michaelwj Posted February 17, 2014 Share #61 Posted February 17, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I've fully switched (though to an M6). Photography is only a hobby for me. I had a DSLR kit, and was intrigued by the Leica, mainly the viewfinder. I enjoyed the photos I got from my DSLR kit, but not the process, not the carrying, not the tunnel viewfinder. The last straw was when I was just about to buy a D800. I looked through the viewfinder, and it was like a Christmas tree with so many lights, I could hardly see the subject. By chance they had an M9 in stock and I asked to look at it. Holy viewfinder. I wasn't ready to spent that kind of cash though, so I thought I'd get a user M6 and see how it went on the basis that I could sell it again for a similar amount. Six months later I hadn't touched the DSLR and sold it all. The Leica doesn't do everything, but then again I never liked carrying everything anyway. It does enough for me and is a joy to use, it makes me want to use it. On the other hand, I'm not sure I want an M(240) now, I might stick with the M6 for a bit longer than I thought I would... Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 Hi michaelwj, 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!
Reds Posted February 17, 2014 Share #62 Posted February 17, 2014 For me, I initially dipped a toe with a Voigtlander Bessa R2 and an old used Leitz 50 'cron I picked up at a camera fair. Liked it... so eventually uneasily splashed for an M9, the final justification at the time was - there were still waiting lists back then, so I could sell it on without much/any loss after a few weeks if I didn't get on with it. That (of course!), never happened and I started building up the lens collection with some Zeiss ZM & Voigtlander glass which over time was sold on for Leica glass. Still have my DSLR kit though - as was mentioned, for many people the two systems compliment one another instead of being a replacement. If it's just a hobby and you don't need AF or long lenses (with AF), then I suppose you could make it a more binary decision Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfloid Posted February 17, 2014 Share #63 Posted February 17, 2014 Also, an "equivalent FOV" doesn't give you the same kind of visual depth compression you get from an actually longer lens on full-frame. Would you care to say more about this, perhaps with some evidence? It doesn't make sense to me. I have always used FF (Canon, Leica and film) and have only recently started using a Fuji X100s. I haven't yet noticed the 'depth' difference you are talking about between the Fuji and my 35/1.4 Asph or my EF 35/2 IS. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carneiro Posted March 18, 2014 Share #64 Posted March 18, 2014 @ carneiro….did you check the Summilux using LV on your M to determine any obvious focus issues with camera/lens? Jeff So sorry for not reacting. Yes, and the M was "coupled" somehow with my Lux. But maybe I need more practice or so... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gilgamesh Posted March 22, 2014 Share #65 Posted March 22, 2014 Both: the M240 with, almost exclusively, the 35mm f1.4 & 50mm f1.4. Beyond that the D800e comes into play. Plus the Mamiya 7 from time to time after selling the film 'Blad, this was a way back into MF. Depends what you shoot, who for and why. I am a professional photographer, ergo, I use whatever I need to in order to achieve the results both I an also the client require, but most of my private work is on the Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 22, 2014 Share #66 Posted March 22, 2014 I came across a nice slogan for this question: Leave the crowd and join the club… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted March 22, 2014 Share #67 Posted March 22, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Actually if I had to change I shall never buy a M but a Sony A7r with Zeiss lenses ... too late I have already a M240 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
evering Posted March 24, 2014 Share #68 Posted March 24, 2014 I recently "swapped" a d800, 85 1.8 lens, 24-70 lens and 70-200 lens for a M240. I already had the M6 so already had lenses so it was an easy swap. Essentially I found that I was hardly using the d800. It was a great camera however too large in terms of the body / lens combo to get the best out of it and the file size was an issue too. I am holidaying in NY in May and no longer have to worry about the extra weight and bulk of taking the d800! