NotoriousSEG Posted February 12, 2014 Share #1 Posted February 12, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Like many, I have decided that I no longer want to shoot and carry giant, heavy, cumbersome DSLRs. It was fun for a while, but I came to the realization that they were actually getting in my way more than they were helping me. The joy of photography was ultimately squelched by a 30 lb camera bag, and ironically by the very "gear" that drew me to it in the first place. So, I've been experimenting with Fuji (x100 and X Pro 1) but the smaller sensor leaves me cold. Now I've been swirling around Sony (RX1 and A7) but I still feel a longing. I spend an inordinate amount of time on here and a few of the other Leica sites. My ultimate question for any of you out there who were/are in my same boat , is for you to describe the journey you took to get to the M and how you feel about it now that you finally pulled the trigger. I suppose cost is the biggest factor in this decision ...If an M were the price of a Nikon d800, I'd have one. But given that they are mucho costo (relatively speaking), I am giving it more consideration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Hi NotoriousSEG, Take a look here I want to hear from those who made the move from DSLR to the M.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
NotoriousSEG Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share #2 Posted February 12, 2014 By the way...This was my first post even though I've been a member here for a while. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berth Posted February 12, 2014 Share #3 Posted February 12, 2014 I don't consider it a movement from, I consider it a compliment to. Terrific systems both. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmars Posted February 12, 2014 Share #4 Posted February 12, 2014 My english is bad, so it a short story: I took the step in the year 2000 after three years of reasoning. I thought, I didn´t need all the features of the SLR that I had (Canon EOS 1). And it became true: I never missed other cameras and I only have a M9, no other camera after selling the Hasselblad. Elmar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted February 12, 2014 Share #5 Posted February 12, 2014 The RF is a different way to shoot. Perhaps you should hire a camera and lens first ? Or buy a used M9 or M8 to try for a bit (if you shop carefully you could sell for roughly the same price). The price doesn't have to be higher. With Leica I find I need less lenses. At the moment I am planning to trim to a M240, 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4 ASPH and R 135mm II. Everything except the 50mm f1.4 is second hand and this investment is not far off a good FF DSLR with the same quality primes and the f2.8 zooms that everyone with DSLRs feel they need to have. Judicious buying of Leica and careful keeping of kit also retains the capital you invested, except for the body where you get a step like loss of half the value (if bought new) over 5 years based on my historical analysis with most of the fall occurring when a new model is released. In terms of using its pure joy and I carry to work every day to accompany me on my lunchtime walks. Main warning is once smitten by Leica you are pretty much trapped for ever Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 12, 2014 Share #6 Posted February 12, 2014 A very short story: I saw an M3 and Summicron 35 in the window of a shop in 1976 and bought it. ~Never looked back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted February 12, 2014 Share #7 Posted February 12, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I find my M plays very nicely with my Canon 5D3, and I have often shot both. There are just some things that the dSLR does better, and there are also things that the Leica does better. Having both systems means I am ready for anything. In 1976 I was shooting with a Yashica Electro 35 GSN, and it would be a couple of years before I was "bitten by the Leica bug" and collected my first, a IIIC. As Jaap correctly pointed out it's a decision that many of us have made and "never looked back". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted February 12, 2014 Share #8 Posted February 12, 2014 I'm with Stephen on this. I did a rehearsal shoot for a theatre company a couple of days ago and only used two M-240 bodies + 21/28/50/90 (with the EVF used with the 21 and the 90). I've got a concert sound check shoot coming up. I'll take the Canon DSLR + 70-200 2.8 and the M system. If I'm doing an event, the Canon comes along. It may not always get used, but for mid-to long telephoto I find AF and IS really help! For me, it's not an either / or. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lethbrp Posted February 12, 2014 Share #9 Posted February 12, 2014 I made the same move in December 2013. I had all my DSLR gear stolen, which enabled me to rethink what I wanted to with my photography. Like you I got to the point where the amount of gear and weight was just becoming a chore, to the point I didn't take it out very often. I wanted something that would retain the quality (or better it), but allow me to travel very lightly. The M system seemed the most obvious choice. Once you get your head around using manual focus, there is no looking back. Using manual focus really does make me think more about the composition rather than snatching a shot with auto-focus. As others have pointed out, there are limitations that you need to take into consideration, its not a "action" camera and not suited for long focal lengths, though the EVF is a help. I also bought an X100, its a great camera, but not in the same league in terms of quality as