fsprow Posted February 12, 2014 Share #21 Posted February 12, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I use a Nikon DSLR when fast motion is anticipated (sports....) or with long lenses (>135mm). For all else, I shoot with my M240 or M3 (still love film). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Hi fsprow, 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!
Paul J Posted February 12, 2014 Share #22 Posted February 12, 2014 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. What do you shoot? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geolux Posted February 12, 2014 Share #23 Posted February 12, 2014 As a teenager, I knew nothing about Leica. The family camera was an ancient Kodak that worked occasionally. A neighbor had an old Leica camera that seemed to be inseparable from him. I pestered him with questions about the Leica. Finally, he offered to let me use the camera after showing me the fundamentals. He developed the film, showed me the negatives, and I was hooked. I wanted a Leica. One problem: I didn’t have 2 pennies to my name. I badgered my Dad for a Leica, and about 2 years later, he reluctantly bought a Leica screw mount camera for me as a school graduation present. As time went by, I put aside some of my earnings to buy more and more Leica cameras of all kinds, lenses and numerous accessories. And, I actually used all of it for photography, and not just for bragging rights. I never wasted time making “tests”. I used it, and used it hard. Now, more than 60 years later and many tens of thousands of images from around the world, I am still using Leica, this time an M-240. I have never had any regrets from my involvement with Leica. As with any piece of fine equipment, it takes time, practice and effort to learn how to use it. However, my experience is that the time and effort expended has repaid me many times over. I recall an ad from Leica many decades ago that used the line “...quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten.” That has been my experience, and I have been very happy. Best wishes Geolux Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonki-M Posted February 12, 2014 Share #24 Posted February 12, 2014 short version: no regrets, havent picked up my DSLR in 2 years...to the point i forgot i have it until my wife asks what am i going to with this unused camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotoriousSEG Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share #25 Posted February 12, 2014 Someone asked me "what do you shoot"? I shoot street, travel, architectural, portraits, family stuff etc. Though I'm not a "pro" per se, I do dabble in that direction. I've shot a few weddings and a couple portrait sessions for money, but mostly I just love to document life. Also, I have recently unearthed my old Canon AE1 and have been really enjoying shooting film the "old fashioned" way. I know the split screen focusing is not the same thing as rangefinder focusing, but I like the manual aspect of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted February 12, 2014 Share #26 Posted February 12, 2014 I think you will love it, have you been to a Leica store to try one out? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonki-M Posted February 12, 2014 Share #27 Posted February 12, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) you say it like RF focusing is not manual Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted February 12, 2014 Share #28 Posted February 12, 2014 Leicas are "sold" as better than any other camera around, and this brand mystique draws people in. In reality, of course, they are not, and never can be. In the right hands, they can take some of the best images you could see, but the means by which the Leica helps this happen are precisely the reasons why it has limitations: - the compact size of body and lens is down to the absence of a mirror, so you don't have a TTL view, so you can't easily use long or wide lenses. - the lenses are also small because they have no AF and IS built in. - backward compatibility with old lenses means you have an old mount design, which limits communication between body and lens. - the rangefinder mechanism is (for me) still preferable in most circumstances, for control of focus, but such mechanical precision has implications for cost, maintenance and reliability. In the past Leica's mechanical engineering prowess helped overcome some of these limitations (think Visoflex), but now they buy solutions from others (think EVF). As others have noted, you either treat the Leica as complementary to other cameras, or (like me) you limit your photography to what the Leica does best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted February 12, 2014 Share #29 Posted February 12, 2014 Leicas are "sold" as better than any other camera around, and this brand mystique draws people in. I don't think that is true. I never recall seeing a statement or innuendo from Leica stating or implying that. You may want to substitute the word different for better. I think they are sold as what they are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted February 12, 2014 Share #30 Posted February 12, 2014 You're right, it is not formally sold that way. I was summarising the way many see Leica's position in the market. It is too easy to be swayed by perceptions of some sort of mystique and not be aware of the (entirely understandable) limitations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted February 12, 2014 Share #31 Posted February 12, 2014 Leicas are "sold" as better than any other camera around, and this brand mystique draws people in. In reality, of course, they are not, and never can be. In the right hands, they can take some of the best images you could see, but the means by which the Leica helps this happen are precisely the reasons why it has limitations:- the compact size of body and lens is down to the absence of a mirror, so you don't have a TTL view, so you can't easily use long or wide lenses. - the lenses are also small because they have no AF and IS built in. - backward compatibility with old lenses means you have an old mount design, which limits communication between body and lens. - the rangefinder mechanism is (for me) still preferable in most circumstances, for control of focus, but such mechanical precision has implications for cost, maintenance and reliability. In the past Leica's mechanical engineering prowess helped overcome some of these limitations (think Visoflex), but now they buy solutions from others (think EVF). As others have noted, you either treat the Leica as complementary to other cameras, or (like me) you limit your photography to what the Leica does best. 1. Leica are not sold as better then other brands 2. A version of M could be in some way, "never" is clearly not true 3. The images are excellent due to the quality of the sensor and lenses 4. LV is much more flexible then a SLR arrangement which inter-alia is old fashioned, bulky and shakes the camera limiting minimum shutter speed. 