Considering system change from Canon to Leica. Need help :)

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

XT1 files are without doubt as good or not better than Leica M240 and Fuji lenses are every bit as good as Leica and in some cases a bit better.

 

I think each has its strengths and weaknesses.  Fuji files seem to have a bit more latitude in some situations.  Leica a bit more resolution.  I've come to prefer the M files over the XT, bit to be honest, but I'm scared to buy an adapter for the XT lest I find that its really all down to the character of the glass. 

[pvcaesbroeck]

Martin,

 

I bought an M240, 2 years ago.

For that, I sold all my Nikon gear + a Fuji X100s. The reason was that I wanted to slow down and take time to photograph again. Although I must say that the quality of the X100s was simply superb. Razor sharp. (my opinion). But anyway, I dreamed years to own a Leica M and now finally I got one. 

 

A few personal remarks:

- There are other cameras with better high ISO

- The M240 is heavy (but built as a tank; very robust)

- It doesn't fit in your pocket like an X100s

- The Leica lenses are A++ (I would not use other brands)

- My M240 had to be send to Leica 2 times because of banding problem. The people at Leica Germany solved it. Very good support.

- If you use flash a lot, I don't know if it's a good choice. You can read a lot about it on the net, but I can't say. I rarely use flash, and if so, I shoot full manually. (Not TTL)

- I don't use the film (movie) mode or the live view

 

Whatever choice you make,

keep on shooting

[Tailwagger]

I bought a mint m240 last year along with a new Summicron-M 50mm.  So pretty much the same path your are considering.  From my experiences over the last few months, if I could do it all over again, while the M would stay, I would have sought out a early Summilux 1.4. instead of the 'cron.  Given the rather substantial cost, before you invest in lenses its wise to carefully consider what characteristics are important to you. Do a bit of homework and view as many images shot with the lenses you think are in the running. The newer glass is excellent, but some feel and I count myself among them, that the older lenses have more character.  If acuity or dynamic pop is paramount, I would  buy the latest and greatest. In which case, it bears mentioning that a recent mint Summicron 50mm is less money and more lens than a new Summarit, though perhaps about the same as a leftover 2.5.    

 

I've since acquired four other lenses, the newest of which is from the mid-90's, the oldest from 1956, all mint, all less coin than the new Summicron.  And I'm ecstatic about it.  I find the greatest attraction of the M system, particularly when coupled with earlier glass, is its ability to produce images that look far less digital than any other system I've had experience with. That ability gives me something I consider quite precious that none of my other systems can quite match.  Something, at least, to consider. 

[Martin Fagerås]

First of all, thanks for all the great response guys. this feedback is very valuable indeed! keep it coming. 

 

I will most definitely wait with any purchasing decision until i've tried the loaner 240 over easter. Then i will at least have a week to see if RF works for me or not. 

 

 

A few replies to the comments: 

 

I was doing similar math with my rather large collection of Nikon gear. In the end I probably didn't do the most financially sound decision: I switched to Leica M.

However, the number of pictures I have taken and actually really liked shot up exponentially.

My camera no longer sits in my office while I take snapshots with my iPhone. I just grab my M-P with 50mm summilux and go shoot. Right now saving for the 28mm summicron.

My only advice, get the Leica glass for your Leica. The Leica M in itself is just a decent digital camera, but when paired with Leica glass the two shine together.

Sound advice and pretty much the same reasoning i'm using for the switch. 
I also think i want to go for Leica glass right from the get go, i also like the 50+28mm combo, and will use my Q for the 28

 

 

 

See how you get on with the rangefinder experiment.

 

If you find fuji XT1 files disappointing in terms of image quality, (I believe they are capable of astonishingly high quality, very close indeed to the M after a little processing, but not as large, obviously) you may want to think seriously about how you personally prefer to handle files from different systems before committing yourself to wholesale change.

Yes, i'm looking forward to experiment and see if it's a fit or not. 

 

I'm pretty confident regarding file-handling to be honest. I personally am too much of a pixel peeper to accept the X-Trans detail render (foliage/smearing issues), especially in ACR. I tried a lot of converters and iridient developer produced the best X-Trans demosaicing in my eyes. It was just too much hassle and complicated workflow for me to accept. 

