Leica M240 Advice

[Shade]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

. I really don't seem to get the feeling that the new line of digital Leicas are anywhere near the pinnacle of image quality that they used to be known

 

I dont think you really understand what you are talking about there. Before the digital line, Leica has always been a film camera. A film camera's "pinnacle of image quality" is determined IMHO by two things: the film and the lens. A leica camera BODY is just a unit to house the film and the lens.

 

Compared to what we had back in film, as Jaap said, what we have now is far beyond people's imagination back then. If you are saying they are "not anywhere near", I suggest you take another look (in technical terms).

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[01af]

So the Leica S is out of the question ... I just wanted to make sure it won't go unnoticed under the radar.

 

When comparing the Leica M to the Nikon D800 then I'd say the latter has the potential for higher image quality as far as the sensor is concerned ... simply due to the higher pixel count (36 MP as opposed to 18 or 24 MP). There once was a comparison somewhere on this forum where the D800 (with an excellent lens) slightly outperformed the M (Typ 240).

 

So maybe it's an option just to sell the 24-70 mm zoom lens and get one or two really nice, carefully picked prime lenses for the Nikon F mount ... I'm thinking of the latest-generation Nikkor lenses or the Zeiss ZF.2 lenses.

 

Of course, this would leave you still without a Leica ...

[Jeff S]

Still much to large for me though.

 

The M240 plus 35 Summilux (FLE) you're contemplating will cost approx. $12k, before tax. A reduced price S2 plus 70 Summarit could be had for about $14k if you search. Plus, once you buy Leica, regardless the camera, you'll inevitably want more than one lens.

 

Of course an M-E, which as I said can be rented for trial, or a used M9, will be more cost friendly.

 

Jeff

[L1913]

ok, may i ask you what made you 'ready to jump ship from Nikon to Leica'?

being ready to spend thousands for a new camera system is nothing you do just without any reason, or am i completely wrong? if it's only manual focus you're looking for, there's quite a big choice to put on a d800.

 

I have used Nikon for a long time and am ready for something different and better with a unique look. That is the easiest way I can sum up my willingness to spend the huge amount of money for a Leica system.

[bocaburger]

1) 90% of the photography I do is traveling photography of landscapes and cityscapes. The ability to take very good crisp night shots is very important to me as I enjoy taking night shots of lit up skylines. ...........From what I read it is touted as a camera that is meant primary for hand held shooting for fairly nearby subjects. A great deal of what I will be shooting will be far away and because I make large prints a tripod will frequently be preferred and will certainly be necessary with night shots. Is the M (240) the right camera for me?

 

2) What lens would be most appropriate if I am only going to buy one lens and would like something that will be good for everything. Would anyone have advice? 35mm/1.4?

 

50% of the photography I do is like your 90%. I have owned many different camera systems in the past (film) and at present also have a Canon 5D system in addition to my M9 system. Quite honestly for the kind of candid photography I do I vastly prefer the Canon over the Leica. For wider lenses, stopped down some and zone-focused the Leica is great, but that's not the kind of candid "street" shooting I like doing, I like using a fast 50 or 90 wide open. But strictly for landscapes/cityscapes, AF or MF is irrelevant to me, as I am almost always focused at infinity. The issue with the Leica is framing. At infinity the frame lines are noticeably undersized. All it takes is a few shots to familiarize oneself with it, but for some reason a lot of people don't seem to want to do that. Of course the live view on the M240 solves that. As for chosing one lens, I don't see the point. Why pay for a camera with interchangeable lenses if not going to take advantage?

[L1913]

I dont think you really understand what you are talking about there. Before the digital line, Leica has always been a film camera. A film camera's "pinnacle of image quality" is determined IMHO by two things: the film and the lens. A leica camera BODY is just a unit to house the film and the lens.

 

Compared to what we had back in film, as Jaap said, what we have now is far beyond people's imagination back then. If you are saying they are "not anywhere near", I suggest you take another look (in technical terms).

 

I am definitely here trying to learn and am far from a professional. I am just a hobbyist.

 

Is the only reason then that Leicas were so coveted in the past is because they opened access to the leica glass?

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is the only reason then that Leicas were so coveted in the past is because they opened access to the leica glass?

 

For some, yes. For others that would just be one of the reasons they chose Leica.

 

What do you expect a Leica system to do for you that your current system is lacking?

 

Maybe you should consider - if not the S - a medium format film camera?

[Jeff S]

...and am ready for something different and better with a unique look.

 

There are numerous factors that contribute to any 'look,' especially if prints are your ultimate goal. Every step of the workflow from camera to software to papers, inks, printers, profiles, display conditions, etc, matter.

 

I again encourage you to rent or borrow an M (or any other system you're considering) and make prints of your own pics. There is no other way to determine if you're getting the 'look' you expected or prefer. Nothing we say can take into account these variables, including your style, preferences or perceptions.

 

Jeff

[firstlight]

I have used Nikon for a long time and am ready for something different and better with a unique look. That is the easiest way I can sum up my willingness to spend the huge amount of money for a Leica system.

 

when you are searching for a better and unique look then improve your skills in post-processing.

this is a) much cheaper and more efficient.

 

Another methos is the usage of character-lenses (search for it).

 

Buying an M with a single lens will not fulfill your requirements posted above..

[Shade]

I am definitely here trying to learn and am far from a professional. I am just a hobbyist.

 

Is the only reason then that Leicas were so coveted in the past is because they opened access to the leica glass?

