Jaymuc Posted June 6, 2013 Share #1 Posted June 6, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello, I presently have a Canon eos 5 Mark1 and think about updating to a present day Canon or to make the move to a Leica M. I just have 2 lenses left (just sold two) and this would be a good time as any. Know the Leica ® from my father back in the 70s and 80s and did take some pictures with an old M (from the 1930s, my grandmas camera). Since then the myth of perfection surrounding Leica has always held some fascination for me. Anybody from you did a similar move late in his photography career (hobbiyst) and could give me some pro's and con's to help me make the right decision (big step from SLR's to a rangefinder manual focus camera and at >10k Euros quite expensive as well)? If I make the step I would buy a 35 and 90 with it - both as 2.0 or can I make any compromises and go to the 2.5s? I buying old an option (for the lenses) and if so should I buy the 90 or the 35 old (one I will buy new). Looking forward to some advice, Jay Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 6, 2013 Posted June 6, 2013 Hi Jaymuc, Take a look here EOS 5D Mark III/EOS 1 or Leica M. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
dwbell Posted June 6, 2013 Share #2 Posted June 6, 2013 Get a 5D2 and a used M9. Wouldn't advise any "all or nothing" route if you're unsure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirekti Posted June 6, 2013 Share #3 Posted June 6, 2013 I sold my 5D III, 35L, 85L and 70-200 II L, and bought M, 35 lux and 75 cron. It all depends what you plan on using it for. I'm new to the M system, and maybe someone could give you better tips. However, these are some pros and cons based on my needs. Pros: Super small and easy to handle compared to 5D III and 70-200. Much lighter than 5DIII and 35L, and this camera is alway on me. Not embarased to pull it out in a highly crowded place, because pulling out 70-200 always attracted many people to stare at me. I love the output from this system. Rangefinder experience - it just feel right, and different than using a dslr. Cons: No autofocus, so I'm a bit slower at the moment, however suprisingly fast considered this is my first rangefinder. I added 1.15x magnifier and this really made focusing easier for me. Focusing in a dark area can be a bit tricky. I event noticed that focusing the eyes (and people move) isn't as easy as focusing to something that has straight lines. On dslr I'd turn the servo on and it would work for me. All in all, I'm super happy with the M system, and don't think I'll ever look back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcnarf Posted June 6, 2013 Share #4 Posted June 6, 2013 Since I have the new M-240, my M9, with 3 still-functioning batteries, is on sale for $2,500.00. It still works great, but the black enamel has worn off quite a bit around the edges. About a year ago, Leica New Jersey repaired the power switch. At that time,they also checked out the whole camera, made any needed adjustments, and cleaned it and the sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted June 6, 2013 Share #5 Posted June 6, 2013 I have the Mk III bodies and a bunch of Canon lenses. It's a great system and the image quality is very high, but the fact is the stuff isn't much fun to carry around and use. I do professional work and sometimes have to take Canons--mostly for long lens work or fast zoom versatility. But when I'm out shooting for myself, it is always the M system. If you are shooting for income and it's a question of one versus the other, I'd have to say you're better off with the Canons. But if you are doing personal work and don't need the long lenses, most definitely go with the M. In terms of focusing, I think once you get used to the rangefinder it can become nearly as fast and likely more accurate than a good autofocus (assuming you have good eyesight). If you're just going with two lenses, the 35/2 asph is a superb lens. So is the 90/2, but for less weight ans smaller size also consider a good used 90/2.8. Whenever I pull mine out I'm blown away by the sharpness and contrast. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted June 6, 2013 Share #6 Posted June 6, 2013 I had Kodak SLR/C, which is similar to 5D in the sense its ff dslr, stolen. Now M9 is my primary camera, accompanied with Vlux4 for its movie mode, super tele, and af capability. Basically you have almost everything I have if you have 5D iii or ii. The ff sensor, the super rele capable, and the movie mode. You can even have the persoective control if you get the TS lens. What you will miss is M9's portability, agility, and Leica M lens sweetness. There are centuries discuss about that, and many people swear ther is or is not such difference. I believe it's correct for both groups. You'll have to call for yourself. Oh, with 5Dxxx, you will also miss the awkard M's style range finder. It's rediculously awful yo use in the beginning, and it will reficulus makes you addict to it. Be warned. Hello, I presently have a Canon eos 5 