jdsheepdog Posted March 14, 2014 Share #21 Posted March 14, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) When you buy quality, you only have to buy it once. My M3 is 50 years old and still works perfectly. I accept that the electronic M will probably not last 50 years, but then, neither will I. The A7 certainly will not last that long. I find, using the M, which arrived a week ago, that I have little use for the focus peaking and the rest of the tricks. That may be because I am so used to the M3, and the MP, which will have to go to help pay for the M, I guess I just like the control of a manual camera. If there is one big thing that convinces be to stay manual, it is that the camera works when I press the button. It does not sit and think for half a second. It works NOW. I love it! I agonized too, before I bought the M. For me it is a lot of money. I am very, very, pleased now that I did. PS, the attached is a heavily cropped, maybe 30% of original, .jpg out of the camera and a Version 2 non asph 50 mm Summilux. To do this with auto focus would more good luck than anything else. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/223591-someone-please-convince-me-to-buy-the-m/?do=findComment&comment=2549785'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 14, 2014 Posted March 14, 2014 Hi jdsheepdog, Take a look here Someone please convince me to buy the M!. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Dannybuoy Posted March 14, 2014 Share #22 Posted March 14, 2014 I'd be interested to hear of why you're selling it. Perhaps the OP would too. Pete I'm considering selling it, not 100% but feel its right to do so. I have a disabled daughter and we're currently trying to work out if we can adapt our house to make her life better and not have to move to do so. Having £9k's worth of Leica gear sitting largely unused isn't the best use of my money. I think a Fuji x-T1 and a couple of primes would do everything I need and the change would pay for some pretty serious adaptions to our house. It's not really hard to see where my priorities should lie at the moment Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazytiger Posted March 14, 2014 Author Share #23 Posted March 14, 2014 I suppose the lux my have more 'character' wide open but in real world use I find the FE55 to be just amazing either wide open or stopped down. It is incredibly sharp across the frame and I just find that I can 'hit' the focus so much easier with the Sony than with the lux especially wide open. I have had a lot of problems with my lux and it has been back to leica so many times and still back-focuses slightly. I just don't feel the price justifies the difference but that being said I find it very hard to accept the idea of selling the lux 50. As to the CV 21/1.8 I got it as my WATE is off being repaired/serviced and I wanted a super wide and a faster aperture. For it's price it is really a no brainer, wide open it is pin sharp in centre and pretty good on the corners stop down to 2.8 and it really shines (doesn't perform well on the edges on the A7). Yes it is big but I am really glad I added it to my lens collection. Maybe the SEM is abetter lens and if size is an issue and you don't need the faster aperture and you don't mind the fact that it costs 2 and half times the CV then go for it You make your point with an absolutely beautiful collection of shots on flickr. And I see that your focus is on landscape with an awesome, almost zen-like feeling for balance in your shots. This makes me feel like the M and your wide angle lenses are your favorite tool, so much that you bought an a7 to cover the 50mm range in order to keep your WATE/CV glued to your main camera? Concerning the CV, I decided not to think about the money but to buy what I'm really happy with. The CV lens seems to be awesome, I just travel a lot around the globe to make my living. So weight is an issue, although 150 g of difference won't break my neck... What made me go for the M ? The unique combination of: (1) camera and lenses well capable of taking high quality pictures, (2) a camera that just 'feels great' to use and (3) a camera that requires your active involvement (e.g. no autofocus). What do I think today about my decision ? The best decision I took when it comes to cameras since buying a Nikon FE all these years ago. Every time I take my M240 up I can't help but smile because its so rewarding to use. And it makes me proud of the results because I feel that by using it I'm part of the process if that makes sense. Do you have to accept the irrational as a major driving force ? Yes ! I also own a D800 which frankly speaking is a better camera in some respects - but to me it feels like comparing apples and oranges. Its a question of personal preference and the M240 is great because it is such a different kind of experience. Hope that helps. http://cdn.