If you don't print big or pixelpeep i completely agree that Fuji is a lot of bang for the buck, beautiful colours and pretty versatile files. It was just not for me. 

 

 

 

You said your Canon has been almost a year collecting dust but anyway you want a 6D when the weight difference between them is not that much for choosing one over the other... Had 2 Fujis but didn't like the image quality... Got the Q 3 months ago and now need an M. All the symptoms of a classic -and severe- G.A.S. issue.  

I don't really want a 6D, I said that i'll keep my 100-400 L and Samyang 14 since they cover two shooting scenarios i enjoy (though very rarely) and that the M is not very suited for.

My idea was to buy, then sell a 6d or similar just for such an shooting occasion. A used 6d can be bought for under $1000 these days. I did just that to have a second body for wide-angle on a South African safari last year, bought a 6d before i left, and sold it with a 50$ profit when i got home. Sure beats renting

 

I won't deny i might have a little G.A.S though. But i'd rather have an M to keep my Q company, strip down to the essentials and actually use and enjoy both cameras, rather than having a 5D in a backpack, in a closet, in my home office... at home... all the time

 

Not to mention that i suspect the M240 will keep its second-hand price longer than the 5D3, and i reckon its smarter to sell the 5D3 before a 5D4 is launched.

 

 

 

 

It sounds like a good plan to me.  If you don't use gear, there is no point in keeping it.  Buy something you're more likely to use.

 

The change from 5D3 to 6D makes sense too, not just to save a little weight, but also to save money.  If you want to try a wonderfully light Canon lens, consider the 40mm f/2.8 STM or the 50mm f/1.8 STM.

Not really interested in getting additional glass for a potential 6D, that would be to short-term enable use of my 100-400 and 14 only. I've had the 40mm STM in the past (really good glass btw) and the 50 1.8 can't compete with he 50 1.2 i have now, and definitely not with a summicron/summarit

 

 

 

 

I bought a mint m240 last year along with a new Summicron-M 50mm.  So pretty much the same path your are considering.  From my experiences over the last few months, if I could do it all over again, while the M would stay, I would have sought out a early Summilux 1.4. instead of the 'cron.  Given the rather substantial cost, before you invest in lenses its wise to carefully consider what characteristics are important to you. Do a bit of homework and view as many images shot with the lenses you think are in the running. The newer glass is excellent, but some feel and I count myself among them, that the older lenses have more character.  If acuity or dynamic pop is paramount, I would  buy the latest and greatest. In which case, it bears mentioning that a recent mint Summicron 50mm is less money and more lens than a new Summarit, though perhaps about the same as a leftover 2.5.    

 

I've since acquired four other lenses, the newest of which is from the mid-90's, the oldest from 1956, all mint, all less coin than the new Summicron.  And I'm ecstatic about it.  I find the greatest attraction of the M system, particularly when coupled with earlier glass, is its ability to produce images that look far less digital than any other system I've had experience with. That ability gives me something I consider quite precious that none of my other systems can quite match.  Something, at least, to consider. 

 

Thanks for the great input, much appreciated!

 

i've thought about the same, but i'm not really sure i want a Summilux, i like the Summicron rendering, but i've also been wooed by the new Summarit 2,4 size, weight, design and stellar reviews (it's said that it renders sharper with better transitions than the cron, though half a stop slower) . I agree that it's probably better value to pick up a used Summicron for a bit over half the price of a new Summarit as you say though. 

 

I get the love for legacy glass with character though, but for now i'll stick with modern lenses that render as such, and look into specialty lenses at a much later stage. 

[EdwardM]

Sell body but not Canon lenses.

Buy M240 and 50 Summicron. Even if you will be dissapointed you will back to Canon again and buy new body. 

Being Leica fan i still love my Mark 3 and 24-70 2.8 lens as well as my old Nikon D80 with CCD sensor

[Tobers]

I have also gone down a similar route. I sold all my Canon DSLR kit (pair of 1DXs, 400 2.8, 70-200 2.8 plus other L's, used mainly for sport) plus an X100T plus an A7R and 3 lenses. It was all getting a bit out of hand :-).