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo63 Posted March 30, 2014 Share #69 Posted March 30, 2014 I havent switched, and never will, they are different cameras for different uses I have only had my leica for a few days, but i have carried it more in those three days than i have with my SLR (when not at work) I am enjoying everything being my fault, as its forcing me to take my time and think If the focus is off, its my fault, if the exposure is wrong, its because i messed up. Im also enjoying the image quality, and being forced to use just one focal length (only have a 50 summarit for now) It wont replace my DSLRs - they are much more versatile, macro lenses, zoom lenses, longer lenses, easy to use speedlite system (i do a lot of strobist stuff) To me its a smaller lighter system that is fun to shoot, something i can sling on my shoulder and easily carry all day, something with no pressure attached, if i mess up i can hopefully learn from it. My SLRs are big, bulky, heavy, and just picking them up feels like work, but i feed my wife and child, and keep a roof over our heads with them, so they wont be going away. The leica will be used at work, but doesnt feel like work to use. So far im enjoying the journey, going away for a few days soon, so i will hopefully have a few nice pictures to share when i come back I have gelled better with the leica than i ever did with my X100, it seems to fit me better - im more of a 50mm guy for a start, and i much prefer the rangefinder focusing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berth Posted March 30, 2014 Share #70 Posted March 30, 2014 When I purchased my Leica MP at the beginning of the year, I saw it as a complement to my digital photography, in my case a Canon 5D2 DSLR. I still do, digital photography is a natural partner to film, I will never abandon either. In the last three months though the more measured, thoughtful, process of Leica rangefinder photography has resonated, and the discrete, small footprint Leica world seems to be a much better fit for my photographic objectives. I've simply been renewed, and have never been more enthusiastic about creating images. I've been carrying the Leica MP with me almost daily since I bought it. The 5D2? Once. I've got the good stuff, top class technology body, first rank 'L' lenses. The images it can create are professional quality across a broad spectrum of applications. But it's heavy. And big, very big - my 70-200 f/2.8 L zoom sticks out a foot and with the 5D2, weighs over 5 lbs. Canon makes much much bigger lenses. I don't use the 5D2's live view, I hear maybe it's great... if you don't shoot zooms. I shoot zooms almost exclusively with it. Holding >5 lbs at arms length is great isometrics, but maybe not for creating a composition with a zoom lens and keeping it steady. Can you say 'camera shake'? Canon does video well, and with audio, the 5D2 broke new ground when it was introduced. In the 5 years I've owned it I've never turned it on, I'm a photographer, not a cinematographer. The 5D2 is full of technology, but much of that technology seems to have little relevance to what I'm trying to do as a simple photographer. I think I bought a wonderful camera system, Canon has full command of the DSLR world. It's....more. More that I need in virtually every aspect, it's getting in the way. I want to have fun looking for, and making photographs! I'm not having fun with the 5D2, so it's time to make a change. But I'm going to go back to 'basics', or what passes for basics, in the digital world. I think that means the Leica M-E, not the M 240. It's not about what it won't do, it's about what it will do. And one of those things is to unobtrusively be around my neck as I venture out for the day, helping me make the best images I can. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted March 30, 2014 Share #71 Posted March 30, 2014 I can see why you're inclined towards the M-E, but I'd strongly recommend you handle the M-240 before you decide. The shutter noise so much nicer - as the accuracy of the RF, high ISO and overall image quality. You may find you change your mind Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayewing Posted March 30, 2014 Share #72 Posted March 30, 2014 I can see why you're inclined towards the M-E, but I'd strongly recommend you handle the M-240 before you decide. The shutter noise so much nicer - as the accuracy of the RF, high ISO and overall image quality. You may find you change your mind Not to mention the much better LCD, battery life and faster operating system. The LV or even better the optional EVF is handy if you want to use wider or longer lenses than the optical viewfinder can handle. A hands on demonstration of both ME and M at a good Leica dealer would be a good idea as Chris suggests. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hektor6644 Posted March 30, 2014 Share #73 Posted March 30, 2014 Hi: Cost has always been the prohibitive factor for me. It is not just the cost of just the camera; it is the lenses. For me the M-240 + Summilux 21, 35, 50 + Summicron 90 = ~ $28,000. I stated that the cost of the camera was not that crucial… well, up to a point. When I retook the hobby of photography, ~ 6 to 7 years ago (after a 30 years absence,) Leica just came out with the M8. I wanted to go into digital. Then came the M8.2, M9, and M-240. That is four cameras at $7,000 each less the monetary loss that I had to accrue by selling the older models. Yet, the M-240 is not the final camera. I expect the M10 to be the state of the art digital camera that will kick the competition in the teeth – another purchase and sale. The ideal situation is to have both. The Nikon D800 and 2.8 zooms and the M-240 with