I want to hear from those who made the move from DSLR to the M.

[Guest redge]

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.

 

I've had an M 240 since early December and switched to Leica from Nikon about eight years ago.

 

I bought a Leica because I found that I really enjoyed rangefinder focusing. It had nothing to do with weight. I used my Nikon cameras with prime lenses (24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm) and I can't say that I found the cameras at all cumbersome. When people talk about bulky, heavy DSLRs, they can only be talking about people using zoom lenses and really long lenses, which are either a need or a choice. If the former, a Leica rangefinder doesn't make sense. If the latter, one doesn't need to buy a $7000 camera to solve the problem. Just ditch the lenses that have become a cross rather than a pleasure.

 

I think it's a mistake to buy an M 240 in the belief that it will be less cumbersome than a D800. For practical purposes, the camera itself just isn't. Ergonomically, I think that the D800 is excellent. The amusing thing is, the M 240 opens up possibilities that could well lead one down the path to the bulkier, heavier setups that you say you want to leave behind. I'm now using my M 240 for video, macro (with a bellows) and tethered shooting with a laptop, and I won't actually rule out the possibility of buying an R adaptor to use R lenses

[Advertisement]

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

[viramati]

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?

 

 

for me it is not so much about the IQ of FF but more about the control of DOF and FOV that you get with FF. I also have some of the fuji X system and am really happy with the 14mm (21mm equivalent) and the 35mm (50mm equivalent) but the 18mm (28mm eqivelant) just had to much distortion that is inherent in that focal length to be really useful as and alternative to a 28 of FF

[KanzaKruzer]

My journey to Leica started a few years ago when I realized my favorite photos were taken with a manual focus DSLR 35mm Zeiss lens. At that time I was using a Nikon D700, 4 Zeiss lenses, 3 Nikon lenses and the Fuji X100. I preferred the output from the Nikon with the Zeiss lenses, but the total package was heavy and bulky. I liked the Fuji form factor, but missed the quality output from the DSLR. The Leica M9 (and anticipated M10) appeared to combine the best of both, so I sold the Zeiss lenses and X100 to help fund the transition.

Fast forward to September 2013 and I now own a Leica M with 4 lenses and Nikon D800E with 3 Nikon lenses. The Leica M is the camera I reach for 80% of the time. What is interesting is that my preferred lens on the rangefinder has shifted to 50mm. I don’t know if it is because of the rangefinder method or if my style has changed. I am still learning how to better utilize the M, but the basic operation was easy to pick up without having used a rangefinder in the recent past.

[Carbon111]

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.

 

Of course you can do professional work on a smaller sensor.

 

I think the main problem with smaller sensors is depth of field control.

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.

The other benefit is larger pixels which usually translates to less noise and better low light performance.

 

I'm actually looking into a medium format film camera because of these points. (Except pixel size, of course. )

[Dannybuoy]

Owned a Canon 5Dmk2 since launch. Accumulated lots of top L lenses on the way. Got heaps of strobist equipment too. Had several fairly decent commercial jobs over the years. Read a review for the X1 when that came out. Keen on the IQ. Got one 2nd hand a few months later. Loved it. Adored it. Hated it. Sluggish AF but the IQ was stellar. Got the bug big time. The M9 had come out. I wanted one. Sold the X1 and saved a lot. Got a 35 Cron Asph first. Picked up an M9 shorty after. Fell totally in love. Canon gear gathering dust. Spent a small fortune of my hard earned on lots of bits and lenses. Traded in most for a new 50 Lux Asph. Took lots of photos. Got one exhibited in the Tate Britain and two Leica books. Sold all canon gear and not looked back. Less pro work now as I'm a full time web designer again. Shoot the M in my own time. Love it. Adore it. Hate it a bit as it has let me down a few times. But ultimately its the best camera I have ever owned and the best out of the current crop for my needs and wants.

[Peter H]

I've been using M cameras, film and then digital, since the early 1980s. I also used SLRs, then DSLRs throughout the same period. TLRs before that.

 

Three years ago I decided I could live without D/SLRs, and sold the lot. I've never been happier.