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/images/smilies/smile.gif It does, thanks a lot! Why not buy an M9 and one lens to see how you get on with a rangefinder. The improvements of the M240 over the M9 are well documented so you can factor that into your decision when deciding whether to trade up. I did something similar when the M9 first came out - I bought an M7 and 50mm Summicron and loved it. I ended up accumulating more lenses (21mm f2.8, 28mm f2 and 90mm summicron apo) until an M9 became available. I can echo Viramati's sentiments re the a7 and 55mm f1.8 - simply amazing. Thanks for the suggestion! Unfortunately this won't work for me, since having the option of shooting video is important to me for professional reasons. And I don't want to carry more than one system.I see the 55/a7 quality in Viramati's great pictures. This is what makes it so hard for me to decide: It's ugly. It's loud. But it really shines in the IQ department. When you buy quality, you only have to buy it once. My M3 is 50 years old and still works perfectly. I accept that the electronic M will probably not last 50 years, but then, neither will I. The A7 certainly will not last that long. I find, using the M, which arrived a week ago, that I have little use for the focus peaking and the rest of the tricks. That may be because I am so used to the M3, and the MP, which will have to go to help pay for the M, I guess I just like the control of a manual camera. If there is one big thing that convinces be to stay manual, it is that the camera works when I press the button. It does not sit and think for half a second. It works NOW. I love it! I agonized too, before I bought the M. For me it is a lot of money. I am very, very, pleased now that I did. PS, the attached is a heavily cropped, maybe 30% of original, .jpg out of the camera and a Version 2 non asph 50 mm Summilux. To do this with auto focus would more good luck than anything else. All valid reasons, thanks a lot! Unfortunately, me too, I won't last another 50 years. But buying another M in 6 years and losing 3 grand in the process means losing 500 a year, which is much less than other people spend on their haircut. So as long as we don't plan on a Leica and excessive hair-cutting we should be fine! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
richardmathews Posted March 14, 2014 Share #24 Posted March 14, 2014 Like you, I've shot all my life. Olympus Trip. Canon A1, All the SLRs that came afterwards. Still own a 5Diii. Shots got better, pictures cleaner. All easier. Then I bought my first Leica, the M240. Changes everything. Slowed me down. I started to see more and shoot less. Had to fiddle around and think. Remember pausing before you shot because you only had 24 shots you could afford? Well, it's like that but better. If you own one, you feel the obligation to shoot better, not more. Don't hesitate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Jones Posted March 14, 2014 Share #25 Posted March 14, 2014 I wrestled with a lot of these technical issues about the A7 vs M240. I had the M9p and bought an A7r when they first became available. I enjoyed some aspects of the A7 for a few hundred shots, couldn't use all of the Leica glass, some of it was terrible. Then I took the M9p on the same walk and the moment I lifted the viewfinder to my eye I fell out of love with the A7r. The rangefinder is faster and more accurate than the evf for me and a pleasure to use. Consequently I bought an M240 and although it's not a big step up from the M9 I am very happy with the decision. The A7 went back to Sony under their returns policy (which is worth checking out). It's a huge consideration, there's no way Sony are likely to manufacture an A7 with a rangefinder. It's not because it doesn't work, just that it's hugely expensive in terms of the overall cost of manufacture. As an example of M240 advantages, when you are using the evf you can set the camera to automatically magnify the centre of the frame to check focus. Because of the mechanical connection with the lens. The Sony needs 3 button presses to do that and you need to do it for a lot of frames because you don't have the alternative of the rangefinder! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazytiger Posted March 15, 2014 Author Share #26 Posted March 15, 2014 Like you, I've shot all my life. Olympus Trip. Canon A1, All the SLRs that came afterwards. Still own a 5Diii. Shots got better, pictures cleaner. All easier. Then I bought my first Leica, the M240. Changes everything. Slowed me down. I started to see more and shoot less. Had to fiddle around and think. Remember pausing before you shot because you only had 24 shots you could afford? Well, it's like that but better. If you own one, you feel the obligation to shoot better, not more. Don't hesitate. Thanks for the encouragement - you're describing exactly what I'm hoping for! Somehow I cannot imagine to find this in an a7r, regardless if same IQ or not... I wrestled with a lot of these technical issues about the A7 vs M240. I had the M9p and bought an A7r when they first became available. I enjoyed some aspects of the A7 for a few hundred shots, couldn't use all of the Leica glass, some of it was terrible. Then I took the M9p on the same walk and the moment I lifted the viewfinder to my eye I fell out of love with the A7r. The rangefinder is faster and more accurate than the evf for me and a pleasure to use. Consequently I bought an M240 and although it's not a big step up from the M9 I am very happy with the decision. The A7 went back to Sony under their returns policy (which is worth checking out). It's a huge consideration, there's no way Sony are likely to manufacture an A7 with a rangefinder. It's not because it doesn't work, just that it's hugely expensive in terms of the overall cost of manufacture. As an example of M240 advantages, when you are using the evf you can set the camera to automatically magnify the centre of the frame to check focus. Because of the mechanical connection with the lens. The Sony needs 3 button presses to do that and you need to do it for a lot of frames because you don't have the alternative of the rangefinder! Poor a7 - sounds like a new girlfriend who finds out that you're still in love with your last one... But then, she's loud and ugly, so who am I to blame you The one thing I'm not sure about with a rangefinder is my beloved 90mm (85 with Nikon). The picture the lens sees is so different that it must get really difficult to judge it through the rangefinder. Especially when shooting wide open. What do you think? Is it possible to work this way for portraits with a 90? Or a case for the evf? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest redge Posted March 15, 2014 Share #27 Posted March 15, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...having the option of shooting video is important to me for professional reasons. You may find it helpful to check out this site: Leica M 240 Video In the last three months or so, there has also been increasing discussion in this sub-forum about the camera's video capabilities as well as related subjects such as image stabilization/Steadicam and sound recording. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdsheepdog Posted March 15, 2014 Share #28 Posted March 15, 2014 The one thing I'm not sure about with a rangefinder is my beloved 90mm (85 with Nikon). The picture the lens sees is so different that it must get really difficult to judge it through the rangefinder. Especially when shooting wide open. What do you think? Is it possible to work this way for portraits with a 90? Or a case for the evf? Mr. Jones said it in as few words as possible. The rangefinder is faster and more accurate than the evf for me and a pleasure to use. In bright Australian sunshine, I find staring at the back of the camera, any camera, to be a frustrating exercise in futility. And, I have to wear glasses to do it. The rangefinder is always bright and clear, and I don't need glasses on to use the camera, although of course your eyes may very. I use a 90mm Elmarit a lot, and I have absolutely no problem with the framelines, which seem to suit the 90 particularly well, better maybe than the MP, but not of course as well as the M3. I also love the ability to go from white to red. Around snow, or the ocean, the white framelines can disappear, the red do not. Some of my comments must be qualified by the fact that I have used an M3 for many years, and it has become an almost instinctive extension of my hand and eye. To my enormous pleasure, the M240 is becoming similiar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 15, 2014 Share #29 Posted March 15, 2014 The one thing I'm not sure about with a rangefinder is my beloved 90mm (85 with Nikon). The picture the lens sees is so different that it must get really difficult to judge it through the rangefinder. Especially when shooting wide open. What do you think? Is it possible to work this way for portraits with a 90? Or a case for the evf? I really don’t feel a need for the EVF, there is absolutely no difficulty in shooting a 90 mm through an M viewfinder. In fact, I rather like the generous amount of surrounding scene. But then, I have been doing so since 1976… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted March 15, 2014 Share #30 Posted March 15, 2014 I've been shooting around 45 years, every kind of gear and format. I still own the M4 I bought in the early 70s. I love the Leica for what it is, a compact rangefinder with compact lenses of top optical quality. When I went to digital, I went in with Canon dSLRs and then got an M8 when it came along, then to an M9. I have no desire to put