 

I now have an M-240, 28 Elmarit, 50 Summicron and 90 Summicron APO ASPH, plus a Sony RX100IV for pocket duty. I had an M9 a while back and foolishly sold it, and had been hankering after another Leica for ages. I quit sports photography (no money in it) and sold that huge pile of gear and bought back into Leica, and am very pleased to have done so.

 

Having a Q plus an M gives you a very nice two-body solution. A 50 on the M would work very nicely alongside the 28 on the Q. I've had no problem with the 90 on my M - it's really no problem to focus it. Would you eventually sell the Q in favour of a 28 for the M? The 28 Elmarit is startlingly good, though obviously slower than the 28 on the Q.

 

I had a 50 Summarit - nice lens, sharp & small. Personally though I prefer the Summicron. I don't see any reason to buy new if you can get a guaranteed 2nd hand one from a dealer, so you can save some cash.

 

For your other use cases where you need long and wide, you might want to take a look at the Olympus micro-four-thirds kit which is getting very good these days, with some super lenses. A great bonus of this kit is that the lenses are much smaller than APS-C or full frame as they only need to render a smaller image circle. You could therefore have a very nice, compact kit with very long reach, plus wide as well, which is relatively affordable especially as you wont' be using it much.

[Martin Fagerås]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have also gone down a similar route. I sold all my Canon DSLR kit (pair of 1DXs, 400 2.8, 70-200 2.8 plus other L's, used mainly for sport) plus an X100T plus an A7R and 3 lenses. It was all getting a bit out of hand :-).

 

I now have an M-240, 28 Elmarit, 50 Summicron and 90 Summicron APO ASPH, plus a Sony RX100IV for pocket duty. I had an M9 a while back and foolishly sold it, and had been hankering after another Leica for ages. I quit sports photography (no money in it) and sold that huge pile of gear and bought back into Leica, and am very pleased to have done so.

 

Having a Q plus an M gives you a very nice two-body solution. A 50 on the M would work very nicely alongside the 28 on the Q. I've had no problem with the 90 on my M - it's really no problem to focus it. Would you eventually sell the Q in favour of a 28 for the M? The 28 Elmarit is startlingly good, though obviously slower than the 28 on the Q.

 

I had a 50 Summarit - nice lens, sharp & small. Personally though I prefer the Summicron. I don't see any reason to buy new if you can get a guaranteed 2nd hand one from a dealer, so you can save some cash.

 

For your other use cases where you need long and wide, you might want to take a look at the Olympus micro-four-thirds kit which is getting very good these days, with some super lenses. A great bonus of this kit is that the lenses are much smaller than APS-C or full frame as they only need to render a smaller image circle. You could therefore have a very nice, compact kit with very long reach, plus wide as well, which is relatively affordable especially as you wont' be using it much.

 

 

Good feedback, thank you!

 

I also think the Q and M+50 will be nice. I doubt i will sell the Q for a 28mm lens really. i imagine it will be nice with one body that have (really fast) autofocus as well, plus the macro feature is nice, The Q is a nice one-camera-solution if i dont want to bring the M / 2 bodies. Not to mention it gives me sort of a backup if one camera were to fail while travelling. 

 

No 50 cron or lux available from a dealer here right now, might be by the time i decide if i'm going to switch off course, but it looks like i have to buy on the open market in that case.

I guess i have some time to ponder about it all, I kinda dig the new Summarit though

 

MFT (or any mirrorless for that matter) is not really interesting for the ultra-wide and super-tele situations for me, For serious astrophotography the MFT sensor is just too small, with too poor signal to noise ratio. There is not many good 14mm to 16mm equivalent fast leses with good coma performance either. So Samyang 14 + FF Canon it is for the night sky.

 

For telephoto mirrorless autofocus tracking just don't cut it yet, so a DSLR is the best option here as well. 

 

The bright side is, in those two scenarios weight and size of a FF DSLR is not really an issue, while shooting astro it's on a tripod, and on safaris and such you're usually in a car. 

 

For everything else i'm pretty sure the M+Q will be just fine.... If i like rangefinder focus that is

[Peter Kilmister]

Forth,

 

I found that the key to rangefinder focus is to ensure that you fit the correct dioptre.