 

I can state unequivocally that the M is the best camera I have ever owned. This is not provable in any objective way. But it makes me happier than any other camera ever has, and allows or helps to to take photos that, for a variety of reasons, other cameras would not have done. Are the photos better? Who knows? No one could ever give a definitive answer to that question since the camera is such a small element in the total process. But they are better than the photos I didn't take, that's for sure!

 

I judge it in the only way it makes sense to me to do so: what gives me the most satisfaction. No SLR has ever been as fulfilling a photographic instrument for me as my current M.

[semi-ambivalent]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...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.

 

It's rather amazing how many people just don't get that. The power of Marketing. (Also the anti-compression with WAs.) I paid a lot of money for fast wides in my Nikon days and I'm not going to give them up by using a 'cropped' sensor. Not interested in re-buying lenses (even at non-Leica prices).

 

s-a

[carneiro]

I have a M240 with a new lux 50 1,4 and an old 50 summarit 5cm from the 50ies that I inherited from my father together with a 90mm that I (unfortunately) cannot use due to fungus on the lenses... My father lived in Brazil for many years. When I bought the M240 I did this due to sentimental reasons. In parallel I use a 5d MKII with a couple of good lenses from Canon and Zeiss. Now that I use my M, in 99% with the Lux, I would never, never, but really never, change it against any other camera in the world. But: In my business I continue working with the MKII and an old D200. They are more versatile, stronger, less valuable,.. But the look of the M pictures is so much better. And it´s so fantastic to use the camera, so easy to focus - and I wear strong glasses. The Lux is not what I expected, though. It´s super for low light but a little bit disappointing in terms of sharpness, especially compared with really cheaper lenses like the EF 50 1,4 from Canon. I would go for the Summicron now, but probably I would miss the 1,4. The Summarit is super for those who like the soft look of the 50ies. Unfortunately the focus has an extreme tolerance and the lens is not supported anymore by Leica. One thing: I had a couple of quality problems with the M240. First there was an issue with the electronics, Leica changed the camera. Then I had a couple of dead pixels, Leica fixed it.

[Paulus]

Had a Nikon F3 . Wonderful camera! Lent a M5 from my father in law. It felt like a tank!

 

Got an inheritance and divided the money in three equal parts. One for my wife, one for my daughter. My part I invested in a Leica M6 titan , just released and a summicron M 50mm canada.

 

From that moment on I always had a ( mechanical ) M. Later I bought the digitals 8,9,10. ( )

 

I combination with my Nikon F3 + 300mm AF IF/ED lens ( a superb lens IMHO ) and later the F4 an D3, it's a real winner for me.I am capable of shooting almost any subject.

[South Bird]

I switched from Canon (7D) and full compliment of L lenses after renting an M-9 and 50 Summilux for three days. There are several things I think are relevant to your decision. First it takes a while to get used to the rangefinder. Even when you get good at it it is slower than a DSLR (despite what you may read) but....it always focuses on what you want in focus. The end result is a hit rate, equal to the DSLR except in real fast moving situations.

 

Second, there is a quality to photos taken with the Leica that is not present in L glass. It is not something objectively measurable. It is, in fact a little strange. When I first got the rented M9 I shot a couple of pictures of my wife in the backyard. Nothing special. Yet the glow (for lack of a better word) of those photos made the decision to buy into the Leica system for me.

 

Finally, you need a backup system if you go Leica. I have the OMD EM1 for fast motion, zoom action photos. The Leica, even the M240 can't compete, especially in video. The image stabilization in the Olympus comes in handy. But then, I can't blow the Oly photos up into 40 x 60 inch prints.

 

My final advice is to spend the bucks and rent the M and 35 cron or 50 lux and shoot for a weekend. If you get results that blow your mind, pony up! Once you go all in, hunt around until you can get the Mate (28-35-50). While no longer made, it now lives on my M.

[Dikaiosune01]

I bought my first DSLR in 2010. It was great fun. But I often found myself dabbling more in the film market. The DSLR was useful when I needed a digital camera, but I found myself having much more fun playing with film. The DSLR didn't collect dust though. I often found myself carrying a 4x5 on my back while having a Canon 500D with a 24mm lens straped around my neck. It worked great.

