zoom, hugely more accurate.

 

From my recent use of the EVF-2 on my little Olympus, I think people are going to be very pleasantly surprised how good the implementation is. I, like you, was very sceptical of the EVF at first but after a couple of days actual use, came to realise how useful it is, both for long and wide lenses. So therefore, my experience is from practical use with Leica lenses and not from speculation.

 

Wilson

[chris_tribble]

From my recent use of the EVF-2 on my little Olympus, I think people are going to be very pleasantly surprised how good the implementation is. I, like you, was very sceptical of the EVF at first but after a couple of days actual use, came to realise how useful it is, both for long and wide lenses. So therefore, my experience is from practical use with Leica lenses and not from speculation.

 

Wilson

Wilson - I just got myself an EP-2 of ebay for this reason - fun to have something to practice with until the real thing comes along! The body's in London but I'm not (delivered just after I came north for the Christmas holiday) - so something to look forward to while I'm waiting for the M!

[jaapv]

Paul,

 

I think the majority of us here just don't want to carry two cameras. On a trip to Africa over the last two weeks, it was a total pain to have to do this. .

 

Wilson

Wilson, from twenty-five years of experience of traveling into Africa I would not consider carrying less than two cameras. I still remember going into the bush with three Leica Rs and emerging three weeks later with only on working more or less. Redundancy and backup are the a and o of traveling in harsh conditions with not a Leica dealer within 3000 km.

[chris_tribble]

Wilson, from twenty-five years of experience of traveling into Africa I would not consider carrying less than two cameras. .

 

I'm sure Wilson knows this - but 2 M-240's + maybe an old beatup M9 as a backup will get you a long way - and you're still not having to hump around a DSLR!

[wlaidlaw]

Wilson, from twenty-five years of experience of traveling into Africa I would not consider carrying less than two cameras. I still remember going into the bush with three Leica Rs and emerging three weeks later with only on working more or less. Redundancy and backup are the a and o of traveling in harsh conditions with not a Leica dealer within 3000 km.

 

Jaap,

 

I actually had three, an M9, an Olympus EP-2 as a back up and a Nikon D300, supposedly for long shots, which I actually used for precisely 4 photographs from our lodge terrace in Addo Elephant Park. We also had a Leica V-Lux and a Panasonic G2 in our family party, so not short of imaging devices!

 

I would never go with just one camera but having to carry two big ones is a "never, ever again" for me. A spare M body, either film or digital, without lenses does not weigh much or take up a lot of space. My M4, in 45 years of ownership, has still to suffer its first problem.

 

Wilson

[algrove]

First try with an R lens on the GXR with M Mount. APO 4/280 at ISO2500 f4 or 5.6 1/45 in a stiff wind. First focused the GXR and then mounted the MM on the Novoflex adapter.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[haroldp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As has been often said here, 'horses for courses'. I am a Leica user since my M2 in 1966.

 

Last week I had a live performance theater shoot, available light from behind the last seats.(about 120 ft. from the stage).

 

I used a:

Nikon D700

ISO 3200

Nikon 200-400 F4 VR (shot wide open)

3D tracking autofocus

Gitzo 3 series w/ RRS long lens support and acratech long lens head.

Shutter speeds 1/80 - 1/160 sec.

 

About 400 usable out of 600 frames.

 

Un-usables mostly due to subject motion.

 

I am sure a sufficiently skilled and motivated Leica user could have done something here, but my mission was getting photo's, not proving points.

 

All of the above components were crucial to success and this was a mission for an autofocus DSLR.

 

Nikon's (and presumbly Canon's) long Tele primes are as good as any commercial lenses in the world at their speed / focal length.

 

RF 35mm camera's had a lens design advantage over SLR's for short (< 58mm) lenses due to freedom of locating the rear element without swinging mirror, this is not true for

long lenses.

 

Subtle IQ nuances of shots I did / could not get at all, are not interesting to me.

 

Regards ... H

[MarkP]

preparing for the M....

 

Where have all the Vario-Elmarit-R 28-90s gone ?

[algrove]

preparing for the M....

 

Where have all the Vario-Elmarit-R 28-90s gone ?

 

I got mine on 18 September. The same evening after playing with on the new M at Photokina that day. True not many seen.

[MarkP]

Regarding preparation for my new M I have really only considered two R lenses, as I already have all the M lenses I want (?) and certainly more than I need:rolleyes:).

 

PC-Super-Angulon-R 2.8/28 which I've already bought, and

 

Vario-Elmarit-R 28-90 as it seems the best all-purpose zoom covering most of the main focal lengths I use (28/35/50 and then 21 or 75). I've probably left it too late to get a 28-90 which is now even more expensive and difficult to find.

 

The Vario-Elmar-R 21-35 also looks like a fantastic lens, is more affordable, but covers a narrower range of FLs - would be OK if it went to 50.