fast 1.4 primes. Today, I have compromised. My FF camera, the Nikon D610, is complemented with the following lenses: Prime Lenses Sigma HSN 35mm f/1.4 DG EX Nikkor AF-S 24mm f/1.4G ED N Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.4G ED Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.4G ED N Zoom Lenses Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED N IF Nikkor AF-S 16-35mm f/4G ED N IF VR-II Nikkor AF-S 24-120mm f/4G ED N IF VR-II Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED N IF VR-III My next lens is going to be the Nikkor AF-s 24-70mm f/2.8. However, I always wanted a simple light camera with light fast lenses (ie: a Leica.) Therefore, I got the Nikon D3300 (a powerhouse APS-C camera in a small body.) My lenses for that camera are: Prime Lenses Sigma EX DC 10mm f/2.8 HSM Fisheye Nikkor AF-S DX Micro 85mm f/3.5G ED VR-II Nikkor AF-S 28mm f/1.8G N Nikkor AF-S 85mm F/1.8G ED Voigtländer Color-Skopar SL-II 20mm f/3.5 Voigtländer Ultron SL-II 40mm f/2 Voigtländer Nokton SL-II 58mm f/1.4 Zoom Lenses Nikkor AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G DX ED VR-II Nikkor AF-S 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G DX ED VR-II Would I go with an M system today? No, because of my decreasing eyesight. I need AF. However, I kept my Voigtlanders - I love to MF. I’m keeping my eyes and ears open to this coming April 24th, supposedly the unveiling of the T-701. I tried to sell my X1, in order to keep my options open (T-701, successor to the X2, or even the X2 – my fallback position,) but I could not. I was not going to unload the camera for ~ $500. Best regards, Hektor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berth Posted March 31, 2014 Share #74 Posted March 31, 2014 I can see why you're inclined towards the M-E, but I'd strongly recommend you handle the M-240 before you decide. The shutter noise so much nicer - as the accuracy of the RF, high ISO and overall image quality. You may find you change your mind Not to mention the much better LCD, battery life and faster operating system. The LV or even better the optional EVF is handy if you want to use wider or longer lenses than the optical viewfinder can handle. A hands on demonstration of both ME and M at a good Leica dealer would be a good idea as Chris suggests. I appreciate the advice, but I already have high ISO (including auto ISO if desired) that tops out at 25,600 I think; a 3" high res LCD; live view; 3.9 fps continuous shooting with a buffer that will hold 310 hi-res JPGs before filling; 4 metering modes; 1080p video - 24 minute limit; auto sensor cleaning; a 1800 mAh battery; and can reach from 16mm to 400mm - all auto focused with face detection using from one to 9 AF points as desired. That's the Canon 5D2 system I'm leaving. There's more to photography than tech wizardry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 31, 2014 Share #75 Posted March 31, 2014 Hi: Cost has always been the prohibitive factor for me. It is not just the cost of just the camera; it is the lenses. For me the M-240 + Summilux 21, 35, 50 + Summicron 90 = ~ $28,000. I stated that the cost of the camera was not that crucial… well, up to a point. When I retook the hobby of photography, ~ 6 to 7 years ago (after a 30 years absence,) Leica just came out with the M8. I wanted to go into digital. Then came the M8.2, M9, and M-240. That is four cameras at $7,000 each less the monetary loss that I had to accrue by selling the older models. Yet, the M-240 is not the final camera. I expect the M10 to be the state of the art digital camera that will kick the competition in the teeth – another purchase and sale. The ideal situation is to have both. The Nikon D800 and 2.8 zooms and the M-240 with fast 1.4 primes. Today, I have compromised. My FF camera, the Nikon D610, is complemented with the following lenses: Prime Lenses Sigma HSN 35mm f/1.4 DG EX Nikkor AF-S 24mm f/1.4G ED N Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.4G ED Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.4G ED N Zoom Lenses Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED N IF Nikkor AF-S 16-35mm f/4G ED N IF VR-II Nikkor AF-S 24-120mm f/4G ED N IF VR-II Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/4G ED N IF VR-III My next lens is going to be the Nikkor AF-s 24-70mm f/2.8. However, I always wanted a simple light camera with light fast lenses (ie: a Leica.) Therefore, I got the Nikon D3300 (a powerhouse APS-C camera in a small body.) My lenses for that camera are: Prime Lenses Sigma EX DC 10mm f/2.8 HSM Fisheye Nikkor AF-S DX Micro 85mm f/3.5G ED VR-II Nikkor AF-S 28mm f/1.8G N Nikkor AF-S 85mm F/1.8G ED Voigtländer Color-Skopar SL-II 20mm f/3.5 Voigtländer Ultron SL-II 40mm f/2 Voigtländer Nokton SL-II 58mm f/1.4 Zoom Lenses Nikkor AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G DX ED VR-II Nikkor AF-S 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G DX ED VR-II Would I go with an M system today? No, because of my decreasing eyesight. I need AF. However, I kept my Voigtlanders - I love to MF. I’m keeping my eyes and ears open to this coming April 24th, supposedly the unveiling of the T-701. I tried to sell my X1, in order to keep my options open (T-701, successor to the X2, or even the X2 – my fallback position,) but I could not. I was not going to unload the camera for ~ $500. Best regards, Hektor Plus a donkey to carry it all? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptZoom Posted March 31, 2014 Share #76 Posted March 31, 2014 I can see why you're inclined towards the M-E, but I'd strongly recommend you handle the M-240 before you decide. The shutter noise so much nicer - as the accuracy of the RF, high ISO and overall image quality. You may find you change your mind Not to mention the much better LCD, battery life and faster operating system. The LV or even better the optional EVF is handy if you want to use wider or longer lenses than the optical viewfinder can handle. A hands on demonstration of both ME and M at a good Leica dealer would be a good idea as Chris suggests. I appreciate the advice, but I already have high ISO (including auto ISO if desired) that tops out at 25,600 I think; a 3" high res LCD; live view; 3.9 fps continuous shooting with a buffer that will hold 310 hi-res JPGs before filling; 4 metering modes; 1080p video - 24 minute limit; auto sensor cleaning; a 1800 mAh battery; and can reach from 16mm to 400mm - all auto focused with face detection using from one to 9 AF points as desired. That's the Canon 5D2 system I'm leaving. There's more to photography than tech wizardry. A more accurate rangefinder, longer battery life, faster processor, and a useable LCD are not simply "tech wizardry" rather useful features that significantly impact the use-ability of the camera. The rangefinder defines the Leica M series, why would increasing its accuracy be written off as "tech wizardry"? I'm reasonably certain the M-E has the same LCD as the M9, in which case, the LCD is marginally better than useless. It's fantastic for menu navigation and just about useless for anything else including confirming focus. Why would you writer off increased battery life and faster processing as "tech wizardry"? For anyone just getting into the digital M system, the M240 deserves serious consideration. There are many reasons to opt for the M9/M-E, but simply discounting the significant improvements of the shortcomings of the M9/M-E implemented in the M240 as "tech wizardry" is not one of them. Handle both at your dealer; use them; take some photos- you may not be bothered by the M-E or you may find the M240 better suited for your needs. Lastly, you'll probably take a bigger hit on the resale of the M-E over the M240 if you decide that the digital M is not for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo63 Posted April 1, 2014 Share #77 Posted April 1, 2014 For anyone just getting into the digital M system, the M240 deserves serious consideration. There are many reasons to opt for the M9/M-E, but simply discounting the significant improvements of the shortcomings of the M9/M-E implemented in the M240 as "tech wizardry" is not one of them. Handle both at your dealer; use them; take some photos- you may not be bothered by the M-E or you may find the M240 better suited for your needs. Lastly, you'll probably take a bigger hit on the resale of the M-E over the M240 if you decide that the digital M is not for you. My choice was the Typ240 and a 50summarit (f2.5) For similar money i could have got an M-E and a summilux I know i made the wrong choice, bought a body which will become obsolete over better glass which will never be obsolete, but i dont care, i feel i made the right decision.. I plan on having this camera for a long time (at least long enough to get a decent collection of lenses) and didnt want to start of with a camera that was essentially a nicely painted 5 year old model (which i think the ME is, an M9 with some little improvements and a blue/grey paint) I think i would have been happy with whichever choice i made, but i am incredibly happy with the M, its the most expensive body i have shot with, but also the simplest to use. It also just feels right to me (and im sure to many of you) with everything where its meant to be. (But the ME will feel the same in that regard) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berth Posted April 1, 2014 Share #78 Posted April 1, 2014 A more accurate rangefinder, longer battery life, faster processor, and a useable LCD are not simply "tech wizardry" rather useful features that significantly impact the use-ability of the camera. The rangefinder defines the Leica M series, why would increasing its accuracy be written off as "tech wizardry"? I'm reasonably certain the M-E has the same LCD as the M9, in which case, the LCD is marginally better than useless. It's fantastic for menu navigation and just about useless for anything else including confirming focus. Why would you writer off increased battery life and faster processing as "tech wizardry"? For anyone just getting into the digital M system, the M240 deserves serious consideration. There are many reasons to opt for the M9/M-E, but simply discounting the significant improvements of the shortcomings