 

When I realizied what I was doing and decided to focus more on film... ... (and do my utmost to starve off a digital M9) i traded my DSLR and lenses for a Fuji X100. It was a beautiful match. I didn't need a big camera, or a big battery. My primary cameras were still a M3 or a Mamiya C220. All film. The Fuji took so little space in my camera bag for the moments where a digital camera was needed.

 

Jump to December 2013. I was finally able to pick up a digital leica. (I placed my order the day after it was announced and I was still on the waiting list for 14 months) It has become my primary digital camera. I love it for traveling; It compliments my film bodies perfectly. I can use my M3 for fun and the digital leica when a digital camera is needed... ... although in recent days; because i have such a huge backlog of film, i haven't found many chances to develop exposed rolls. So I stick to my M240 until I can get those sheets and rolls developed.

 

Recently, a collegue of mine was playing in an exhibition soccer / football match at work. He asked me to take some photos for him; and for the boss. He handed me his D300. Took about a good 5 minutes to learn how all the buttons work (film manual cameras have become second nature to me and can easily turn the dials to get hte exposure I want). Everything set up on the camera and I thought I was ready to go.

The players were warming up, and I wanted to follow suit and see if I can really get what I wanted. Nope. No matter what I did, I couldn't get the focus tracking where I wanted it to be.

 

warm up was almost finished. I quick ran back into the office, put his camera in his bag and took out my M240. Great results. I knew the focus and the action well enough that I could focus more quickly than an undecisive D300. I bumped up the ISO and set it at F/8 to improve my focusing accuracy. The M240 has enough resolution that cropping is a viable option. I stuck to a 50mm and cropped when I needed to. I got shots that I know I would have never been able to capture with a D300 in a sporting application.

 

I have also been experimenting using the M240 to take pictures of my film negatives for a quick easy scan. I've used a visoflex; but I would like to experiment with novoflex bellows when funds allow.

 

I know I don't need a DSLR. For travel: M240. For sports: M240. For macro: M240 + bellows.

The only camera I think I might want to use is the Fuji X100, is when I want that fash shutter sync speed.

[MaxJ1961]

Another short story: My father-in-law gave me his M4. Loved it and bought an M9. Just upgraded to M. bought 50 Summilux and 28 Summicron new. Bought 90 Elmarit used. Still use my D700 and 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 to shoot Highschool sporting events and school plays. Use my M system 95% of the time.

[MirekE]

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.

 

1. I remember that for me as a long time SLR shooter, the rangefinder focusing and primitive metering was frustrating for perhaps several months. Somebody recommended me to rent the M first to see if I would like it. If I followed the advice, I would never decide to buy an M based on that short rental experience. I needed more time to get used to it.

 

2. I had really, really bad luck with reliability with everything I purchased during the first year. The problem is that if you wait 6 months for a lens, you don't want to send it back for replacement, because they won't be able to send you any. Repair times were often over a month and the overall experience obviously frustrating. Even though my experience could have been abnormal, I'd suggest that keeping a backup system is not a bad idea.

 

3. Building a kit took some time. The situation may have improved, but I was waiting for some of my lenses for over a year. I know some people say "I will sell my DSLR system and get an M with 28, 50 and 90". Well, make sure that the lenses are not on backorder before you sell your DSLR equivalents...

 

4. The price you pay for a smaller and simpler kit is versatility. It changed a bit with the latest camera that has Live View, but still, macro, tele and UWA are not as easy as with a SLR and obviously, there is not lightning fast AF and image stabilization, so some types of shots are not possible (at least not using the DSLR mindset and techniques).

 

My suggestion for someone coming to the M from DSLR would be to set the expectations right, research availability, be patient with the RF focusing and metering (especially if you are coming from AF) and keep at least minimal backup system, especially if you shoot macro, sports, wildlife or anything that requires special equipment.

[CheshireCat]

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.

 

+1

 

I love Leica M lenses and the small form factor, but if I had to keep just one system I would definitely stick to DSLR for the flexibility.

 

As sensor based phase-detect is improved, DSLR systems will become EVIL (in the good sense, check acronym ).

And size will not be a problem anymore

[rscheffler]

I've been a life-long Canon user (well, since age 13), and since my 20s have gone through the typical updates as each new 1-series body was released, up to and including the current 1DX (though it's possibly the last 1-series I buy new upon release - we'll see).