 

The Vario-Elmarit-R 4.0/35-70 is too limited a FL range for me.

 

However, the FL range of the Vario-Elmar 28-70 (v2) interests me: cheaper for what will be a less frequently used lens, readily available, smaller and lighter. However, on reading earlier threads it seems this lens has relatively poor IQ and barrel distortion. Does anyone have experience with this lens?

 

Or, just occurring to me as I write this, maybe I should just forget all of these 500-740 gm R zooms and get a 330gm 4.0/28-35-50 E49 MATE which would then also usable on my other M cameras, and be done with it:)

 

Advice and comments greatly appreciated.

[marknorton]

I too have missed out on a 28-90 but have some interesting other R glass to play with when the time comes including a 180 f2.8 APO, the 100 f2.8 APO macro and the 21-35 zoom.

 

Makes me wonder where Leica will take M lens development. The new camera opens up all sorts of possibilities but almost any lens made possible by the new M will not work satisfactorily with existing M cameras which will limit the appeal and business case for such new lenses. We could think of a 28-90 zoom, for example, with click stop focal lengths and frame line selection but it would be so big as to severely block the optical viewfinder.

 

It will be interesting to see what lens which breaks the traditional M mould Leica come out with first.

[MarkP]

Thanks Mark.

 

I think that it's hard for me to justify the R 28-90 (assuming I ever find one) because of cost, size and weight, and un-lack of usability on other M cameras.

 

I'm rapidly becoming more interested in an E49 MATE (again assuming I ever find one) because of size & versatility - 28 to 50 is quite sufficient, and IQ is more than good enough to allow some cropping if I want 75mm equivalent framing.

 

I'm not too interested in longer lenses for the M but this may well be where Leica go with future M lenses. My 4.0/90 Macro-Elmar and 3.4/135 APO-Telyt are plenty long enough for my style of photography, and focus peaking for the latter lens will be nice to have.

[hamey]

preparing for the M....

 

Where have all the Vario-Elmarit-R 28-90s gone ?

 

I have got one Mark, but not parting with it.

 

Yesterday (Christmas Day) by nephew and family visited us, and to show me his new

Canon 6D and the 24-105 L lens, I played around it for a while and must admit it's very nice.

I got my Canon 600D and attached the 28-90 to it and we took some comparable shots agains't the

Full frame 6D.

 

Well the 600D and the 28-90 images outclassed the 6D and the 24-105 out the water, he was shocked.

So was I.

 

Cannot wait to try the 28-90 and the 21-35 on the new M.

 

A shot I took with the Canon 600D and the 21-35 mm at a Thai restaurant.

 

Ken

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[wlaidlaw]

preparing for the M....

 

Where have all the Vario-Elmarit-R 28-90s gone ?

 

Mark,

 

I suspect there were not too many of these lenses sold (eye watering price )

 

The usual supply and demand equation therefore now applies. With lots of other SLR to M adapters appearing, why limit yourself to Leica R lenses? If I decide I want a standard length zoom, my choice is going to be the Zeiss Contax Vario Sonnar 28-85. I used to have this lens and it was very good on film. It has good MTF figures, so no reason it would not be good on digital, is reasonably compact and has good ergonomics, as long as you like one touch rather than two touch zoom/focus. It is easily available at reasonable prices. The only issue is getting an adapter that brings up the 28/90 frame lines and has coding pits. Sadly Fotodiox did not reply to my email asking what they might be able to do, since they already make a CX/Y to M adapter.

 

Wilson

[marknorton]

I'm rapidly becoming more interested in an E49 MATE (again assuming I ever find one) because of size & versatility - 28 to 50 is quite sufficient, and IQ is more than good enough to allow some cropping if I want 75mm equivalent.

 

I think MATE prices have gone mad as well, but my hypothetical lens from Leica would be north of £4k so not unexpected. The MATE is a fragile lens, the mount is very complex, even a modest shock can wreck it requiring a rebuild for £350.

[rob_w]

Given the demand for the 29-90 R I wonder if Leica will introduce a zoom lens for the M?

 

Many of us have hoped for something in the WATE or MATE category which would provide a choice of focal lengths without changing lenses. Leica could do that, or they could introduce a full zoom for use primarily with the EVF.

 

Just speculation, of course, but Leica have managed to introduce attractive new lens offerings almost every year despite there being no apparent gaps in the fixed lens line up. What surprises will they have for us next year?

[thighslapper]

Regarding preparation for my new M I have really only considered two R lenses, as I already have all the M lenses I want (?) and certainly more than I need:rolleyes:).

 

PC-Super-Angulon-R 2.8/28 which I've already bought, and

 

Vario-Elmarit-R 28-90 as it seems the best all-purpose zoom covering most of the main focal lengths I use (28/35/50 and then 21 or 75). I've probably left it too late to get a 28-90 which is now even more expensive and difficult to find.