of the M9/M-E implemented in the M240 as "tech wizardry" is not one of them. Handle both at your dealer; use them; take some photos- you may not be bothered by the M-E or you may find the M240 better suited for your needs. Lastly, you'll probably take a bigger hit on the resale of the M-E over the M240 if you decide that the digital M is not for you. I've been in digital photography since Canon introduced the 20D. You must have missed the last sentence in the 1st paragraph of my post, where I noted I already have all of those things, and much more on my Canon 5D2, a camera much more technologically advanced than the M240. When did a little 3" LCD become useful for confirming fine focus? Do you need a 3" screen to check histograms? More accurate rangefinder? There doesn't seem to be unanimity about that. One of this things about the MP that I've owned since the start of the year that appeals most to me is its slower, more deliberative, manual process. I want to experience that in my digital photography too. The question for me is, does a Leica M-E give me the capabilities and image quality I'm looking for? Is there anything the M-240 will do that's worth $1500 to me? If speed was important to me the 5D2 blows away an M240. But I'm don't shoot video. I have no intention of firing off a blizzard of shots trying to track the charge of a bull elephant, or Usain Bolt. The LCD in the M-240 'paints' faster, is that important for the pace of my photography? Does the M-E battery have enough capacity if I recharge nightly, or every other day? What if I take 20 shots an hour? If I wander around for 8 hours, that's 160 images. Does the M-E battery have enough capacity for that? I want to take one thoughtful image at a time. I've never taken 160 thoughtful images in a day. How much does a spare battery cost? I certainly don't mean to denigrate the M-240, but why would I blow $1500 for stuff that doesn't matter to me? I could save the $6,000 I'll have to spend for an M-E & essential accessories by just keeping my 5D2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptZoom Posted April 1, 2014 Share #79 Posted April 1, 2014 I've been in digital photography since Canon introduced the 20D. You must have missed the last sentence in the 1st paragraph of my post, where I noted I already have all of those things, and much more on my Canon 5D2, a camera much more technologically advanced than the M240. When did a little 3" LCD become useful for confirming fine focus? Do you need a 3" screen to check histograms? More accurate rangefinder? There doesn't seem to be unanimity about that. One of this things about the MP that I've owned since the start of the year that appeals most to me is its slower, more deliberative, manual process. I want to experience that in my digital photography too. The question for me is, does a Leica M-E give me the capabilities and image quality I'm looking for? Is there anything the M-240 will do that's worth $1500 to me? If speed was important to me the 5D2 blows away an M240. But I'm don't shoot video. I have no intention of firing off a blizzard of shots trying to track the charge of a bull elephant, or Usain Bolt. The LCD in the M-240 'paints' faster, is that important for the pace of my photography? Does the M-E battery have enough capacity if I recharge nightly, or every other day? What if I take 20 shots an hour? If I wander around for 8 hours, that's 160 images. Does the M-E battery have enough capacity for that? I want to take one thoughtful image at a time. I've never taken 160 thoughtful images in a day. How much does a spare battery cost? I certainly don't mean to denigrate the M-240, but why would I blow $1500 for stuff that doesn't matter to me? I could save the $6,000 I'll have to spend for an M-E & essential accessories by just keeping my 5D2. It seems you've made up your mind regarding the M-E, and that's perfectly ok. I hope you enjoy using the camera. I've owned my M9 since introduction and am just enamored with it today as I was in 2009. Like you, I too have been in digital photography for some time- professionally since the intro of the 40D, and personally much longer. Though I don't know how that's relevant at all other than some sort of appeal to false authority. I too switched to the M9 from a 5DMK2. And I still would not categorize the increased RF accuracy (confirmed by most users and commented upon by Leica), and upgraded screen (you can at least confirm your focus is not way off- M9's screen was obsolete at introduction), longer battery life (I suggest you use the camera at no more than half charge, since longer battery life is worse than having shorter battery), and faster processor (startup time, write speeds, etc- whoever said faster processor means you have machine gun the shutter?) as merely "tech wizardry". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted April 1, 2014 Share #80 Posted April 1, 2014 Plus a donkey to carry it all? Maybe he's in better physical condition than most Leica owners. At the very least, he has enough money left over to buy several donkeys. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.