 

I shoot a fair amount of sports/action, but also do corporate and event work, including weddings. There are applications, such as sports, where I will naturally use the DSLR over an M for the benefit of AF and telephoto lenses. 12 fps is also useful at times.

 

That said, the enthusiasm I had for big gear in my 20s has waned and I'm interested in 'downsized' options that still retain a certain level of image quality (real or perceived). Combined with some IQ and AF related frustrations I had ~ 5 years ago with Canon's wide angle lenses (soft edges and frequently focusing behind the intended subject) and not being able to eyeball this easily in the viewfinder for confirmation, got me thinking about manual focus alternatives. One option was to buy a bunch of ZE primes, but the size/weight was unappealing and the inability to easily eyeball focus in the viewfinder would remain. This was about the time when the M9 was announced.

 

I was always a two-body DSLR shooter, in part for back-up purposes, but also for ease of shooting with a couple lenses during events, etc.. With the Canon 1D IV update, I decided to get only one new body and shopped around for an M9, eventually buying an ex rental unit off Lensrentals (perhaps the first one they had come off rentals) at a time when it was still difficult to find the cameras new or used. Essentially, it cost about the same as a Canon 1D, something I would have bought anyway. Rather than jump deep into the potential Leica 'money pit' I started with a few Zeiss ZM lenses covering 21, 35 and 50, and then added a couple Voigtlanders as well. Once I was comfortable with the system and proved to myself I could use it for actual client work, I started to explore Leica lens options. I have since filled out the system with a core set of Leica lenses: 21/28/50/90.

 

For paid work, such as events, I use both Leica and Canon. 50mm and wider is typically on the Leica, while I keep a 70-200/4 IS, or longer, on the Canon... or the 85L for really shallow DOF. This lets me leverage the speed of AF in fluid situations, but benefit from the ability to work intimately at near distances with the much less intimidating or loud Leica. While focus can be critical with wide angle work, here the rangefinder system is actually more precise than AF and gives you a very fast idea of how close you are with your focus. If shooting stopped down, you generally only need to be 'close enough' for great results and there are many times I will scale focus, allowing the camera to be immediately ready for a shot. No worries about AF delay or whether it might have picked up something in the background instead. It's nice to be able to look at a lens and know that if the focus scale is at 1.5m, that's where the focus will be. Compare that against typical AF lenses with focus scales that are very compressed and therefore unreliable.

 

Additionally, I really love the quality of Leica's (and Zeiss/Voigtlander) glass, particularly the wide angle lenses. Many, like the 21/3.4 are amazingly sharp across the frame from wide open, yet also tiny. The photo-nerd in me really loves that I can get correctly focused, sharp, finely rendered details throughout the frame with these lenses - they always deliver the goods.

 

For personal work, like going out for casual walks, I pretty much only use the M system. I used to also bring the DSLR, but no longer. I recently had a chance to try the Sony RX10, and it has made me rethink my opinion about smaller sized sensors. It was great when I didn't want or need much subject separation. In this respect, if Leica releases the rumoured T with a decent telephoto zoom, I might consider it... and it potentially could even replace some of my DSLR needs...

 

As for getting an M camera.... just having come off 3 years with the M9 and 10 days ago receiving an M240... assuming the M240 remains reliable (so far, so good), I would suggest skipping the option of a used M9 and just go for the M240 if you can manage it. It's a much more polished camera, in terms of operability and speed. It should make an easier transition from DSLR. On the jobs I've already shot with it, paired with my 1DX, it feels much closer in speed and fluidity to the Canon than the M9 ever did.

 

My 2¢, FWIW...

[CaptZoom]

[Mention=2627528]NotoriousSEG[/mention]

 

Disclosures

-I learned photography in a Russian Leica M clone (though I had no idea what an RF or Leica were at the time- it was the only camera I could afford)

-Got the 40D at launch w/ assorted 3rd party lenses

-Got the 5Dmk2 at launch; traded the 40D + 3rd party lenses for an assortment of Canon L primes

-Got the M9 at launch with some 3rd party lenses (desirable Leica lenses were not available new and ridiculously priced used)

-Subsequently sold the 5Dmk2 and lenses.