cumbersome SLR lenses (of which I have scads, Nikon, Pentax and Canon EOS, used to own R for a time) on an M body. I don't care for EVFs, although I like my wife's Lumix FZ200 (Panny twin of Leica's V Lux 4) for what it does ( 24-600mm straight f/2.8 zoom in a minuscule package) and accept the EVF as a trade off. I also have no desire at all to shoot video other than a quickie with my iPhone. So I have and will remain with the M9 until it breaks and is uneconomical to fix. So to me there are two questions here, whether to get a Leica Digital Rangefinder, and whether to get an M240. For me the answer to #1 is yes, but to #2 thus far, no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Barnack Posted March 15, 2014 Share #31 Posted March 15, 2014 Hello! I hope you don't mind if I ask for the help of this community. I take photographs for 30 years, starting with a Minolta, then Nikon F3, Hasselblad, etc., went digital with d80, d7100, finally ending up with a Ricoh GR, a Nikon d800 and a bunch of gold-ring lenses. During all this time I always wanted a Leica rangefinder. No idea why, they just seemed so beautiful to me. And I've seen many great shots taken with them. But rationally I never could justify buying one. Other cameras always offered a lot more for much less. Now, here I am again looking at the M 240. With a Lux 50, SEM 21, and one of the older 90s, Summicron or Elmarit-M. That would be my set for 90% of everything I shoot. There's always my d800 for the rest (the Ricoh needs to go anyway, don't like its brutal drawing). I have the money ready, camera and lenses are available at my local dealer, still I am hesitating. Sony a7r is as small, but lighter and has a phantastic 36mp chip like my d800. To my eyes it is ugly and and my ears find it loud. But my brain keeps telling me that it's got AF, integrated EVF, a 50% higher resolution, sensor cleaning and is 3 times cheaper. Then there is the RX1r, similar IQ as the M, not as ugly as the a7 and completely silent. But, of course, a one trick pony. To keep a long story short: Please convince me to buy that stupid M, otherwise I'll be stuck in this struggle between my heart and my brain forever! What made you go for the M and how do you think today about your decision? How has your photography changed? And finally: Do I maybe just have to accept the irrational as a major driving force in my pity existence, tell my brain to shut up and buy it? Thanks for reading all of this, and thanks in advance for your answers. Before you decide to spend money on one of the Sony cameras, you might want to give this a read and do some serious thinking: Camera Review - the Sony A7R Neither of the Sony cameras are a replacement for the M240. I do not own an M240 - yet, that is. But I will own one probably within the next month. Why? Well, at first I was fixated on the $7000 USD price; it seemed insane. Then I looked for alternative cameras. Bottom line: There are alternative cameras but none will equal the M240, or even come anywhere remotely close, based on my research. Some point to the D800 or D800E. Nope. Can't use my M lenses. And they are big, bulky SLRs. Both are non-starters in terms of equaling the M240 (IMHO, at least). Back to the price: I figured out that if I shoot film as much as I need and want to, I would end up spending $2500-3000 in 2014 - and that is with me buying chemicals and developing it all by hand to help save money. If I do that for 2-3 years, I will have spent the $7000 cost of an M240 or more. That makes no sense to me as I do not have a bottomless gold mine in my back yard. I love film and developing; I love having a physical negative and making contact sheets. With the M240, I can make inkjet based contact sheets and 5x7 or even 8x10 prints in order to still have a physical image - and do it a LOT more economically than the $11/roll cost of Fuji Pro 400H and chemistry to develop it in. Lastly, I would say take a look at Joel Meyerowitz's commentary on the M240 here and then decide: Joel Meyerowitz - My life with Leica (take two) on Vimeo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted March 15, 2014 Share #32 Posted March 15, 2014 Wow - a lot of answers ion a short time. Thank you all very much! Normal for THIS Forum ... take this as a side advantage when you'll pursue your decision to go for M... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazytiger Posted March 15, 2014 Author Share #33 Posted March 15, 2014 You may find it helpful to check out this site: Leica M 240 Video In the last three months or so, there has also been increasing discussion in this sub-forum about the camera's video capabilities as well as related subjects such as image stabilization/Steadicam and sound recording. Very interesting site, didn't know this one, thanks! It's not that I plan on making films with the M, shooting commercials is what I do for a living, so I'm spoiled by Arri Alexa (great with the new Leica Summilux Cine Primes by the way!). But sometimes I see something and want to quickly capture it in a good HD quality. That's where the M video capabilities would come into play. Mr. Jones said it in as few words as possible. The rangefinder is faster and more accurate than the evf for me and a pleasure to use. In bright Australian sunshine, I find staring at the back of the camera, any camera, to be a frustrating exercise in futility. And, I have to wear glasses to do it. The rangefinder is always bright and clear, and I don't need glasses on to use the camera, although of course your eyes may very. I use a 90mm Elmarit a lot, and I have absolutely no problem with the framelines, which seem to suit the 90 particularly well, better maybe than the MP, but not of course as well as the M3. I also love the ability to go from white to red. Around snow, or the ocean, the white framelines can disappear, the red do not. Some of my comments must be qualified by the fact that I have used an M3 for many years, and it has become an almost instinctive extension of my hand and eye. To my enormous pleasure, the M240 is becoming similiar. I really don’t feel a need for the EVF, there is absolutely no difficulty in shooting a 90 mm through an M viewfinder. In fact, I rather like the generous amount of surrounding scene.But then, I have been doing so since 1976… My thanks to both of you, that sounds reassuring! However, I wonder how the fact that I don't actually see the background bokeh in relation to the in focus parts will affect the choice of camera positioning in my portraits. I'm so used to build a frame according to what the lens actually sees. Probably no biggie - there's still LV or EVF to double-check. Before you decide to spend money on one of the Sony cameras, you might want to give this a read and do some serious thinking: Camera Review - the Sony A7R Neither of the Sony cameras are a replacement for the M240. I do not own an M240 - yet, that is. But I will own one probably within the next month. Why? Well, at first I was fixated on the $7000 USD price; it seemed insane. Then I looked for alternative cameras. Bottom line: There are alternative cameras but none will equal the M240, or even come anywhere remotely close, based on my research. Some point to the D800 or D800E. Nope. Can't use my M lenses. And they are big, bulky SLRs. Both are non-starters in terms of equaling the M240 (IMHO, at least). Back to the price: I figured out that if I shoot film as much as I need and want to, I would end up spending $2500-3000 in 2014 - and that is with me buying chemicals and developing it all by hand to help save money. If I do that for 2-3 years, I will have spent the $7000 cost of an M240 or more. That makes no sense to me as I do not have a bottomless gold mine in my back yard. I love film and developing; I love having a physical negative and making contact sheets. With the M240, I can make inkjet based contact sheets and 5x7 or even 8x10 prints in order to still have a physical image - and do it a LOT more economically than the $11/roll cost of Fuji Pro 400H and chemistry to develop it in. Lastly, I would say take a look at Joel Meyerowitz's commentary on the M240 here and then decide: Joel Meyerowitz - My life with Leica (take two) on Vimeo Even more interesting links, thanks a lot! d800 is bulky, yes. For some stuff it is indispensable though (just shot a kid on a bike coming towards me the other day, the agency expecting something like 20 shots in focus per run, to be sure to catch that million-dollar-smile). My d800 is a powerful workhorse and I do not plan selling it. But usually I do stuff like landscape, beauty and sometimes street. For all of this I consider buying the M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
genefama Posted March 15, 2014 Share #34 Posted March 15, 2014 I love Leica digital rangefinders but they have their quirks. The focusing mechanism and lenses can go out of adjustment to the point where it's vexing to pull focus. Then you have to send them in for service. Some lenses have weird field curvatures that make it difficult to get critical sharpness. It can also get tiresome to manually focus all the time and it can take too long. Using film, zone focusing with a Leica was easier than autofocusing with SLR cameras. But with digital, "acceptably sharp" is less forgiving. Some lenses like the 35 FLE demand more critical sharpness than zone focusing permits. Yet rangefinder focusing with the FLE's wavy field curvature causes missed shots too. You can also miss focus because your only option with the focusing screen in the center of the frame is to focus and recompose, which is the wrong order. DSLRs let you compose and then focus so you don't shift your focus plane. But overall, the IQ is different