Mark1 and think about updating to a present day Canon or to make the move to a Leica M. I just have 2 lenses left (just sold two) and this would be a good time as any. Know the Leica ® from my father back in the 70s and 80s and did take some pictures with an old M (from the 1930s, my grandmas camera). Since then the myth of perfection surrounding Leica has always held some fascination for me. Anybody from you did a similar move late in his photography career (hobbiyst) and could give me some pro's and con's to help me make the right decision (big step from SLR's to a rangefinder manual focus camera and at >10k Euros quite expensive as well)? If I make the step I would buy a 35 and 90 with it - both as 2.0 or can I make any compromises and go to the 2.5s? I buying old an option (for the lenses) and if so should I buy the 90 or the 35 old (one I will buy new). Looking forward to some advice, Jay Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannybuoy Posted June 6, 2013 Share #7 Posted June 6, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Really depends how you see yourself shooting. I have a 5Dmk2 in a Peli case in my wardrobe that hasn't been used in months. I keep it for any commercial work that comes my way. I have a wedding in July that I'll use it at, but after I'll probably sell all my Canon gear and carry on with my M9 until an M is available for me to buy. Then I'll have just one body and a few lenses that will be used for everything. I'll try and make my workflow adapt to just use the M. You might want to consider a similar approach. I'm not preaching of course. If you want to shoot wildlife then I'd go for the Canon but if you're just happy in the 12-90mm range (135mm if you can handle it) then the M sounds like it'll cover all of your needs. Ultimately if you want to enjoy using your camera every time you pick it up then it Leica all the way. I don't enjoy using my Canon, it just is, I derive no tangible joy from it at all! Good luck deciding. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted June 6, 2013 Share #8 Posted June 6, 2013 The M is nothing like the R Get a 6D, its light and good quality perhaps buy a secondhand M9 as well to see if you like it, you can always sell it and pretty much loose no money 5Diii vs M240 is much more then apples vs oranges, its more like different planets Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted June 6, 2013 Share #9 Posted June 6, 2013 It depends on you and what you shoot. I had a 5D Mk I and bought a Leica M8 about 6 years ago. After around 12 months of having both cameras I sold the Canon as it wasn't being used. However, I'd used film Ms for a number of years, so was really looking forward to being able to use a digital one. I also much prefer to use a rangefinder to an SLR. If you've not used a rangefinder before it could be a big step to take. If possible it would probably be worthwhile to keep both systems, then if you don't get on with a M you still have something to fall back on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Allsopp Posted June 6, 2013 Share #10 Posted June 6, 2013 I have the Mk III bodies and a bunch of Canon lenses. It's a great system and the image quality is very high, but the fact is the stuff isn't much fun to carry around and use. I do professional work and sometimes have to take Canons--mostly for long lens work or fast zoom versatility. But when I'm out shooting for myself, it is always the M system. If you are shooting for income and it's a question of one versus the other, I'd have to say you're better off with the Canons. But if you are doing personal work and don't need the long lenses, most definitely go with the M. In terms of focusing, I think once you get used to the rangefinder it can become nearly as fast and likely more accurate than a good autofocus (assuming you have good eyesight). If you're just going with two lenses, the 35/2 asph is a superb lens. So is the 90/2, but for less weight ans smaller size also consider a good used 90/2.8. Whenever I pull mine out I'm blown away by the sharpness and contrast. I have to agree with this except that from my experience the Summarit lenses are great, and as cheap as Leica glass comes. I have a 35, 50 and 90 Summarit with my M9. I Sold all my Cannon gear 2.5 years ago but bought a 7D six months ago for the reach and flexibility of longer zooms. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BartmanSA Posted June 6, 2013 Share #11 Posted June 6, 2013 Not sure if this will help but here is a rough comparison between the D800E and the Leica M9. The lenses used may make it not a fair comparison but that is what the options were. Stephen Bartels Gallery | Nikon D800E v Leica M9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoskeptic Posted June 6, 2013 Share #12 Posted June 6, 2013 Agree with Bill on the Summarits. I have the 50 and 75. The 75 is super sharp. The bokeh on the 50 will hang with most other Leica lenses of reknown. At less than half the cost of a 50 Lux Asph (which I also have) the Summarit is a "best buy". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
