Is it the IQ or the feel for you?

[Me Leica!]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Sigma DP2M is my favorite camera IQ wise. Remove its sluggish AF, give it an M mount, a decent buffer, a rangefinder and clean enough isos up to 1600 and my M240 will remain in a drawer.

 

Create something like that and my first born would be on ebay

[jamesbf]

Feel. Hands down. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Herr Barnack]

 

...do most people use Leica because of the shooting experience, or do you genuinely prefer the result?

For me, it is probably a 50/50 split. 

 

The "feel" of shooting with an M - whether it is my M-P safari or my M4-P - is like no other camera I have ever used, and I have used a lot of different kinds of cameras.  There is just something about using an M camera - it is a much more tactile shooting experience than using a SLR camera. 

 

Regarding the result, if you have ever gotten a few chromes made with M glass mixed in with your Nikon or Canon chromes on your light box, the M chromes will jump off the light box and yank your eyeballs out of their sockets.  M chromes are unbelievably sharp, crisp and clear compared to other chromes.  Regarding the M-P with M glass mounted on it, people have commented on how sharp and beautiful even my projected digital images are.  The image quality of the M-P and M lenses is obvious even when projected; that speaks volumes IMHO.

 

I am so pleased with the M shooting experience and the image quality that I don't own a SLR camera any more, film or digital.  I was a confirmed Nikon guy and had a fairly comprehensive Nikon kit which I ended up trading off to acquire more M gear and now I shoot only with rangefinders these days.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Carlos Danger

[gpwhite]

 

Regarding the result, if you have ever gotten a few chromes made with M glass mixed in with your Nikon or Canon chromes on your light box, the M chromes will jump off the light box and yank your eyeballs out of their sockets.  M chromes are unbelievably sharp, crisp and clear compared to other chromes.  Regarding the M-P with M glass mounted on it, people have commented on how sharp and beautiful even my projected digital images are.  The image quality of the M-P and M lenses is obvious even when projected; that speaks volumes IMHO.

 

I have always felt that Fuji made Velvia because of Leica M. Yes, the 120 images are glorious, but the Leica Summilux 50 on Velvia 50 is just exquisite, IMHO. The problem was printing.

[CheshireCat]

Good luck with your Sony. Au revoir.

I am keeping the M240, so I can keep pestering you guys with my posts

[lct]

I am keeping the M240, so I can keep pestering you guys with my posts

 

Too bad... To seek forgiveness you'll have to find out a couple of R lenses and do a review of your Sony with the latters.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have always felt that Fuji made Velvia because of Leica M. Yes, the 120 images are glorious, but the Leica Summilux 50 on Velvia 50 is just exquisite, IMHO. The problem was printing.

The Cibachrome process was rather beautiful... Over here there is one lab that has some stock left. Fujiflex is not a bad alternative.

[dpitt]

Lots of aspects appeal to me.

- I like to use a rangefinder,

- simple manual controls,

- excellent lens quality.

- small size factor for both lenses and bodies

- Results from RAW that do not require much PP to be excellent...

 

High ISO is not that important to me because I basically only use base ISO with relatively fast lenses.

I am a second hand Leica user and enjoy using older excellent M lenses on these digital bodies.

 

It is hard to find a brand that combines all these properties like Leica does IMO

Edited August 11, 2015 by dpitt

[Mornnb]

Anyway, yesterday I got the opportunity to handle and shoot with the new M. I shouldn't have done so, because now I can't get it out of my head. This seems to be the ultimate gestalt camera. For instance, my Sigma DP3 Merrill will be superior (significantly) at base ISO and 200, modern DSLRs will be better at high ISO, etc etc. But shooting with the Sigma is a pain in the butt. The results are more than worth it, but the actual experience of shooting isn't that much fun. But the very act of holding and shooting with the M was just incredibly satisfying...

 

So this isn't a question as such, but more of a guess: do most people use Leica because of the shooting experience, or do you genuinely prefer the result? 

 

Both. The camera is a delight to shoot, and produces better image quality.

 

Compared to my 5D Mark III, the Leica M has better performance at low ISO. With less noise and more dynamic range.

The lenses also have a nicer colour rendering and a much more intense contrast, and are completely usable wide open. In the DSLR world, there is a lack of options for excellent primes. Canon and Nikon seem to put most of their engineering efforts towards zooms. However, Sigma does a very good job.

[Ai_Print]

 In the DSLR world, there is a lack of options for excellent primes. 

 

I just can not agree with this, In Nikon alone I see some seriously fantastic primes from 20mm through 85mm that are either 1.8 or 1.4.

 

In the case of the Nikon 35mm 1.4G, it sits squarely in between the Leica 35mm 1.4 Asph pre-FLE and the FLE and is fantastic even close up. I shot all three one night under very controlled conditions and was surprised at how well it did in every area from color, contrast, sharpness, CA and bokeh. 

[CheshireCat]

Too bad... To seek forgiveness you'll have to find out a couple of R lenses and do a review of your Sony with the latters.

 

Deal . I have a Cron-R 35, and an APO Telyt-R 180/3.4.

Waiting for the camera to be delivered...

[pgk]

So this isn't a question as such, but more of a guess: do most people use Leica because of the shooting experience, or do you genuinely prefer the result? Obviously, it's not going to be totally one way or the other, but we can talk in terms of 50-50. 70-30 etc. 

Too simplistic. Its a variable for me. I like rangefinders, I like the feel of them and the way I can use them. Image quality isn't as easy to define or compare as many in our 'bigger numbers means better' intent age. If the image has 'quality' it has 'quality' for so many reasons; and most are nuances and undefinable and unmeasurable, so an image has little to do with facts and figures. If the user interface is clunky and awkward then the final results are likely to reflect this IMO. So I use and enjoy using my Leicas a lot and they supply me with images I also enjoy looking at. What more can I say?