 

To me, personally, yes. Taking out the fact of the quality of the Leica cameras in their build, I will not be able to argue if an M3 with a Tri-x and a Leica glass, will yield the same result if you use a Konica with a Tri-x and the same leica glass.

 

However, in digital terms, yes you can use several choices of digital bodies to house a leica glass but the censor in each respective brand, is designed to work best with corresponding brand's lenses. Hence why there are difference in censor and microlenses designs in each manufacturer to achieve their best/wanted result.

 

Thus why, I will say the current digital M, is a better combination with its own glass compared to using an adapter with other cameras.

 

Would I be happier if I have Fuji make me a fullframe with half the price that produces the same exact result? Yes I will be! I can buy more glass with less money spent on bodies.

[pgk]

There is very little to choose between current high-end cameras in IQ, though the lenses will still make a difference.

Your choice of camera should be based on the camera concept, ergonomics, fitness for intended use, etc. Nothing has changed in that respect, really.

Well put jaapv.

 

I would add that if you are satisfied with your existing set-up and your requirements are not about the rangefinder, size, ergonomics then I see little advantage it changing cameras/lenses.

[wda]

I never thought about trying a Leica lens on my D800.

 

I don't mean to offend anyone here, but it kind of seems like the Leica M is just a novelty camera for folks who had them in the days before digital. I really don't seem to get the feeling that the new line of digital Leicas are anywhere near the pinnacle of image quality that they used to be known for.

 

They look really cool and feel nice in your hand, but no one seems that part in the picture. Is the only point if a Leica novelty?

Have you considered hiring a full-frame Leica M* from a good dealer and listen to his advice?

 

Generally speaking most lenses suffer slight fall-off in definition at settings smaller than say f/11.

 

Regarding focal length choice, analyse some typical past projects and list the proportion taken with approximately 35mm and 50mm settings. That exercise can be most instructive and should inform your solo choice of lens for your first Leica rangefinder camera.

[theno23]

If you do mostly cityscapes at night, then you need a tripod to get anything like decent quality. In general a slower lens than f/1.4 will give you sharper images when stopped down. I trend to use f/8 or f/11 most of the time.

 

I've actually found the M to be slightly inferior to the M9 for long exposure, it gets quite noisy between 30 and 60s.

 

On the other hand, the M's high ISO is much better, but it won't allow you to combine high ISO and long exposure.

 

Obviously you'll need equivalents of whatever lenses you use now. I would find 35mm is often too narrow. I often end up using 28 or 21mm, but have used 35 and 50.

 

I find the rangefinder focussing on Leicas to be better than AF with wide angle lenses, but with 35 and up AF is probably more accurate.

 

- Steve

[L1913]

Would you all mind telling why you decided to spend such a large amount on a camera that can be matched or exceeded technically for half the price or less?

[jaapv]

Because it cannot be matched in the field where it excels.

 

Landscape photography is the domain of medium format.

The Leica M is quite good in that discipline as well, as it has a very good 24 Mp sensor and superb lenses, but only on the context of a small, high quality full-frame travel camera.

As is the Nikon D800, but in the context of an universal camera.

 

As I tried to explain in a previous post, the choice of a high-end camera is not determined any more by technical considerations. The question you must ask yourself is what you need the camera for, and whether the ergonomic and technical features match that purpose.

[Jeff S]

The medium format versus 35mm format decision, even for landscape, also depends to a significant degree these days on how large one prints.

 

The reasons for choosing an M versus any other 35mm format camera of course varies, but besides the lenses, the RF concept (and all that entails...VF, focus, etc), size and the simplicity of controls are key distinguishing factors for many.

 

The S is a 'tweener', with characteristics of both formats, for better or worse depending on one's needs and preferences. The lenses are again superior, and big.

 

Jeff

[Jeff S]

As I tried to explain in a previous post, the choice of a high-end camera is not determined any more by technical considerations. The question you must ask yourself is what you need the camera for, and whether the ergonomic and technical features match that purpose.

 

Exactly.

 

Jeff

[ALD]

Would you all mind telling why you decided to spend such a large amount on a camera that can be matched or exceeded technically for half the price or less?

 

Ok here is why.

 

The recent Leica M9, MM or M240 are the lightest, and smallest full frame, high quality camera with which you can have interchangeable lenses that are the best lenses money can buy.

 

if you buy the right lenses they will not depreciate.

 

The Leica apo-summicron 50mm lens is the ultimate 50mm lens

 

The Leica Summilux 35mm fle is the ultimate 35mm lens

 

The rangefinder allows you focus precisely where you would like, but its not as fast as the Nikon d800 or the canon5d iii which is even faster with the focus buttons.

 

The camera forces you to compose each shot and to set the right aperture, shutter speed and iso sensitivity thus making you more aware of the impact each of these has.

 

Because its such a cool camera, you tend to want to go out and take photographs, and enjoy it. It becomes like a favourite watch and you get sentimental and attached to them .

 

The photographs really just have a unique look about them, and once this look gets under your skin you can't get back to any other way.

 

Chicks dig it!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[01af]

... what you need the camera for, and whether the ergonomic and technical features match that purpose.

Yes—horses for courses. Oops ... oh, dammit!

[Shade]

I bought it because it suits ME. I dont care what other people say and I couldnt care less if it suits no one else for the matter. As long as I am happier with it than with other camera brands, then its the right camera for me.

 

Why spend less (which is still a quite sum of money) and not be happy with it? But then again, i dont have the jurisdiction as to how to spend your money, only mine.