with rangefinders. The M9 has an inimitable look to its files due to the film-like rendering and colors of the CCD sensor. It's also, in my experience, a bit sharper than the M240. The M240 has an elegance and nuance to its files that's lovely and the camera has many functional advantages. I think the real decision isn't between the A7r (ugh, enough with comparing Leica to Sony consumer electronics!) and the M240, but between the M9 and the M240. Leica cameras are beautiful objects that you love owning. They're much easier to bring with you everywhere than SLRs (though the M240 is a little heavy compared to the M9). They look classy at gatherings and events, not cheap and touristy like every other digital camera. The 50 Lux asph is the only lens you really need and the one I'd choose if I could only keep one. Final point: it's not possible to answer the question in your original post without knowing the rest of your finances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazytiger Posted March 15, 2014 Author Share #35 Posted March 15, 2014 Did it! Just returning from the Leica store. 50 Lux is on the M, battery is charging. Went for black/black after seeing the chrome for real. They were even so kind to give me a used artists & artisan strap for free (I know, I left a truckload of cash there, but still they didn't have to!). Thanks to everyone helping me with this difficult decision, which I have been pondering about for more than half a year now! Now this stupid battery has to charge quickly cause I can't wait taking the first shots. Oh, if anyone is interested, here's my site with a selection of photographs RICHARD CAESAR | director And this film of mine for Swiss watches brand Maurice Lacroix features an old M, expressing my admiration for its timeless beauty (shot last summer): Enjoy! Cheers, RiC. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 15, 2014 Share #36 Posted March 15, 2014 I think you are overstating the focus problem. A lens, once calibrated properly will normally not go out of focus again as the adjustment is done by shims and the rangefinder on the M (typ240) is very hard to knock out of adjustment, as the adjustment mechanism has been changed vs previous designs. I love Leica digital rangefinders but they have their quirks. The focusing mechanism and lenses can go out of adjustment to the point where it's vexing to pull focus. Then you have to send them in for service. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 15, 2014 Share #37 Posted March 15, 2014 Did it! Just returning from the Leica store. 50 Lux is on the M, battery is charging. Went for black/black after seeing the chrome for real. They were even so kind to give me a used artists & artisan strap for free (I know, I left a truckload of cash there, but still they didn't have to!). Thanks to everyone helping me with this difficult decision, which I have been pondering about for more than half a year now! Now this stupid battery has to charge quickly cause I can't wait taking the first shots. Oh, if anyone is interested, here's my site with a selection of photographs RICHARD CAESAR | director And this film of mine for Swiss watches brand Maurice Lacroix features an old M, expressing my admiration for its timeless beauty (shot last summer): Enjoy! Cheers, RiC. See? I can predict the future Not even next week. Congratulations and have fun. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazytiger Posted March 15, 2014 Author Share #38 Posted March 15, 2014 See? I can predict the future Not even next week. Congratulations and have fun. Nostradamus was a prophetic noob compared to you And thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tundraline Posted March 15, 2014 Share #39 Posted March 15, 2014 Did it! Just returning from the Leica store. 50 Lux is on the M, battery is charging. Went for black/black after seeing the chrome for real. They were even so kind to give me a used artists & artisan strap for free (I know, I left a truckload of cash there, but still they didn't have to!). Thanks to everyone helping me with this difficult decision, which I have been pondering about for more than half a year now! Now this stupid battery has to charge quickly cause I can't wait taking the first shots. Oh, if anyone is interested, here's my site with a selection of photographs RICHARD CAESAR | director And this film of mine for Swiss watches brand Maurice Lacroix features an old M, expressing my admiration for its timeless beauty (shot last summer): Enjoy! Cheers, RiC. Congratulations on your new Leica M and lens! Really looking forward to seeing photos taken with your new system! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted March 15, 2014 Share #40 Posted March 15, 2014 Enjoy. I'm sure in your heart of hearts you had already made the decision:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.