 

The Vario-Elmar-R 21-35 also looks like a fantastic lens, is more affordable, but covers a narrower range of FLs - would be OK if it went to 50.

 

The Vario-Elmarit-R 4.0/35-70 is too limited a FL range for me.

 

However, the FL range of the Vario-Elmar 28-70 (v2) interests me: cheaper for what will be a less frequently used lens, readily available, smaller and lighter. However, on reading earlier threads it seems this lens has relatively poor IQ and barrel distortion. Does anyone have experience with this lens?

 

Or, just occurring to me as I write this, maybe I should just forget all of these 500-740 gm R zooms and get a 330gm 4.0/28-35-50 E49 MATE which would then also usable on my other M cameras, and be done with it:)

 

Advice and comments greatly appreciated.

 

I escaped from the Nikon Zoom lens camp to Leica deliberately to avoid humping these heavy optics around ......

 

When I looked at my zoom lens use I was only using the extremes at either end of the range and nothing in between so changing to a selection of prime lenses was not much of an issue in practice......

 

I can see no point duplicating anything in the M range at all ... apart from a true Macro..... and I have found a mint Vario 80-200/4 which will do fine for the longer range and still keep to a 3 lens set up when out and about ( with a wide and mid) ..... in fact as I have a MATE and WATE I theoretically could cover 9 prime lenses with this relatively light package....

 

I already have a selection of longer visoflexes that will screw onto a TXB00 and can be used direct on the M.

[thighslapper]

Chris - all power to you for putting your money where your mouth is and buying the new M. Doesn't it worry you a bit though that (a) The CMOS IQ may be just like Can/Nik - so why not use one of these in the first place ( The camera will, to me at least, not really benefit in a proper workable manner, from being able to use all the R glass.

 

I recently had to photograph a darts contest sponsored by a national newspaper. I had to work in available light, be discreet and couldn't get close to the action. I used a Nikon D3S and 200-400mm VR F4 lens, wide open at 3200 ISO using 1/60th second, handheld. There is no way that I could have shot this on the new M or for that matter any other M . There are of course many scenarios where the M would shine and it is for these that I always have my M gear in the car boot. I recognise though that the M can't cover everything so I also always carry the Nikon gear.

 

The new M won't alter this situation and again to me at least, I wonder if Leica might be making a bit of a "white elephant" insomuch as no matter what they do with the basic M design, it is never going to be a universal camera. The M9/M8 family are superb cameras but in terms of todays technology they fill a GREAT but limited niche. That is the fascination of these unique cameras.

 

The M9 rescued Leica from financial collapse and it's truly wonderful to see the company prospering once again. The M9 was bought and used by lots of pro photographers as a compliment to their DSLR's. These photographers have the long lens capability, vibration reduction, video and live view already (Nik/Can) so why would they want to buy into the new M where it's all a bit Heath Robinson and a basic and much cheaper DSLR will do it all better.

 

I hope that I am wrong as I know that I'm not privy to the market research and customer feedback that Leica must have but my gut feeling is that not all that many PHOTOGRAPHERS want what this new M attempts to provide.

 

Sadly ..... I have to agree..... unless the image quality and hight ISO performance is a quantum leap up from the M then it will just be for the compulsive upgraders (and there are plenty of us about to keep the Leica coffers filled)

[stuny]

Mark P -

 

Give some consideration to the 28-70, and if possible try one, perhaps at a used equipment section of a large camera shop. I think you'll like it. And yes, there is some barrel distortion on the wide end.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[-ph-]

Sadly ..... I have to agree..... unless the image quality and hight ISO performance is a quantum leap up from the M then it will just be for the compulsive upgraders (and there are plenty of us about to keep the Leica coffers filled)

 

The high ISO performance certainly is. From the samples I have seen, I would guess the noise at 6400 ISO on the M is roughly where it is at 1000 on my M9. The total resolution is obviously also up a bit from the M9. Also, the whole operation of the camera has hugely improved - the quieter and faster shutter, overall processing performance. So even for these things only it is a huge step forward.

 

While it may be true, that many Leica shooters also had a modern DSLR in their posession and were using that for types of shooting the M9 was not idea for, I have very mixed feelings about this approach. Yes, I like very much about the M9 that it doesn't try to do everything for being especially good for something. However, it also meant that the M9 was not suitable of being the only camera you own. That is a huge backdraw. The M much more moves into a spot where it still is as good, or in fact even better at what the M9 was good at, and adding a few tricks on top of that. Sports photographers won't dump their DSLRs for it for sure, but for most non-professionals, the capability to shoot focal lengths longer than 90mm will really add to its usefulness.

 

Peter