5. Leica is about work flow , build quality, IQ and lens quality and connecting with the end product, the photograph. Rgds Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dant Posted February 12, 2014 Share #32 Posted February 12, 2014 OP, same boat as you. I use Fuji a lot but would like a bigger sensor. The dslr hardly gets any use except macro and sports. (and sports is almost nil. ) DSLR is too big and noisy for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dant Posted February 12, 2014 Share #33 Posted February 12, 2014 I don't think that is true. I never recall seeing a statement or innuendo from Leica stating or implying that. You may want to substitute the word different for better. I think they are sold as what they are. After unboxing a M240 I can say it is really a gem how it is presented. What I like about Leica is manual controls. The other cams seem to be taking more controls away each day that goes by. The new Fuji superwide zoom does not have a focus scale for zone focus work and the aperture is their useless screwball deign. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londonmember Posted February 12, 2014 Share #34 Posted February 12, 2014 OP, same boat as you. I use Fuji a lot but would like a bigger sensor. The dslr hardly gets any use except macro and sports. (and sports is almost nil. ) DSLR is too big and noisy for me. I switched in 2009 from a Nikon D3 and a bunch of lenses to an M9. I'd not used a RF before, but a long Hx of Olympus OM film SLRs then Nikon DSLRS. I shoot street, travel, documentary and some fashion/portrait. Never sports or macro. I had slimmed my Nikon down to a D3 and two lenses (85/1.4 and 28/1.4) but still found it too big. I wanted a FF system with MF very very high quality lenses, nice rendering and small size. I learned the RF approach and it takes some time and regular practice. However it has advantages and having to pre-visualise and often pre-focus really helps me with my street photography. I was less happy with the ISO performance of the M9, but lived with it. The M240 has solved that problem and I can now use my M240 at night as well as the Monochrom. I use 24.35.50.75 focal lengths only. I think you'll like the system, and even now with Sony FF mirror less, the M glass works best on an M body. I've no issue with EVFs, but the RF adds more, and the sensor is optimum with wide Leica lenses. http://www.brendandelaneyphotography.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carbon111 Posted February 12, 2014 Share #35 Posted February 12, 2014 In May of 2012, I bought a Leica X2 to have something of quality that was a little more portable than my Canon 5DmkII and ended up really loving the quality of the RAW files...they needed very little post processing in LR and had a ton of dynamic range and great color! That was when I started eying the M9...a month later I had a used M9 and a couple of used lenses. The rangefinder paradigm was a perfect fit for me, it took me back to the days of shooting film with my dad's Contax. After six months with the M9, I sold the 5DmkII because it just wasn't getting used anymore. The only thing I missed was macro and wide-angle. I used a decent pocket cam for macro stuff and eventually picked up the 21mm Super-Elmar for the M9. Been happy ever since. ...so happy in fact that I picked up a M typ 240 last month. The few niggles I had about the M9 are fully addressed in the new M. Amazing machine! The only thing I would recommend is try one first - you need to know if rangefinder focusing will be comfortable for you before spending that much cash. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
williamgm Posted February 12, 2014 Share #36 Posted February 12, 2014 I'm wondering why some people feel they 'need' a full-frame sensor, perhaps intimating that anything smaller is incapable of serious or professional work. A recent article on the Online Photographer web site covered this topic last month: The Online Photographer: Small Format Professionalism Of course, I appreciate that with a full frame sensor lens focal lengths 'behave' as they did with film, but how many people will make full use of their expensive full frame sensors i.e. making very large prints on a fairly regular basis? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted February 12, 2014 Share #37 Posted February 12, 2014 My experience for OP. I am not M user (yet) but I use M9 for past 2 years with 28mm cron, 50mm lux and very old tele-elmar 135mm. I was a Canon user and I sold all the lenses while moving to M9. I kept the body since I shoot birds with 400mm Telyt with an adaptor. Now it is also in a transitional phase to be used with NEX6. Now ALL my gear+carrying bag weighs around 7-8 lb with two bodies (M9 and NEX6) and various lenses (CV15, 28mm cron, 50mm lux, tele-elmar 135mm, R80-200mm, R400mm and 2XAPO). My usual carrying around equipment is M9+28mm and (NEX6, 50mm, 15mm in the bag). The only thing I miss is the Canon 85mm f/1.2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londonmember Posted February 12, 2014 Share #38 Posted February 12, 2014 I'm wondering why some people feel they 'need' a full-frame sensor, perhaps intimating that anything smaller is incapable of serious or professional work. A recent article on the Online Photographer web site covered this topic last month: The Online Photographer: Small Format Professionalism Of course, I appreciate that with a full frame sensor lens focal lengths 'behave' as they did with film, but how many people will make full use of their expensive full frame sensors i.e. making very large prints on a fairly regular basis? I'm a big fan of m43, my wife has an OMD E-M5. Lovely little camera, and nice lenses. I borrow it quite a bit. However, I want my M lenses to be the focal lengths they are supposed to be, not cropped as I really like my 'wide' angles. Also I'm a fan of wide angle and shallow DOF (the 24 summilux at f1.4) You CAN'T do that on a smaller sensor. Finally I do often print at A3+ size for exhibitions. So size does matter.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotoriousSEG Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share #39 Posted February 12, 2014 I think need is subjective. I'm an enthusiast/semi-pro, I don't "need" much. Want. Desire. Covet. Those are the concepts that we really should be addressing here. For what I do, I could get by with a Nikon d800 and a couple primes. But I really enjoy looking at and using precision instruments. I like the smaller form factor. I like the history, and dare I say the cachet. I could easily do with a Fuji X Pro 1 and get sort of the same experience (retro appeal, small, nice IQ), but it just wouldn't be the same. My end goal is to simplify my photographic process, and in turn my life. I'm all about the downsizing movement. I don't need more stuff, I just need stuff I love and that works well for me. Leica may very well fit that bill. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted February 12, 2014 Share #40 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. Before moving MF lens I was worried whether I will like it. I found it a pleasure. As for other's using it, last year I handed my M9 to an old friend of mine (to take my picture) and I was explaining how to focus. He remarked that it is similar to what he used decades ago and had no problem focusing. In another instance, I explained verbally to my middle school aged son how to focus M9 and he got it in no time. Now he takes pride in the fact that he knows how to focus my "strange" camera. RF is not that strange after all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.