Someone please convince me to buy the M!

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

A little late to the party, congratulation. About I'll I can add is that it is a good idea to read all of the FAQ. Lot's of good stuff there... and welcome!

 

Rick

 

p.s. You're 3 lens kit sounds perfect... might want to think about a 75 Lux for that special bokeh and the 35 Lux certainly is a fine lens, both of which would round out your current 3 lens kit plan. Maybe you are more of a 28mm shooter like viramati and myself then, the 28 Summicron is just magic, I have both the 35 Lux and the 28 Summicron (ok, I also have the 35 Summicron because it is such a nice little lens and a couple of older 35 lenses). Then, the super wides from Leica are fantastic like the WATE or the 18 SEM, and some here seem to fall under the spell of the Noctilux or the new 50 Summicron. Then, there are the wonderful R lenses that work well on the new M with the somewhat rare R-M adapter, might want to try the R 280/4.0 APO which is as good as you can get, along with all the other R APO lenses. And one last thing, the older vintage Leica lenses are something special in their own individual way. Anyway, I agree the with your idea of a simple 3 lens kit. I have a 3 lens kit as well... it just isn't always the same 3 lenses, though.

[dant]

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.

 

You can never get enuf of what you really don't want. There is only ONE Leica. If you lust for one buy one. I bought 3 and and pretty happy with them. I also shoot Fuji X, 645D, M43 and a Sony PS

 

That being said, there is not a big dif between a M240 and a Fuji X. But the Fuji X is no rangefinder either.

 

Camera Comparisons

[dant]

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

 

I would never consider a Sony. Poor manual controls, no shutter dial. It is no Leica.

[Lazytiger]

Thanks Tundra, Rick and Viramati! Already celebrating the smallest manual I ever read for a digital camera!

 

Anyway, I agree the with your idea of a simple 3 lens kit. I have a 3 lens kit as well... it just isn't always the same 3 lenses, though.

 

 

Many great lenses out there - but 50, 21, 90 is my absolute dream team. Lets see how I feel about this in a year from now!

[tundraline]

Thanks Tundra, Rick and Viramati! Already celebrating the smallest manual I ever read for a digital camera!

 

 

 

 

Many great lenses out there - but 50, 21, 90 is my absolute dream team. Lets see how I feel about this in a year from now!

 

I have a WATE lens, and it is superb (although quite pricey). One alternative to a WATE or a 21mm lens perhaps worth considering is a 24mm Leica M Elmar lens. Small, compact, and (according to reports and reviews) very sharp with good color rendition. It does not seem to be a hugely popular lens, and can be found used in "mint" condition for around $2,100. For 90mm I went with a Summicron asph apo lens, and never regretted it.

[jdsheepdog]

Welcome to the forum, I hope to see and hear more from you, Oh, and, Good Decision Umpire!

[Lazytiger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a WATE lens, and it is superb (although quite pricey). One alternative to a WATE or a 21mm lens perhaps worth considering is a 24mm Leica M Elmar lens. Small, compact, and (according to reports and reviews) very sharp with good color rendition. It does not seem to be a hugely popular lens, and can be found used in "mint" condition for around $2,100. For 90mm I went with a Summicron asph apo lens, and never regretted it.

 

Thanks for those suggestions! Thought about the 24, but it always makes me feel like I can use a 21 and crop in a little or use my feet if I want this framing. And I quite like the additional drama of a 21 in most situations. And while I am absolutely sure that the WATE is a phantastic lens that covers most SWA needs, I am aiming for a small and light set that can accompany me everywhere I go.

 

Welcome to the forum, I hope to see and hear more from you, Oh, and, Good Decision Umpire!

 

Thanks! And yes, I am overwhelmed by all that kind and competent feedback!

[jdsheepdog]

Thanks for those suggestions! Thought about the 24, but it always makes me feel like I can use a 21 and crop in a little or use my feet if I want this framing. And I quite like the additional drama of a 21 in most situations. And while I am absolutely sure that the WATE is a phantastic lens that covers most SWA needs, I am aiming for a small and light set that can accompany me everywhere I go.

 

If you are agonizing over a shorter lens, don't neglect the 28 mm Elmarit. It is very small. lives on the camera perfectly happily in preference to others, and by Leica standards at least, is inexpensive, and it produces lovely, lovely landscapes.

 

Ken Rockwell's reviews, while entertaining, are sometimes more about him than the thing he is reviewing, but in the case of his review of this little wonder, he is spot on. It is definitely worth reading. The attached is the 28 mm on Velvia, of central Cebu Island, Philippines.

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!

[Lazytiger]

If you are agonizing over a shorter lens, don't neglect the 28 mm Elmarit. It is very small. lives on the camera perfectly happily in preference to others, and by Leica standards at least, is inexpensive, and it produces lovely, lovely landscapes.

 

Ken Rockwell's reviews, while entertaining, are sometimes more about him than the thing he is reviewing, but in the case of his review of this little wonder, he is spot on. It is definitely worth reading. The attached is the 28 mm on Velvia, of central Cebu Island, Philippines.

 

Thanks - great shot! Unfortunately I never got the hang of 28 myself. If I go wide I like to really go wide (well not all the way down to 15, but that's another story).

[lenicolas]

Your 3 lens kit sounds perfect to me :

The 21 is the classic Leica wide (24mm is a recent FL for Leica).

The LA 50 is the most praised standard lens I've ever heard about.

Going compact with the 90mm is smart and reasonable. I get that some people need to have the best possible, but for the little use a 90mm gets in most people's kit, f/2,8 is plenty, and it might get to leave the house more often

 

I shoot weddigns with a very similar kit (21 - 50 - 85) and I never wish I had another lens

For travel and personal photos, I even leave the 50 or 85 at home.