[CheshireCat]

In the DSLR world, there is a lack of options for excellent primes.

 

Should we start with all long teles ? All excellent, and no options for the M.

And what about Zeiss DSLR lenses ? Some of them arguably "more excellent" than their M equivalents, if you don't mind the size and weight, of course.

And the latest Sigma Art lenses, all excellent, and with AF.

And several new primes from both Canon and Nikon. Quite excellent.

[pgk]

In the DSLR world, there is a lack of options for excellent primes.

We see this mantra repeated time and time again. There are some very good primes out there - I have some and they deliver excellent results. If you were to rephrase this and say that there is a lack of small, fast primes I would fully agree but those large ones that I have are very good - I would suggest that perhaps not all are good though - or perhaps say that some suffer from as many frustrations as a few people here on the forum would have us believe Leica lenses do. The Canon 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 are not wondrous, the 50 because (my copy was) soft wide open and my 85 was hit and miss with focus wide open with 50% of the shots being imperfect and I never found a solution despite using it on several bodies. Some of the slower dSLR primes tend to be older designs and aren't so good - I'd guess in these cases they will/are getting replaced but sales are below slower zooms (I don't own any zooms but those (L series) I've had were pretty good).

[CheshireCat]

my [Canon] 85[/1.2] was hit and miss with focus wide open with 50% of the shots being imperfect and I never found a solution despite using it on several bodies.

 

Defective lens... or defective user 

[Mornnb]

We see this mantra repeated time and time again. There are some very good primes out there - I have some and they deliver excellent results. If you were to rephrase this and say that there is a lack of small, fast primes I would fully agree but those large ones that I have are very good - I would suggest that perhaps not all are good though - or perhaps say that some suffer from as many frustrations as a few people here on the forum would have us believe Leica lenses do.

 

It's true, I speak from experience as a Canon shooter, I have been shooting Canons longer than I have been shooting Leicas. Their 35mm 1.4 L is very mediocre wide open Their 50mm lenses are worse with harsh bokeh, poor wide open performance and severe focus shift. The 85mm 1.2 may be fantastic, but it would be the only prime in Canon's range that I would regard as such. It is meant to be the lens that wins the portrait and fashion market and they put their best engineers on it.

However the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art is fantastic wide open and is close to a Leica standard, as is the 50mm 1.4 Art which is close to the Leica 50mm APO in performance for a fraction of the price.

 

 

The Canon 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 are not wondrous, the 50 because (my copy was) soft wide open and my 85 was hit and miss with focus wide open with 50% of the shots being imperfect and I never found a solution despite using it on several bodies. Some of the slower dSLR primes tend to be older designs and aren't so good - I'd guess in these cases they will/are getting replaced but sales are below slower zooms (I don't own any zooms but those (L series) I've had were pretty good).

 

DSLRs have perhaps more focus calibration issues than Rangefinders do, a fast 85mm f1.2 lens reveals this. Did you attempt to calibrate the focus with the micro-adjust feature?

[pgk]

DSLRs have perhaps more focus calibration issues than Rangefinders do, a fast 85mm f1.2 lens reveals this. Did you attempt to calibrate the focus with the micro-adjust feature?

The problem was not the micro-adjustment but the accuracy of the AF coupled with the inability to obtain sufficiently precise focus with the small focus area viewed through the camera. IMO its simply too fast, with too small DoF for the AF accuracy and too imprecise in terms of the viewable area and visual smallness of the desired point of focus. Wide open it was hit and miss whether the focus was as accurate as required. When it was right it was (and is) and extraordinarily good lens wide open, but I found it too frustrating due to its inconsistency - perhaps I was expecting too much. FWIW my 35/1.4 performs very well wide open which probably suggests variability is a factor (as has been claimed many times) in such lenses. My 50 was soft wide open without any doubt (again some claim otherwise, but mine was soft!) - variability again I suspect - I now have a (cheap) 1.4 which is better at 1.4 than the 1.2L lens was.

[Herr Barnack]

I have always felt that Fuji made Velvia because of Leica M. Yes, the 120 images are glorious, but the Leica Summilux 50 on Velvia 50 is just exquisite, IMHO. The problem was printing.

The chromes I was referring to were made with that combination - 50 Summilux  last pre-ASPH version and Velvia 50.  They have the look of another realm, so beautiful that they make your head swim.  Regarding printing, Cibachrome and/or Ilfochrome was the gold standard.  When Ilford killed off Ilfochrome, it was a black day indeed for color photographers.  I still have several Ilfochrome prints that are framed and matted hanging in my home.  I will never part with them. 

 

Well, okay - if someone offers me the sum of a new Leica M lens of my choice, I would let one or two of them go so I could complete my lens kit. 

Edited August 12, 2015 by Carlos Danger

[MaticB]

Sell all the Nikon gear after used "X" for a month, and bought "M" with 50 summilux and 28 elmarit. Ther are many reasons: although many quote D800e or D 810 produce better picture, I find them over-processed out of the box, looking unnatural. Slightly grany pictures of "M" is what I like more, not speaking of creamy pictures produced by excellent Leica lenses. And yes, handling of the camera and especialy rangefinder in combo with summilux is unprecedented!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[algrove]

 

At the moment, I am playing away with the new Sony A7r ii.  Athough it blurs the corners on some lenses, it is lighter than the M240, and the pictures are sharper (because I can focus the lens precisely on the point I am trying to shoot) and of higher resolution, even a higher ISO.

 

 

I am somewhat confused by your comment above which I highlighted in red. I can always focus my M's "precisely on the point I am trying to shoot".  What are you inferring here because it almost seems that you are hinting at having trouble correctly focusing your M240.