openuser Posted June 6, 2013 Share #13 Posted June 6, 2013 I've had 5D II, 16-35 II L, 100mm Macro L, 50 1.4, 85 1.2 II L, 70-200 f/4 L and MP + 50 cron for over a year and two months. I've always had the MP on me, and made orders of magnitude more images with the MP (despite having to develop the film and scan it or wet print it) compared to my Canon for that reason. So I recently sold all my Canon gears and bought 35 lux fle, and placed order for silver M 240. You are not alone! When you make the switch, you will never want to go back Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
batmobile Posted June 6, 2013 Share #14 Posted June 6, 2013 The SLR and M are very different cameras. For most purposes I am more M than SLR, but do own both. If I had to own only one, it would be M. I just never bonded with SLRs for very mobile work. Regarding the summarits, they are superb. I own the 35 and 75 and feel no regret that I did not go for crons or luxes. The Summarits are smaller, lighter and cheaper and at their F stops produce such good results that there is no reason to go for faster lenses on technical grounds. If you want shallower depth of field, or more light gathering, fine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted June 6, 2013 Share #15 Posted June 6, 2013 The SLR and M are very different cameras. For most purposes I am more M than SLR, but do own both. If I had to own only one, it would be M. I just never bonded with SLRs for very mobile work. Regarding the summarits, they are superb. I own the 35 and 75 and feel no regret that I did not go for crons or luxes. The Summarits are smaller, lighter and cheaper and at their F stops produce such good results that there is no reason to go for faster lenses on technical grounds. If you want shallower depth of field, or more light gathering, fine. The summarits are superb but Leica equipment shines at f1.4 Not being able to take advantage of really wide open tends to kill some of the optical candy. I mean at f2.8 most Canon lenses look pretty good Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iedei Posted June 6, 2013 Share #16 Posted June 6, 2013 get a used M8 or M9. try it out for a bit. if you like it, consider moving to all Leica gear you won't lose any money as you can sell those cameras for what you paid for it most of the time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted June 6, 2013 Share #17 Posted June 6, 2013 Hello Jay - Having come to Leica relatively late, 2007, and having traveled through the film SLR route through point and shoots and 5D and 5DII... I have a different opinion than some of the posters here. Life is too short to muck around when you already have an idea that you are in the wrong place. Why spend time graduating from one camera to the next when you can save yourself a LOT of money and a LOT of time just buying what you want in the first place? I would recommend NOT buying an M8 to see if you like it or for that matter an M9. Get a M 240 to start and the lenses you want. I'd recommend getting just one Summilux and seeing what this Leica magic really is all about. You have arrived at your destination! Please read this very enlightening and amusing piece from The Online Photographer before you do anything. The Online Photographer: Letter to George Hope you enjoy your new Leica as much as I do. Rick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted June 6, 2013 Share #18 Posted June 6, 2013 ...Please read this very enlightening and amusing piece from The Online Photographer before you do anything. The Online Photographer: Letter to George Hope you enjoy your new Leica as much as I do. Rick Message to moderators - make it sticky please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted June 6, 2013 Share #19 Posted June 6, 2013 I changed to Leica last year from being a Canon User since the film days, long before they even had digital bodies. I have used them day in day out up until last year. I bought an M9 early 2012 and now I've never used the Canons (1ds MKIII's, L lenses) again. I personally would choose the M over the Canon 1 series any day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean-Michel Posted June 6, 2013 Share #20 Posted June 6, 2013 Hi, Moving from your 5D to a 5D2 or 5D3 makes more financial sense. I went fro the 5D to the 5D2 because of the higher pixel count and because of the dust reduction system. It is as good andSLR as I need and would not give it up for much of the work I do. That said, I sorely missed working with my Leicas (film) and finally bought an M9. If I were not already a Leica user with Leica lenses and wanted a 'rangefinder' type camera and without a large stash of available cash I would hesitate to go the Leica route -- I might check out the new Fuji cameras. But, I still find that my prints from Leica images give me the most satisfaction, and people do gravitate to those prints more than to those made with the Canon. Jean-Miche Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.