[jaapv]

Thanks - great shot! Unfortunately I never got the hang of 28 myself. If I go wide I like to really go wide (well not all the way down to 15, but that's another story).

 

In that case the 18 mm Super Elmar might be the lens for you; it is one of the many gems in the Leica lineup.

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!

[Lazytiger]

Your 3 lens kit sounds perfect to me :

The 21 is the classic Leica wide (24mm is a recent FL for Leica).

The LA 50 is the most praised standard lens I've ever heard about.

Going compact with the 90mm is smart and reasonable. I get that some people need to have the best possible, but for the little use a 90mm gets in most people's kit, f/2,8 is plenty, and it might get to leave the house more often

 

I shoot weddigns with a very similar kit (21 - 50 - 85) and I never wish I had another lens

For travel and personal photos, I even leave the 50 or 85 at home.

 

That's precisely my thinking. I also agree on the 90 and f2.8. At this focal length f2 dof is too shallow for portraits anyway, and I want my kit as light as possible.

 

In that case the 18 mm Super Elmar might be the lens for you; it is one of the many gems in the Leica lineup.

 

Thanks! I must admit I was a little torn between this and the 21. 18 is phantastic for dramatic landscapes and shots like the one you posted. But as the only WA in a 3 lens kit to me it's already too much of a special purpose lens.

[lenicolas]

And it's probably just me, but I believe 21mm is a magic FL. It renders in a way that's (to me) more pleasing than a 24 or an 18mm.

My theory is that is because 21mm is very close to half the diagonal of the 24x36 format, making it the "most natural wide angle".

This, or the FL is magic

 

Envoyé de mon HTC One X en utilisant Tapatalk

[Mr_Jones]

Pleased to hear you took the plunge. If you wear glasses you should try a diopter for the rangefinder. I spent a few months battling with the focus just to realise that I couldn't ever see clearly through the rangefinder without glasses on. The transformation when I found the correct diopter, night and day!

[jip]

If you've always wanted one for 30 years, just buy one. I wanted one for 1 month in 2012 and bought a M8... then noticed I didn't use my canon gear anymore, so sold the M8 and canon gear funding a M9

[Lazytiger]

Pleased to hear you took the plunge. If you wear glasses you should try a diopter for the rangefinder. I spent a few months battling with the focus just to realise that I couldn't ever see clearly through the rangefinder without glasses on. The transformation when I found the correct diopter, night and day!

 

Thanks for the suggestion. Since I'm shortsighted I keep my glasses on. Seems to work very well with the rangefinder. Only drawback is that due to the greater distance from the viewfinder at 50 mm I see a little less of the surrounding.

 

No problems with focussing so far. It find it fascinating how that little focus thing seems to draw magically those two pictures together. They just fall into place!

 

If you've always wanted one for 30 years, just buy one. I wanted one for 1 month in 2012 and bought a M8... then noticed I didn't use my canon gear anymore, so sold the M8 and canon gear funding a M9

 

I did! It's hidden somewhere further up this thread. But thanks for your encouraging words!

[Paulus]

Thanks Tundra, Rick and Viramati! Already celebrating the smallest manual I ever read for a digital camera!

 

 

 

 

Many great lenses out there - but 50, 21, 90 is my absolute dream team. Lets see how I feel about this in a year from now!

 

Having a spare battery is IMO also a great buy!

[Torgian]

For a long while I was convinced that I should buy the Leica M-E or a used M-9.

 

But a part of me really wanted to spend the extra thousand to get an M-240.

 

I'm VERY happy that I did. Yes, I spent all of my camera savings on one body and one lens. I originally thought of going for a mirror less like the Panny GX7 or Olympus OMD, with several lenses (a 35, a 50, and a macro and a portrait lens). But, each time I tried to convince myself to go for one of the cheaper options, I couldn't bring myself to do it.

 

They didn't "complete" me. I didn't like any of the EVFs. I didn't like that they were not full frame sensors. I could have waited for the Sony A7, but by then I was completely turned off to EVFs.

 

Plus, I had found dslrs and many of the mirror less cameras to be too complicated. There are a lot of buttons on those things, a lot of options, and frankly I didn't want or need them.

 

Not having autofocus can suck, but I don't even notice anymore. I've gotten better with manual focusing and continue to get better at it. Hell if anything, my composition needs work more than my focusing skills.

 

So, in other words....

 

TLDR: Buy once, cry once, be happy forever.

 

Buy what you are not 100% happy with, buy twice, cry twice.

[Lazytiger]

So, in other words....

 

TLDR: Buy once, cry once, be happy forever.

 

Buy what you are not 100% happy with, buy twice, cry twice.

 

Very true, thank you! We still need to get used to each other, my new Leica and me. I see her beauty and optical capabilities. But she also feels unexpectedly heavy in my hand, and slippery. Guess that's the price to pay when it comes to design vs. ergonomics. Ordered a thumbs-up to compensate.

 

Focussing steady objects is a breeze, but living beings, boy, that's tough. At least at f1.4. I'm spoiled by my Nikon in this regard - point at the eye, press thumb button, reframe, take a couple of shots in quick succession, repeat. Almost one movement. Everything nice and in focus, even at f1.4. No way to do this with the M, at least for me. And now. We'll see how it works out!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[farnz]

Thanks for the suggestion. Since I'm shortsighted I keep my glasses on. Seems to work very well with the rangefinder. Only drawback is that due to the greater distance from the viewfinder at 50 mm I see a little less of the surrounding.

...

Congratulations on your new addition (or should that read "obsession"; we shall see ).

 

One possible solution could be a Match Technical E-Clypse Eyecup with a 0.85 de-mag lens, which will protect your spectacles from scratches and reveal more of the viewfinder for you. I've just started wearing specs and wouldn't be without one.

 

Pete.