With perfect eyesight you won't need a dioptre, however, growing older every day tends to leave few of us with perfect vision.

[jaapv]

I happened to notice that there was nice Elmar-M 50 - a highly underrated lens, I can really recommend it- in the classifieds in this forum.

 

Quite a number of other 50 lenses too

[indergaard]

The M240 is also a heavy camera. Sure, not as heavy as a 5D3 and 50 1.2, but it's still not a light-weight camera. And M lenses are in general very dense and thus heavy.

 

I would advise you to buy the Zeiss lens instead of the Summarit. I would even buy the Zeiss instead of a 50 f/2 Summicron (Non-APO).

Also, I would advise you against buying new Leica glass. It doesn't make sense, when there's so much mint equipment on the 2nd hand market at 30-40% off the retail value. Remember, these are lenses that are built to last, and if you buy a mint used lens you'll basically save money and receive the exact same item in the exact same working condition.

 

Also, remember, the M240 is going to be a downgrade in IQ versus the Q at moderate to high ISO (anything above ISO800-1250 and the Q will be noticeably better). Where the Q starts showing banding at ISO 12800, the M240 already shows banding at ISO2000-2500 and up.

[bocaburger]

I have a couple 5D's and EF lenses so I know about the weight and bulk (which requires a larger, heavier bag) being a deterrent to using them.   A Leica has long been my travel kit for that reason. 

 

However, I happen to like the rangefinder, and only resort to the EVF in rare instances.  If you end up using the M240 all the time with the EVF like an SLR, I think it would make more sense (not to mention be a lot less expensive) to consider some other gear. 

 

Not long ago I happened to get a late-model Rebel with 18-55IS and 55-250IS lenses, which along with a 35/2 EF and/or 50/1.8 EF is MUCH lighter than my M240 with an assortment of lenses that don't even cover the same focal range, and for most intents and purposes the differences in IQ are disappointingly small considering the cost differential.  Even if I had paid for the Rebel kit, but it was a freebie.

[jaapv]

The M240 is also a heavy camera. Sure, not as heavy as a 5D3 and 50 1.2, but it's still not a light-weight camera. And M lenses are in general very dense and thus heavy.

 

I would advise you to buy the Zeiss lens instead of the Summarit. I would even buy the Zeiss instead of a 50 f/2 Summicron (Non-APO).

Also, I would advise you against buying new Leica glass. It doesn't make sense, when there's so much mint equipment on the 2nd hand market at 30-40% off the retail value. Remember, these are lenses that are built to last, and if you buy a mint used lens you'll basically save money and receive the exact same item in the exact same working condition.

 

Also, remember, the M240 is going to be a downgrade in IQ versus the Q at moderate to high ISO (anything above ISO800-1250 and the Q will be noticeably better). Where the Q starts showing banding at ISO 12800, the M240 already shows banding at ISO2000-2500 and up.

If you want to go as light as possible, the Elmar-M is the smallest, and it collapses, turning the M into a (more or less) pocket camera.

[fotofool]

If you really only touch the Canon once every two years you might consider selling all your Canon gear and then renting exactly what you want for the occasional safari.

 

For what it's worth I made the switch from a Canon 5DmkII with L glass to a Leica M240 with Leica glass a couple years ago.  I kept the Canon because I shoot motorsports and airshows sometimes.  But if it doesn't involve fast action or long telephoto I use the Leica almost 100% of the time.  That's both because of the optical performance and the more enjoyable shooting experience.

[Martin Fagerås]

Forth,

 

I found that the key to rangefinder focus is to ensure that you fit the correct dioptre.

With perfect eyesight you won't need a dioptre, however, growing older every day tends to leave few of us with perfect vision.

Thanks for the tip. Luckily I'm still (somewhat) young, and my optician still tells me i have perfect vision, so i guess ill cross that bridge when i come to it

 

 

 

The M240 is also a heavy camera. Sure, not as heavy as a 5D3 and 50 1.2, but it's still not a light-weight camera. And M lenses are in general very dense and thus heavy.

 

I would advise you to buy the Zeiss lens instead of the Summarit. I would even buy the Zeiss instead of a 50 f/2 Summicron (Non-APO).