-Learned using strobes somewhere along the way

 

For me, handling the M9 was like coming back home after a long, awkward journey. I never connected with the dSLRs, and the M9 fit like a worn in fitted glove. No more modal buttons, no more AF issues, no more scaring subjects with a monstrous camera and lens; at the same time, no more long/tele lenses, no more deep ISO control. Strobes are a pain in @$$; you don't see through the lens, so you have to use the superbly shitty LCD to sort out the shadows and make minute adjustments to compensate for parallax. But once you see the IQ...it took me some time to get used to the absolutely stunning results. And the results from the Leica sensor and lens combos are truly stunning. I've not used the M240, and can not comment on how it performs when fed proper light but I've little (actually no) reason to believe it won't be at least as good as the M9. That being said, I would not make this decision lightly. I strongly suggest you rent the new M and a lens preferably two (one fast and one "slow"). It maybe the case that romanticism aside, you absolutely hate the handling...or the camera just doesn't feel right. Or the focusing isn't to your liking. I don't mean manual focuses, but rather the infinite depth of field you get from the RF VF vs the minimum/minimal DOF you get with a SLR VF.* Rental cost of the Leica M system is peanuts compared to the cost of buying the system and in my opinion worth it.

 

Good luck with your decision.

 

*With a SLR VF you see your subject isolated and decide how much more you want to include. With the RF VF, you see everything and try to decide (imagine) what you want to isolate. The two systems are fundamentally different and both not always compatible for the same individual.

[midge5058]

I recently made the switch after being a Nikon user for 40 years. I got tired of carrying all of the heavy gear, especially when my wife got fantastic photos from her D-Lux 5 and now a D-Lux 6. I found that I had to spend a lot of time with Photoshop to equal the look out of that little camera. I tried out the Fugi and the Sony cameras but they just did nit feel right in my hands. The controls were in the wrong place and the levels of selection were just too much to remember. The M240 felt right and the controls were easy to use.

 

Then I thought I should get a D7000 and an 18-200mm lens just in case I needed auto focus. I realized that most of my Nikon shooting was with a 24-70 so I sent the D7000 and lens back and bought an X-Vario. I could not be happier. I get wonderful photos from both systems. The problem now is I want to also go back to film and have my eye on a M7....

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jaapv]

I have a M240 with a new lux 50 1,4 and an old 50 summarit 5cm from the 50ies that I inherited from my father together with a 90mm that I (unfortunately) cannot use due to fungus on the lenses... My father lived in Brazil for many years. When I bought the M240 I did this due to sentimental reasons. In parallel I use a 5d MKII with a couple of good lenses from Canon and Zeiss. Now that I use my M, in 99% with the Lux, I would never, never, but really never, change it against any other camera in the world. But: In my business I continue working with the MKII and an old D200. They are more versatile, stronger, less valuable,.. But the look of the M pictures is so much better. And it´s so fantastic to use the camera, so easy to focus - and I wear strong glasses. The Lux is not what I expected, though. It´s super for low light but a little bit disappointing in terms of sharpness, especially compared with really cheaper lenses like the EF 50 1,4 from Canon. I would go for the Summicron now, but probably I would miss the 1,4. The Summarit is super for those who like the soft look of the 50ies. Unfortunately the focus has an extreme tolerance and the lens is not supported anymore by Leica. One thing: I had a couple of quality problems with the M240. First there was an issue with the electronics, Leica changed the camera. Then I had a couple of dead pixels, Leica fixed it.

I would get that Summilux asph checked out. You should be able to get eyewateringly sharp results. They are known for occasional focus issues.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[MirekE]

I would get that Summilux asph checked out. You should be able to get eyewateringly sharp results. They are known for occasional focus issues.

 

The Summilux has some wavy field curvature that may - under certain circumstances - make the off center zone look less sharp than expected. It never bothered me in my shots, but it was documented by others.

 

Thy are both pretty sharp when stopped down, but the Lux is much better at f/1.4.

[Jeff S]

@ carneiro….did you check the Summilux using LV on your M to determine any obvious focus issues with camera/lens?

 

Jeff