the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamey Posted February 12, 2014 Share #10 Posted February 12, 2014 Like most of you, I use both SLR/D and RF. At this time it's about. Leica R.. (Slide Film) is used 50% Canon DSLR...30% Leica M.. (Slide Film) .....20% Ken Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 12, 2014 Share #11 Posted February 12, 2014 ... Since I have practiced as a student with the Voigtländer 24 x 36mm rangefinder camera of my father, the switch to Leica M was like coming home, even after years of use of electronic SLRs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted February 12, 2014 Share #12 Posted February 12, 2014 I made the move from Nikon to leica around the time the M8.2 came out. I had the D700 and D300 with all 3 of the pro zoom lenses (14-24, 24-70, 70-210) + various primes. When the M9 came out I sold all my Nikon gear and ended up with 2 M9's and various leica lenses from the WATE to the 135 apo-telyt. My most used lenses were the 28 summicron and 50 summilux. When the M(240) came out I sold both M9's and bought one body but needing a 2nd body I have recently bought the Sony A7 and the amazing FE55 f1.8. I now work almost excessively with the Summicron 28 on the leica M and the 55 on the Sony, In the bag I will carry the WATE, CV nokton 35/1.2 V2 (a truly beautiful lens) and a Elmarit-M 90 (slim version). WATE goes on the leica and the other 2 on the Sony. My summilux 50 no longer gets any use which is sad but I just get a better hit rate with the Sony and the 55 and the IQ is WOW. I rarely go beyond the 500m focal length so the move to RF was not a problem. My main reason for moving was size and the quality of the lenses and back then leica was the only really alternative but we now have the Sony A7 which is of course only just released and with only 2 native fixed focal length lens (the 55/1.8 and 35/2.8) but is a real contender at considerably less of a price and the lens range will grow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted February 12, 2014 Share #13 Posted February 12, 2014 I made the move from Nikon to leica around the time the M8.2 came out. I had the D700 and D300 with all 3 of the pro zoom lenses (14-24, 24-70, 70-210) + various primes. When the M9 came out I sold ally Nikon gear and ended up with 2 M9's and various leica lenses from the WATE to the 135 apo-telyt. my most used lenses were the 28 summicron and 50 summilux. when the M(240) came out I sold both M9's and bought one body but needing a 2nd body I have bought the Sony A7 and the amazing FE55 f1.8. I now work almost excessively with the Summicron 28 on the leica M and the 55 on the Sony, In the bag I will carry the WATE, CV nokton 35/1.2 V2 (a truly beautiful lens) and a Elmarit-M 90 (slim version). WATE goes on the leica and the other 2 on the Sony. My summilux 50 no longer gets any use which is sad but I just get a better hit rate with the Sony and the 55 and the IQ is WOW Similar thoughts to me. However I dispensed with the 55mm 1.8 in favour of the 50mm for my own usage type, e.g: 1. Slightly wider FL of the summilux (still achieves less DOF with wider angle, 13cm vs 14cm at 2 meters) 2. Sharper wide open 3. I much prefer RF MF for portraits and fine focusing (with EVF assistance when required). 4. I find the M240 and MF faster in many situations which I find myself, particular having focus and aperture pre-set and readyish to go 5. More neutral but at the same time more "etherial" draw of the Summilux. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonathanP Posted February 12, 2014 Share #14 Posted February 12, 2014 I was in a similar situation to the OP, having come a route from 5x4 through 5DmkII to recently the A7R. Before I say anymore I should add that photography is a hobby for me, so I don't have to worry about losing any capability (e.g. long lenses, fast AF) if its something I'm not interested in. Having made the decision to downsize last year, and having used my son's M6 a little, I jumped on the A7R when it first arrived, using a mixture of native and CV lenses. It soon became apparent that I much preferred manual focus and I sent the native FE35 lens back (its 'fly-by-wire' manual focus just didn't suite me). I was rapidly coming to the conclusion that I really enjoyed using m-mount lenses - I love the short focus throw, proper aperture ring and size. The A7R is a great camera, but - with a few exceptions - I've come to the conclusion that its best with native lenses and if you really want to get the best out of m-mount lenses you might as well use an m-mount camera. I have recently bought a M240 and 35 cron, and am wondering why on earth I went all round the houses to get to where I wanted to be. As I said I have used a rangefinder before I made the leap, and I would advise the OP to try one first as it may not suite everyone. But for me, I much prefer manual focus and simple controls on my camera (I guess its one of the reasons I used to enjoy 5x4). I'd read up on all the reported foibles of the M240 before I bought one, but having owned a low volume production niche sports car in the past I'm aware of the downsides to hand-built technology - but so far no issues at all. What I hadn't expected was how much better hit rate I get with images out of the M240 compared to the A7R. I can now pretty reliably use 1/f shutter speed (with A7R I needed 1/160 onwards to get a reasonably high keeper rate, even at 35mm). The effective resolution I'm getting in detailed landscapes with the M240+cron asph is better than the A7R+FE35 handheld for most images. I know given ideal situation on a tripod the A7R is capable of more detail, but in practise my M240 images are better most of the time. The other things that surprised me is how effective 'classic' metering is, and the colour rendition of DNG conversion in Lightroom - having had to mess around a lot generating colour profiles for the A7R I find the M240 much closer to how I see landscapes (my main interest). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 12, 2014 Share #15 Posted February 12, 2014 No problems from me moving to Leica RF after a career using SLR's, dSLR's, both medium format and 35mm. If you like the camera, just do it. The quality is really outstanding and the small size is a revelation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted February 12, 2014 Share #16 Posted February 12, 2014 Similar thoughts to me.However I dispensed with the 55mm 1.8 in favour of the 50mm for my own usage type, e.g: 1. Slightly wider FL of the summilux (still achieves less DOF with wider angle, 13cm vs 14cm at 2 meters) 2. Sharper wide open 3. I much prefer RF MF for portraits and fine focusing (with EVF assistance when required). 4. I find the M240 and MF faster in many situations which I find myself, particular having focus and aperture pre-set and readyish to go 5. More neutral but at the same time more "etherial" draw of the Summilux. Interesting though strangely I find the FE55 sharper wide open on the A7 than I do my summilux 50 asph on the M. Also I find I can get a better hit rate wide open when doing up close portraits and have to add I quite like the 55 as it is just that little bit tighter. All this being said I am sure that I will come back to using the lux 50 again on the M at some point. It is a lens that I have always loved but have had had so many problems with it as it has had to go back to leica 4 times now because of recurring focus and build quality issues!! As to the M I just find that I truly love it in combination with the 28 summicron asph. It works so well for street and documentary work and the lens draws in a certain way. Also it is fantastic with the EVF for landscape work. the 28 is the main reason that I keep using the leica M Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted February 12, 2014 Share #17 Posted February 12, 2014 All this being said I am sure that I will come back to using the lux 50 again on the M at some point. It is a lens that I have always loved but have had had so many problems with it as it has had to go back to leica 4 times now because of recurring focus and build quality issues!! that experience would be a downer for me. might be worth trying another 50mm summilux at some point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted February 12, 2014 Share #18 Posted February 12, 2014 I was attracted to Leica system specifically by experiencing optics & generally due to majestic reputation which was intimidating at times I would check price list. My pride & joy was Nikon DSLR system but as it was getting heavier with bigger lenses being added it became logistical nightmare to carry it. In 2009 I stumbled upon a thread on the Nikoncafe website about Leica R optics converted to Nikon F mount, after acquiring splendid & cheap at the time APO Elmarit 180mm I was converted. First attempt with M camera was with film body and basic Elmarit-M 50mm. After a year this was followed with chrome M9P and splendid M lenses in 21 to 90mm range. I embraced rangefinder photography quickly, after all I made my first shots on my father’s Yashica Lynx back in 1960s. For me biggest attraction is small size, simple operation and gorgeous quality of files / quality of photographic negatives. Various technical problems attributed to M9 kept me reluctant prior to purchase but once I took a plunge I can report 10,000+ images and two year trouble free operation. Even framing with 21mm and external viewfinder works for me pretty much every time (RF is limited to 28-135mm lenses). Big Nikon zoom lenses are gone now, I still keep D700, now customized for manual focusing, and several smallish AiS manual focus primes for occasional use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgc Posted February 12, 2014 Share #19 Posted February 12, 2014 I was in your position in June of last year. I was looking at the X Pro 1 and the RX1, but during my research it became clear that Leica was the 'gold standard'. I had no experience with Leica or even with rangefinders. I too was concerned about the cost; my frame of mind was such that I would not even consider the Canon 50mm 1.2L for my 5D2. While waiting for my M to arrive I was constantly weighing up the options and gave serious thought to cancelling my order. However, my M became available earlier than expected and I went ahead with the purchase. I am so pleased I did; the feel, experience and quality are second to none and the lenses are sublime. I do not regret buying into the Leica system one bit. I have even returned to film after 30 years, with the M7 and have acquired several lenses - not all of them are 'expensive' Leica's. I still have my 5D2, which I do not use as often, but mainly as I am still on the Leica learning curve. The problem for you, is that Leica is on your mind and the only way to stop this thought pattern is to get one. If you buy into the system now, it may well save you money in the long term. I am pleased to hear positive reviews for the A7 below and I have seen many fine images recently regarding this camera. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
doolittle Posted February 12, 2014 Share #20 Posted February 12, 2014 I tried switching completely, but found that I was not prepared to change my photographic interests and style fully to make it work. There are just some things a dSLR does better and vice versa. Trite I know, but it really is all about selecting the best tool for the job. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.