Also, I would advise you against buying new Leica glass. It doesn't make sense, when there's so much mint equipment on the 2nd hand market at 30-40% off the retail value. Remember, these are lenses that are built to last, and if you buy a mint used lens you'll basically save money and receive the exact same item in the exact same working condition.

 

Also, remember, the M240 is going to be a downgrade in IQ versus the Q at moderate to high ISO (anything above ISO800-1250 and the Q will be noticeably better). Where the Q starts showing banding at ISO 12800, the M240 already shows banding at ISO2000-2500 and up.

Hi Børge. 

 

I remember your avatar from foto.no. you actually asked me for a price when i sold my X-T1 + 56mm if i remember right?

 

I'm not so sure about the Zeiss, Yes, it's cost saving, but to be honest, i can afford Leica glass. A second-hand summicron f/2 is also a good option, and costs about 2/3 used of the new summarit.

On the other hand, the new f/2.4 summarits are stellar according to reviews, they come in silver, are smaller and lighter, with a focus tab, and renders better transitions and bokeh than the summicron according to some tests. I'm not very worried about f/2 vs f/2.4 regarding DOF, the difference in real shooting situations is not really noticeable (i'm not a shallow dof addict either (anymore))

 

Interesting regarding M240 banding though. The Q before the latest firmware update also had bad banding from very low ISO and it bothered me a little bit. Now, after the update i comfortably use the Q up to ISO 6400 without worry. 

How to you rate the M240 at ISO 6400? is the banding so bad that its hard to clean up? and where is it? if it's in the shadows and coming out when you lift, i guess its not that different than the 5D3 that reveal pretty bad chroma noise when lifting shadows at ISO 3200'ish and higher. I can live with that ( I guess i'll find out while testing the loaner next week as well )

 

 

 

However, I happen to like the rangefinder, and only resort to the EVF in rare instances.  If you end up using the M240 all the time with the EVF like an SLR, I think it would make more sense (not to mention be a lot less expensive) to consider some other gear. 

I agree, if i end up using the EVF it's probably a mismatch. I won't have the external EVF with the loaner, and if i decide to buy a 240 after the test-period i won't get the EVF straight away, i'd rather practice the rangefinder, and just use the Q if i need EVF and AF.

 

 

 

If you really only touch the Canon once every two years you might consider selling all your Canon gear and then renting exactly what you want for the occasional safari.

 

For what it's worth I made the switch from a Canon 5DmkII with L glass to a Leica M240 with Leica glass a couple years ago.  I kept the Canon because I shoot motorsports and airshows sometimes.  But if it doesn't involve fast action or long telephoto I use the Leica almost 100% of the time.  That's both because of the optical performance and the more enjoyable shooting experience.

 

Yeah, I considered dumping the 100-400 and 14 too. the thing is that i got the 100-400 used for around 600$ mint, and the 14 only costs like 250$ used anyway. Not much money in it, and i don't rely on liquidating that to afford the 240+50mm.

 

I might sell the samyang 14mm though, and get the 15mm f/4.5 Heliar mk3 for the Leica. Then i can get an even cheaper crop body for the 100-400 and get even more out of the telephoto end if i need it. 

That depends on if the Heliar 15 + leica Q can cover my occasional astrophotography needs. Only one way to find that out in case, to test

 

Thanks for all the feedback people, I'm overwhelmed

You guys rock!

[colonel]

If you like simplicity and get along with RF focusing, and many of us like it more then any other focusing system, including AF, then the M offers awesome IQ in a relative tiny package, especially taking into account the lens size and weight. Actually Leica lenses are very like jewellery

 

Both the 50mm summarit and Zeiss 50mm you mention are excellent lenses. Personally I would prefer the Zeiss for the draw and the cost, but its personal.

 

If you really want to understand what Leica is though, if you can stretch to a 50mm f1.4 ASPH you should go for it.

There is something magical about this lens. Its expensive but every time I take a picture with that gorgeous thing at f1.4 a smile comes to my face which no lens in the history of lenses 35mm or smaller does.

 

Also worth noting that you tend not to loose much money, if any, on buying and selling second hand on Leica, Zeiss or Voigtlander lenses. I have tried almost the whole range over time ...

[simony]

Hi,

Very interested to hear this as I too am considering migrating to Leica M 246 but find it impossible to get a loan camera and lens to see how I fair with the manual focus.

My canon gear will be kept but love the discreet nature of an M.

Does anyone know a dealer that might help me, I'm based in Derby.

Any assistance is appreciated.

[colonel]

Hi,

Very interested to hear this as I too am considering migrating to Leica M 246 but find it impossible to get a loan camera and lens to see how I fair with the manual focus.

My canon gear will be kept but love the discreet nature of an M.

Does anyone know a dealer that might help me, I'm based in Derby.

Any assistance is appreciated.

 

There is a London camera exchange in Derby. Perhaps they have a loaner. You can take any M, the focus is pretty much the same.

 

If it doesn't work out, consider just trying for 10mins in a shop. If you think its fun, consider buying second hand an M9 or M240 with a second hand Leica or Zeiss 35mm or 50mm f2 lens. If you are happy selling on Ebay or here you may loose a £100 or so over a month if you decided not to keep but you could look on this as a rental cost.

 

If you are very canny you can buy and sell without loosing money and in some cases making, but it takes a lot of experience to spot a good camera or lens being sold under price ... so assume a 5% loss on purchase to be safe

[indergaard]

 

Interesting regarding M240 banding though. The Q before the latest firmware update also had bad banding from very low ISO and it bothered me a little bit. Now, after the update i comfortably use the Q up to ISO 6400 without worry. 

How to you rate the M240 at ISO 6400? is the banding so bad that its hard to clean up? and where is it? if it's in the shadows and coming out when you lift, i guess its not that different than the 5D3 that reveal pretty bad chroma noise when lifting shadows at ISO 3200'ish and higher. I can live with that ( I guess i'll find out while testing the loaner next week as well )

 

 

I'd rate the M240 unusable at 6400 ISO, unless your exposure is perfect - and - when there is no shadow areas (or dark skies) in the scene, then the files are barely usable. I rate the X100S/T, X-T1, X-Pro1 completely usable and just fine at 6400 ISO. So I guess that should tell you something. The breaking point for me on the M240 is 3200 ISO. I'd rather never go over 2000-2500 if I have shadow areas or dark skies in my pictures though. Mostly due to banding.

 

It is possible to clean up the banding (I wrote a how-to on this forum somewhere by using the de-banding feature in Nik Dfine). But it's an extra step that requires TIFF conversion and stacking of dng+tiff files. The AWB on the M240 is pretty bad in poor light too. Don't get me wrong, I love the M240 - but it has some serious drawbacks compared to most much cheaper cameras with smaller sensors even... But all of that is forgotten when I shoot it at base ISO, or up to ISO 1250. The M240 is lovely up to ISO 1250. After 1600 the IQ starts falling apart quickly.

 

Would I have purchased the M240 today? Nope. Not unless I found a mint used one for about 30000 NOK. Then again, it's a digital camera that's 3 years old, so that's to be expected. I mostly shoot film nowadays anyway, so the M240 is actually starting to end up like your Canon.

[colonel]

Consider an M9 or M-E with a new generation sensor fitted

 

I don't agree with the above post that its a hassle to use

 

Its certainly is slower in some respects, but the Leica Gestalt that involved being able to change all the settings except ISO when on or off, and instantly, makes IMHO the overall operation of the camera much faster then a complicated DSLR.

 

Also the CCD sensor process some ethereal which frankly, with all the colour profiles in the world, I have not been able to re-create with any other camera.

 

Not that the 240 is much better in many things, but if you want to save £1000 and use this on lenses and experience that gorgeous CCD look before you die ...

 

In terms of ISO the M9 is great until 640 and ok but below PAR at 2500. However if you use the technique of shooting at 640 and jack up the exposure in lightroom you can obtain beautifully clean ISO 1600 photos:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3550226

 

You also loose GAS this way

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Peter H]

The M is a unique camera and if you spend time comparing it with others, or trying to replicate another system with equivalent lenses, you'll end up somewhere you shouldn't be going.

 

Discover for yourself the things it does superlatively. They are the things that set it apart from all other cameras. And forget about the things it doesn't do.